The GNOME core libraries are all licensed under the LGPL - I can write a GNOME application that is closed source without paying a cent to anyone. Qt, obviously one of the most important parts of KDE, is dual licensed under either the GPL or QPL. This means that if I were to write a closed source application for KDE, I would have to pay a large sum of money to Trolltech. (I don't know about the licensing status of the rest of KDE - is it GPL or LGPL? It doesn't really matter, though, since Qt is the largest hurdle anyway.)
So my best guess is that Sun thinks the GNOME environment is a better environment for them to work with because they do not have the same licensing restrictions they would with KDE. Obviously, I don't actually know the reasons behind the decission, but that is my best guess.
Wow, it's like those Comic Books where for some reason character's words are almost randomly bolded so you can't help but think that they must be voiced by Shatner or something.
[C]ouldn't Star Office be a huge revenue stream for Sun if it competes [with Microsoft Office] favorably for price?
Not a chance - it's not a drop in replacement, yet.
Pretty much any company that needs an office suite already has one - the company I work for has Office 97, and only recently upgraded to Office XP. Even if Star Office were a drop in replacement, Office is cheap for customers with existing Microsoft contracts. Again, the company I work for has a site license with Microsoft for both Windows XP and Microsoft Office. The college I attend does too. Every buisness that I've actually seen the computing environment has Microsoft Office. They all have existing contracts - they have already made the investment in an office suite.
This leaves Star Office as being more expensive, even if it were free (Open Office), since it represents a change from the existing infrastructure. Open Office doesn't quite meet requirements either since it doesn't have a DB component. (Or does it? From what I can tell it has DB access components and a GUI to use them, but no actual DB backend.)
Basically, unless Star Office can be demonstratably better than Microsoft Office, no one is likely to switch. Companies in need of a new office suite (those without site licenses) may look into it - but even those companies have to do buisness with companies that send them PowerPoint presentations detailing important information or information sent as spreadsheets that contain important macros.
The reason Microsoft is considered a monopoly is because no one can reasonably compete with them, and this still holds true in the office suite. Star Office would need to be substantially better than Microsoft Office and not just as good as to have any chance in the marketplace, simply because Microsoft Office has too many existing users to make switching truly economical. Until Star Office can flawlessly import every Microsoft Office document ever created (and yes, not even Microsoft Office can do that), no buisness is going to switch - they stand to lose too much existing work.
In the end, Star Office isn't really any better than Microsoft Office other than on price. Microsoft Office is a better suite of software, it works better and doesn't require retraining to use. It's more expensive, yes - but since most people already have it or see that it comes bundled with new systems, the cost is hidden. In short, Star Office would have to be a monumental improvement in order to really make any money, and as of now, it is slightly behind Microsoft Office in terms of quality.
I found a video of it on the TechTV site, but if you look closely at it, you'll note that whoever encoded this video swiped some other video and encoded that. Look closely and you'll notice the original progress bar on the bottom of the movie sliding under it, as well as text from where the video was originally from. (The movie is the "video highlight" for the day, and requires JS and Windows Media Player. Works under Mozilla, though. You'll need to look at an ad, too.)
By the way, it's closer to:
Bradley: "Now I have to share the credit. I may have invented it, but I think that Bill Gates is the one who made it famous."
Roaring laughter, shot of Bill Gates looking a bit miffed.
"When you used it for NT logon! That's what I meant."
Shot of Bill Gates shrugging and acting as if maybe he believes Bradley.
All in all, Gates too it rather well, you need to see the video because my description makes it sound like Gates got really upset and he took it in stride quite well.
Except that he wasn't talking about Slashdot readers, he was refering to Slashdot editors who set the tone for the forum.
CowboyNeal said "[r]emember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers," in the writeup. Now I'm not 100% sure he was being sacrastic, it's hard be completely sure, but given the general Slashdot editor theme, I expect it was meant as a sarcastic remark mocking the MPAA ads about how piracy hurts the little guy.
Slashdot editors started out by complaining in the writeups (the non-italized part) by complaining that the RIAA/MPAA shouldn't go after the enabling technology (DeCSS, Napster, etc.) but should instead go after the infringers themselves.
And then they did.
Then Slashdot editors started ridiculing that for several reasons, one of which was suggesting that Windows users are too stupid to realize they're sharing what they download to the world or that what they're doing is wrong.
Now the MPAA starts a publicity campaign to try and educate people that downloading movies is illegal. And the Slashdot editors mock that argument, too, by suggesting that the people the MPAA lists as victims aren't being hurt as badly as suggested.
I think the reality is that the Slashdot editors are too far into the Open Source mantra that "information wants to be free" (ignoring the other part of that quote, "information wants to be expensive") and believe that downloading is morally acceptable. They don't come out and state that, though, and instead suggest intermediate stances that they keep backing down from once the MPAA/RIAA starts that stance.
So what have Slashdot readers been saying about the issue? Everything from "downloading is morally reprehensible" to "downloading should be encouraged." Some readers have doubtlessly been doing the "don't do that, do this!" backwards dance that "Brian_Ellenberger" complained about. But the Slashdot editors themselves have continously backed down to even more extreme stances, suggesting that they really believe that piracy isn't a real problem. And, honestly, I wish they'd just say that and be done with it. Some people have been saying just that - they don't believe piracy is the threat various industries say it is. But the editors keep changing their position, and that's what the complaint was really about - people who keep changing what they claim they believe so that it is always out of line with the actions of the MPAA/RIAA.
That's not just the headphone jack - it's also the AC adaptor port. Since wireless usually is a large power drain, I would have hoped that they would have left that port unblocked. Plus, as you mentioned, it's also the headphone port, so you can either play wireless or play with headphones. When playing multiplayer, often headphones are quite nice because they allow you to concentrate on the sounds that effect you and not the other player. Blocking that ability on the SPC would be quite a drawback.
Of course, I can't be sure it really covers the AC/headphone/whatever port. It definately looks like it does, but it's possible it leaves an openning on the bottom. I can't tell from the picture. But it looks like there will be a tradeoff between the link cable and the wireless port - either headphones and restricted movement, or no headphones but unrestricted movement.
It seems that no matter what Nintendo does, there's always some really annoying tradeoff to be made with the GBA. First there was built-in headphone jack or backlight. Now it's wireless or headphones. Or wireless and headphones but without a backlight. (Plus if you had the wireless adaptor you'd have to remove most of light accessorys for the system.) It's almost as if there's a conspiracy to try and get people to buy as much random equipment so they can have a combination that's right for any given environment...
(BTW, you can buy third party GBA-GCN connectors that don't cover the AC/headphone port. I got one, while not expressly because of that, but it did influence the decision.)
In order to deal with the anger part, I spend my spare time writing a novel in which a spammer is murdered. It's not half bad.
I'm half-wondering how you're going to work that out. My first thought was "murder mystery" but I found myself thinking that it would wind up something like this:
"And then I found him like this, strangled by several dozen feet of Ethernet cable, stabbed at least twenty-seven times, shot at least forty-three times, and then buried under several thousand printed copies of an e-mail," a rather distraught neighbor told the detective.
"Hmm... it would appear to be an e-mail that offers - to enlarge your, er, member. Wait a minute - I think I can almost recognize what's left of his face. Yes, this is the notorious spammer I-Like-Watching-Kittens-And-Puppys-Die," the police detective responded, pushing pages away from the body's face.
"Oh. Well, I guess that's about it then."
"Wait, we have a mad murder around! Forty-plus shots? You'd have to reload multiple times to do that. We should do something!"
"Yeah, you're right. His body'll start to smell soon."
"I'll call the mortician."
"I guess that's it then."
"Yup."
"Yup."
"I better get the mortician over hear. You're sure you're going to be all right?"
"Of course - I should be down at least twenty spams!"
Actually, my cell phone gets around something like 12kb/s actual throughput. In other words, I've actually downloaded a file using my cell phone for Internet access, and I got around 12kB/s doing it. (Shh, my plan says I'm not allowed to...) Mind you, it has really lousy ping times, on the order of a few seconds. This makes browsing the Internet on the phone seem very slow and makes remote terminal connections very interesting - be sure to type it right, the first time.
So while using a cell phone for Internet access isn't the most pleasant experience, it does get more than 56kbps. Based on 12kB/s, that's 96kbps, plus overhead for both the IP layer and the cell phone layer. (The dialing app claims I get 400kbps, so I may be reporting the speed of some other bottleneck - or the app could be flat out wrong.)
This is on Sprint's "3G" network that may or may not really be 3G, I can't remember. So while cell phones do have rather lousy bandwidth for MP3 needs, they actually can do more than dial-up speeds.
Hmm... for some reason you reminded me of The Register's little Canadian-themed word puzzle. The idea is that you change one letter from the word above to form a new word and you have to meet the word at the end. The puzzle:
S E A L - - - - - - - - - - - - C O A T
And now, for their answer:
-- === --
S E A L C L U B C L U B C L U B C O A T
As I recall, they got a lot of flack for that. (I suppose I should mention that there is a way to do it "properly," by changing one letter.)
70 virgins? Why don't they just enroll in college?
You get virgins, alcohol, and meth.
(Slashdot uses HTML, not BB code - use the preview!)
Yeah, but for most of us on Slashdot, we were looking for virgins of the opposite sex, something missing in my college experience... Hell, just people of the opposite sex would do! Stupid male dominated CS field...
I think the makers of StarCraft had a good idea of how human spacefarers would look and act.:)
To be fair, I think they were supposed to be prisoners and were exiled to that region of space. So they weren't made up of mostly the best and the brightest anyway. (According to StarCraft Nuclear Zone they were criminals exiled from Earth. Another site suggested they were political prisoners.)
Be that as it may, your point is still valid. Being in space won't turn us into a Star Trek utopia, we'll still have all our problems and emotions.:)
You forgot the last part, "and SCO." Fair use is only valid for education and non-commerical purposes and SCO, should they need it.
Although SCO-fair use apparently extends to anything that could possibly be considered UNIX by a drunk monkey - owowow, sorry, orangutan - on a dark and hazy night, which includes Bruce's letter.
Do we have to go for the cheap shots? Be a little more creative! I'll just give a possibly correct list which I assure you is possible on both platforms.
Deploying a web application using Microsoft's Active Server Page technology.
Integrating into a Microsoft Windows Active Directory domain.
Setting up a file server within a Microsoft Windows Active Directory domain.
Setting up a print server using Microsoft's printer sharing technology.
Serving static web pages.
Much nicer. Still unbalanced, still gives us the stab at the study being unfairly weighted towards Windows, but doesn't try and attack the same old things that Windows always gets attacked for. And for an added bonus, all are plausible...
(Besides, the BSOD is obsolete as of Windows XP. By default, it instantly reboots and then displays a dialog informing you that the compter has "recovered from a serious error" after it restarts. Apparently the computer randomly rebooting with no explanation until after it's come back up is considered more user friendly than the BSOD. Or at the very least, it makes the user take the blame by thinking they did something to make the computer restart like hitting the power cord or something...)
Because you left out some important ellipses - and I don't think it can be considered quoting if you only copy letters, not full words. If you alter any word, you need to mark it. For example, as a quote:
I ra[ped] Bruce in te h [sic]...
In this case, I corrected the spaces in "ra pe d" and had to mark it, and left "te h" as it was, marking it with [sic] to indicate that the typo was not mine.
In any case, using Bruce's words in that article is probably not a violation of Bruce's "license" thingy because the article was quoted using fair use rights. Only a small part was used, which is traditionally assumed to be fair use and is done all the time by reporters. The message may have been twisted from what was originally intended, but it still is legally a valid quote of the original article. Bruce's original meaning is maintained, but it is misrepresented.
The quote is valid - Bruce is saying that the code should not have been in the Linux kernel due to licensing issues. Darl's letter suggests that this licensing issue is related to SCO having license over this code, but this is not explicitly stated and is left for the reader to make the connection, Bruce's "license" not withstanding.
HOWEVER (thinking about this some more), probably a *better* solution would to have a four or five letter type that could be assigned to each file.
Congrats, you just invented "creator" codes on the Mac!
The real problem is that I can say something is executable through it's file name and then Windows will hide that fact from the user. In Unix, nothing is executable by default - you have to enable that. However, in Windows, everything is executable by default (on NTFS filesystems that support execute privileges on files), while on Unix, most distros (all distros?) give a default umask such that files are by default not executable.
The "creator code" thing still hides the fact that something is executable from the user - you have to find out by looking at the code. The real solution is to educate users to not run software from untrusted third parties (and what classifies as an "untrusted third party") as well as making the user interface clearly mark what files it will execute as code. Windows already clearly marks shortcuts as distinct from regular files, why not add something similar for executables?
(And even if IHBT, this post still is germaine to the discussion by suggesting a "better" solution to the ".exe" problem.)
Fact: NTFS has an "execute" privilege, just like Unix does. (In fact, if you want to CD to a directory, you must have "execute" privilege on it just link Unix. Unlike Unix, you must have read privileges to list the directory.) After a default XP/2K install, every file inherits "full control" privileges - every privilege flag enabled. This means randomly downloaded files off the Internet are, by default, executable. (I'd assume NT4 did something similar.)
So, basically: Windows is already capable of requiring executable files to be flagged using permissions, as well as being already capable of requiring the user to explicitly mark an attachment as "executable." It just doesn't and instead maintains a large database of "what to do" with various file extensions - open it with another program, or execute it directly. (XP seems to also inspect the file and guess basic MIME types, it figured out some SQL scripts were text files without being explicitly told. I don't think it'll ever guess "executable," but if it does...)
So, at least in that respect, Windows is indeed insecure by design.
He was talking about Zelda 64, where Link was a moron when it came to not jumping. There was this section in the very beginning where you could walk across this bridge to talk to some girl for no real reason (she'd teach you about first person view - yay). The bridge was just wide enough for Link to walk on. You had to walk very slowly in order to avoid triggering the auto-jump. If you did that, then Link would grab on when he inevitably fell off the bridge.
Part of this was exacerbated by the fact that the camera was "active" so "straight forward across the bridge" kept on moving slightly. The solution was to repeatedly "Z-target" or whatever to bring the camera back behind you so that forward remained up on the joystick and you didn't accidently find your "move forward" joystick position become "move slightly to the right and off the bridge."
I can't recall being quite as frusterated with the Wind Waker controls, so I think they improved it for that game. But in Zelda 64, Link just loved to jump off ledges into bad places.
In any cases, I wish game designers would remember that jumping puzzles suck. They're just frusterating, especially in third-person games when the camera likes to move and change your "run straight across the bridge" to "run straight for a bit then veer right and into the lava." In the case of the Wind Waker, this means no more stupid rope swinging puzzles. Nintendo: I'm glad you think manipulating the camera is an important skill, I find it to be a big nuisance!
(Also annoying are FPS games where it's hard to judge when you're at the ledge so you can make your best leap across the gap, instead of falling into the lava below.)
Any, the basic point I want to make, besides that jumping puzzles suck, is that the control in Zelda 64 and some of the puzzles were such that even moving the stick very little could accidently cause Link to jump off a cliff into the raging river below - mainly due to the camera having this annoying tendency to pan when you're moving slowly.
I'll keep that in mind when choosing between the canidate that supports strong IP laws, the canidate that strongly supports IP laws, the canidate that believes in strong IP laws, and the canidate who has a snowballs on an overclocked Athlon playing Quake III of winning.
To be slightly more serious, most people seem to equate intelectual property with "good for the economy" so finding someone who doesn't support "strong IP laws" is rather difficult. Especially if you add "who can actually win" as a requirement.
Since most people seem to believe the general equation that "good for buisness" = "more jobs" = "more money for me" - I can't imagine a politician who would make loosening IP laws an issue. The other side would cream him, saying that he's against improving the economy and would hurt buisness.
Maybe I'm just overly cynical. I rather hope I am.
We're talking about spyware here, and it would be reporting back to a server. So, it would originate a request (And why not an HTTP request? HTTP is pretty simple, and there's so much software dedicated to it.), so if you were going to try to block its port, you can't if you want other things to access that port. (Ah, the accidental iptables rules that dropped all SYN packets, in or out; later corrected to drop all incoming SYN packets; later corrected to drop only incoming SYN packets and not SYN/ACK packets...)
Of course, most spyware probably just trys to connect back to a given site. Assuming the IP remains static... or can you block based on a DNS name? (Block all outgoing to evilspyingbastards.example.com?) I haven't played around with iptables/netfilter in a while. So you can probably just block that site and be OK.
But who knows? It just ups the ante for spyware makers...
The other problem is that updating firmware carrys some danger with it. I can remember at least two firmware updates on the LinkSys router my Dad has that went bad and involved him staying up late into the night trying to revert to a previous version.
For the most part, if the firmware works, conventional wisdom teaches you not to bother updating it. Of course, when it comes to problems like these, it may "work" in that I have Internet access, but not "work" in that some poor random server is getting DDOSed by broken code. So the users may well never bother to correct it because they don't know that they're overloading some poor third party system and as far as they can tell the system works as it should.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people probably won't update their firmware unless they realize something is going actively wrong or they are forced to upgrade. NetWare's going to need to contact their users to get people to really upgrade. After all, if it ain't broke (as far as you can tell), then why bother fixing it?
I'm disappointed by the replys so far. I keep on getting these two conflicting vibes from people on Slashdot - some people who seem to really want Linux to succeed on the desktop and therefore have companies write software for it (like, say, games or video codecs...), and people who seem to want to keep the "non-free polution off their system."
If Linux is to succeed on the desktop, then third parties must be allowed to write closed-source applications for Linux. (If, for no other reason, than to allow custom buisness software to continue to run on the systems.) In that case, a vendor very well could include spyware, and being able to block just that application would be very nice.
Can Linux block net access by individual program? I don't know - I think netfilter may be able to be hacked to do it, but I'm not 100% sure. (It looks like it might be possible to write a netfilter module to do it, but it may require modifying the netfilter system itself, which would involve kernel hacking. When I wrote this, www.netfilter.org was not responding, so I'm guessing based on documentation on other sites and what was available through the Google cache.)
Does this make Linux on the desktop less secure than Windows? Well, erm, not really. The Windows default firewall only exists in XP (or maybe some SP added it to previous versions, I dunno), and it blocks based on ports. Third-party firewalls like ZoneAlarm and the aforementioned Sygate Personal Firewall can block based on application.
So Linux is no more secure than Windows on its own. Add in some more software, and it can be. The next question is: if Windows had this feature, and Linux did not, would Linux on the desktop be less secure than Windows? I think the answer is yes, based on the idea that Linux on the desktop must be capable of using closed-source software, and that such software would be prevelant on a successful Linux desktop, and that there would exist users for the software.
Dismissing Linux as safe because there currently is no real spyware out for the Linux desktop does not really address the question. Assuming there were, it would be nice to be able to block just one application. Blocking a port would not be enough (since it could just use 80, then no web browsing for you...). Blocking an IP is the obvious "right way" but it still might not be the best solution if that cuts your off from the webpage or other important service.
So being able to block by a given application is probably better than only by packet info (like IP, port, flags, etc.). If the question were simply "OS/A can block net access by application, is it more secure than OS/B that cannot" would people still say "OS/A is more secure because it's open source?" Or is this an emotional response based on the fact that it was Linux vs Windows?
Out of curiosity, how do you know if write-only memory is accepting the writes properly? You can't read it back, so for all you know, it just isn't getting power or something. True write-only memory would actually record the results, successfully writing the memory, and then simply not return anything on read. Or something.
So what is write only memory, anyway? Memory that verifies that the write was successful for the duration of the write, and then gives no useful information on read, or memory that causes physical failure on read but succeeds on write?
This is an important question that I think needs answering. We need a standard for what qualifies as Write-Only memory. I suppose it could be like WORN memory, Write Once Read Never, where you can detect if something has been written but can never succesfully read it back...
What, the WWII and what's-his-name, MacArthor, buisness? How are we Americans supposed to know about that? My history class ended just before some unpleasantness between the north and the south. Apparently they were heading to a war or something, around 1860.
(Seriously. My history class in highschool was supposed to go through the Korean War (police action?), and possibly as far as the Vietnam War, but stopped short of the Civil War. On the last day of reviews for finals, my history teacher made a brave attempt at covering the entire thing in a day. I had to learn about minor things like the Cuban Missile Crisis in college. What's even worse is that this isn't a bad American school, either. It's not exactly an excellent school, but it is "above average" to give you an idea of how low "average" really is. I think most Americans are surprised to learn that Australia has an army, let alone is an important American ally. Most Americans probably think of Australia as that place with the crazy people who hunt crocodiles come from. I know I can't spell Australia and had to correct it multiple times...)
(I would have previewed this post, but apparently Slashcode doesn't want me to and instead shows the stupid sidebar stretched across the window, so please allow for spelling and grammatical mistakes...)
Slashdot Mirror
The GNOME core libraries are all licensed under the LGPL - I can write a GNOME application that is closed source without paying a cent to anyone. Qt, obviously one of the most important parts of KDE, is dual licensed under either the GPL or QPL. This means that if I were to write a closed source application for KDE, I would have to pay a large sum of money to Trolltech. (I don't know about the licensing status of the rest of KDE - is it GPL or LGPL? It doesn't really matter, though, since Qt is the largest hurdle anyway.)
So my best guess is that Sun thinks the GNOME environment is a better environment for them to work with because they do not have the same licensing restrictions they would with KDE. Obviously, I don't actually know the reasons behind the decission, but that is my best guess.
Shouldn't that be "I hope this is from the US lexicon?" or something along those lines?
But, yes, pairing "next fall" with "shuttle launch" would seem to be... well, wrong.
Wow, it's like those Comic Books where for some reason character's words are almost randomly bolded so you can't help but think that they must be voiced by Shatner or something.
Not a chance - it's not a drop in replacement, yet.
Pretty much any company that needs an office suite already has one - the company I work for has Office 97, and only recently upgraded to Office XP. Even if Star Office were a drop in replacement, Office is cheap for customers with existing Microsoft contracts. Again, the company I work for has a site license with Microsoft for both Windows XP and Microsoft Office. The college I attend does too. Every buisness that I've actually seen the computing environment has Microsoft Office. They all have existing contracts - they have already made the investment in an office suite.
This leaves Star Office as being more expensive, even if it were free (Open Office), since it represents a change from the existing infrastructure. Open Office doesn't quite meet requirements either since it doesn't have a DB component. (Or does it? From what I can tell it has DB access components and a GUI to use them, but no actual DB backend.)
Basically, unless Star Office can be demonstratably better than Microsoft Office, no one is likely to switch. Companies in need of a new office suite (those without site licenses) may look into it - but even those companies have to do buisness with companies that send them PowerPoint presentations detailing important information or information sent as spreadsheets that contain important macros.
The reason Microsoft is considered a monopoly is because no one can reasonably compete with them, and this still holds true in the office suite. Star Office would need to be substantially better than Microsoft Office and not just as good as to have any chance in the marketplace, simply because Microsoft Office has too many existing users to make switching truly economical. Until Star Office can flawlessly import every Microsoft Office document ever created (and yes, not even Microsoft Office can do that), no buisness is going to switch - they stand to lose too much existing work.
In the end, Star Office isn't really any better than Microsoft Office other than on price. Microsoft Office is a better suite of software, it works better and doesn't require retraining to use. It's more expensive, yes - but since most people already have it or see that it comes bundled with new systems, the cost is hidden. In short, Star Office would have to be a monumental improvement in order to really make any money, and as of now, it is slightly behind Microsoft Office in terms of quality.
By the way, it's closer to:
All in all, Gates too it rather well, you need to see the video because my description makes it sound like Gates got really upset and he took it in stride quite well.CowboyNeal said "[r]emember, movie piracy doesn't just hurt actors, but also camera operators, key grips, makeup artists, and costumers," in the writeup. Now I'm not 100% sure he was being sacrastic, it's hard be completely sure, but given the general Slashdot editor theme, I expect it was meant as a sarcastic remark mocking the MPAA ads about how piracy hurts the little guy.
Slashdot editors started out by complaining in the writeups (the non-italized part) by complaining that the RIAA/MPAA shouldn't go after the enabling technology (DeCSS, Napster, etc.) but should instead go after the infringers themselves.
And then they did.
Then Slashdot editors started ridiculing that for several reasons, one of which was suggesting that Windows users are too stupid to realize they're sharing what they download to the world or that what they're doing is wrong.
Now the MPAA starts a publicity campaign to try and educate people that downloading movies is illegal. And the Slashdot editors mock that argument, too, by suggesting that the people the MPAA lists as victims aren't being hurt as badly as suggested.
I think the reality is that the Slashdot editors are too far into the Open Source mantra that "information wants to be free" (ignoring the other part of that quote, "information wants to be expensive") and believe that downloading is morally acceptable. They don't come out and state that, though, and instead suggest intermediate stances that they keep backing down from once the MPAA/RIAA starts that stance.
So what have Slashdot readers been saying about the issue? Everything from "downloading is morally reprehensible" to "downloading should be encouraged." Some readers have doubtlessly been doing the "don't do that, do this!" backwards dance that "Brian_Ellenberger" complained about. But the Slashdot editors themselves have continously backed down to even more extreme stances, suggesting that they really believe that piracy isn't a real problem. And, honestly, I wish they'd just say that and be done with it. Some people have been saying just that - they don't believe piracy is the threat various industries say it is. But the editors keep changing their position, and that's what the complaint was really about - people who keep changing what they claim they believe so that it is always out of line with the actions of the MPAA/RIAA.
It's really quite annoying to watch.
Of course, I can't be sure it really covers the AC/headphone/whatever port. It definately looks like it does, but it's possible it leaves an openning on the bottom. I can't tell from the picture. But it looks like there will be a tradeoff between the link cable and the wireless port - either headphones and restricted movement, or no headphones but unrestricted movement.
It seems that no matter what Nintendo does, there's always some really annoying tradeoff to be made with the GBA. First there was built-in headphone jack or backlight. Now it's wireless or headphones. Or wireless and headphones but without a backlight. (Plus if you had the wireless adaptor you'd have to remove most of light accessorys for the system.) It's almost as if there's a conspiracy to try and get people to buy as much random equipment so they can have a combination that's right for any given environment...
(BTW, you can buy third party GBA-GCN connectors that don't cover the AC/headphone port. I got one, while not expressly because of that, but it did influence the decision.)
I'm half-wondering how you're going to work that out. My first thought was "murder mystery" but I found myself thinking that it would wind up something like this:
So while using a cell phone for Internet access isn't the most pleasant experience, it does get more than 56kbps. Based on 12kB/s, that's 96kbps, plus overhead for both the IP layer and the cell phone layer. (The dialing app claims I get 400kbps, so I may be reporting the speed of some other bottleneck - or the app could be flat out wrong.)
This is on Sprint's "3G" network that may or may not really be 3G, I can't remember. So while cell phones do have rather lousy bandwidth for MP3 needs, they actually can do more than dial-up speeds.
Hmm... for some reason you reminded me of The Register's little Canadian-themed word puzzle. The idea is that you change one letter from the word above to form a new word and you have to meet the word at the end. The puzzle:
S E A L
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
C O A T
And now, for their answer:
--
===
--
S E A L
C L U B
C L U B
C L U B
C O A T
As I recall, they got a lot of flack for that. (I suppose I should mention that there is a way to do it "properly," by changing one letter.)
You get virgins, alcohol, and meth.
(Slashdot uses HTML, not BB code - use the preview!)
Yeah, but for most of us on Slashdot, we were looking for virgins of the opposite sex, something missing in my college experience... Hell, just people of the opposite sex would do! Stupid male dominated CS field...
To be fair, I think they were supposed to be prisoners and were exiled to that region of space. So they weren't made up of mostly the best and the brightest anyway. (According to StarCraft Nuclear Zone they were criminals exiled from Earth. Another site suggested they were political prisoners.)
Be that as it may, your point is still valid. Being in space won't turn us into a Star Trek utopia, we'll still have all our problems and emotions. :)
Although SCO-fair use apparently extends to anything that could possibly be considered UNIX by a drunk monkey - owowow, sorry, orangutan - on a dark and hazy night, which includes Bruce's letter.
Much nicer. Still unbalanced, still gives us the stab at the study being unfairly weighted towards Windows, but doesn't try and attack the same old things that Windows always gets attacked for. And for an added bonus, all are plausible...
(Besides, the BSOD is obsolete as of Windows XP. By default, it instantly reboots and then displays a dialog informing you that the compter has "recovered from a serious error" after it restarts. Apparently the computer randomly rebooting with no explanation until after it's come back up is considered more user friendly than the BSOD. Or at the very least, it makes the user take the blame by thinking they did something to make the computer restart like hitting the power cord or something...)
Because you left out some important ellipses - and I don't think it can be considered quoting if you only copy letters, not full words. If you alter any word, you need to mark it. For example, as a quote:
I ra[ped] Bruce in te h [sic]...
In this case, I corrected the spaces in "ra pe d" and had to mark it, and left "te h" as it was, marking it with [sic] to indicate that the typo was not mine.
In any case, using Bruce's words in that article is probably not a violation of Bruce's "license" thingy because the article was quoted using fair use rights. Only a small part was used, which is traditionally assumed to be fair use and is done all the time by reporters. The message may have been twisted from what was originally intended, but it still is legally a valid quote of the original article. Bruce's original meaning is maintained, but it is misrepresented.
The quote is valid - Bruce is saying that the code should not have been in the Linux kernel due to licensing issues. Darl's letter suggests that this licensing issue is related to SCO having license over this code, but this is not explicitly stated and is left for the reader to make the connection, Bruce's "license" not withstanding.
Congrats, you just invented "creator" codes on the Mac!
The real problem is that I can say something is executable through it's file name and then Windows will hide that fact from the user. In Unix, nothing is executable by default - you have to enable that. However, in Windows, everything is executable by default (on NTFS filesystems that support execute privileges on files), while on Unix, most distros (all distros?) give a default umask such that files are by default not executable.
The "creator code" thing still hides the fact that something is executable from the user - you have to find out by looking at the code. The real solution is to educate users to not run software from untrusted third parties (and what classifies as an "untrusted third party") as well as making the user interface clearly mark what files it will execute as code. Windows already clearly marks shortcuts as distinct from regular files, why not add something similar for executables?
(And even if IHBT, this post still is germaine to the discussion by suggesting a "better" solution to the ".exe" problem.)
So, basically: Windows is already capable of requiring executable files to be flagged using permissions, as well as being already capable of requiring the user to explicitly mark an attachment as "executable." It just doesn't and instead maintains a large database of "what to do" with various file extensions - open it with another program, or execute it directly. (XP seems to also inspect the file and guess basic MIME types, it figured out some SQL scripts were text files without being explicitly told. I don't think it'll ever guess "executable," but if it does...)
So, at least in that respect, Windows is indeed insecure by design.
Part of this was exacerbated by the fact that the camera was "active" so "straight forward across the bridge" kept on moving slightly. The solution was to repeatedly "Z-target" or whatever to bring the camera back behind you so that forward remained up on the joystick and you didn't accidently find your "move forward" joystick position become "move slightly to the right and off the bridge."
I can't recall being quite as frusterated with the Wind Waker controls, so I think they improved it for that game. But in Zelda 64, Link just loved to jump off ledges into bad places.
In any cases, I wish game designers would remember that jumping puzzles suck. They're just frusterating, especially in third-person games when the camera likes to move and change your "run straight across the bridge" to "run straight for a bit then veer right and into the lava." In the case of the Wind Waker, this means no more stupid rope swinging puzzles. Nintendo: I'm glad you think manipulating the camera is an important skill, I find it to be a big nuisance!
(Also annoying are FPS games where it's hard to judge when you're at the ledge so you can make your best leap across the gap, instead of falling into the lava below.)
Any, the basic point I want to make, besides that jumping puzzles suck, is that the control in Zelda 64 and some of the puzzles were such that even moving the stick very little could accidently cause Link to jump off a cliff into the raging river below - mainly due to the camera having this annoying tendency to pan when you're moving slowly.
To be slightly more serious, most people seem to equate intelectual property with "good for the economy" so finding someone who doesn't support "strong IP laws" is rather difficult. Especially if you add "who can actually win" as a requirement.
Since most people seem to believe the general equation that "good for buisness" = "more jobs" = "more money for me" - I can't imagine a politician who would make loosening IP laws an issue. The other side would cream him, saying that he's against improving the economy and would hurt buisness.
Maybe I'm just overly cynical. I rather hope I am.
We're talking about spyware here, and it would be reporting back to a server. So, it would originate a request (And why not an HTTP request? HTTP is pretty simple, and there's so much software dedicated to it.), so if you were going to try to block its port, you can't if you want other things to access that port. (Ah, the accidental iptables rules that dropped all SYN packets, in or out; later corrected to drop all incoming SYN packets; later corrected to drop only incoming SYN packets and not SYN/ACK packets...)
Of course, most spyware probably just trys to connect back to a given site. Assuming the IP remains static... or can you block based on a DNS name? (Block all outgoing to evilspyingbastards.example.com?) I haven't played around with iptables/netfilter in a while. So you can probably just block that site and be OK.
But who knows? It just ups the ante for spyware makers...
For the most part, if the firmware works, conventional wisdom teaches you not to bother updating it. Of course, when it comes to problems like these, it may "work" in that I have Internet access, but not "work" in that some poor random server is getting DDOSed by broken code. So the users may well never bother to correct it because they don't know that they're overloading some poor third party system and as far as they can tell the system works as it should.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people probably won't update their firmware unless they realize something is going actively wrong or they are forced to upgrade. NetWare's going to need to contact their users to get people to really upgrade. After all, if it ain't broke (as far as you can tell), then why bother fixing it?
If the VICTORY Act passes, then yes. :)
If Linux is to succeed on the desktop, then third parties must be allowed to write closed-source applications for Linux. (If, for no other reason, than to allow custom buisness software to continue to run on the systems.) In that case, a vendor very well could include spyware, and being able to block just that application would be very nice.
Can Linux block net access by individual program? I don't know - I think netfilter may be able to be hacked to do it, but I'm not 100% sure. (It looks like it might be possible to write a netfilter module to do it, but it may require modifying the netfilter system itself, which would involve kernel hacking. When I wrote this, www.netfilter.org was not responding, so I'm guessing based on documentation on other sites and what was available through the Google cache.)
Does this make Linux on the desktop less secure than Windows? Well, erm, not really. The Windows default firewall only exists in XP (or maybe some SP added it to previous versions, I dunno), and it blocks based on ports. Third-party firewalls like ZoneAlarm and the aforementioned Sygate Personal Firewall can block based on application.
So Linux is no more secure than Windows on its own. Add in some more software, and it can be. The next question is: if Windows had this feature, and Linux did not, would Linux on the desktop be less secure than Windows? I think the answer is yes, based on the idea that Linux on the desktop must be capable of using closed-source software, and that such software would be prevelant on a successful Linux desktop, and that there would exist users for the software.
Dismissing Linux as safe because there currently is no real spyware out for the Linux desktop does not really address the question. Assuming there were, it would be nice to be able to block just one application. Blocking a port would not be enough (since it could just use 80, then no web browsing for you...). Blocking an IP is the obvious "right way" but it still might not be the best solution if that cuts your off from the webpage or other important service.
So being able to block by a given application is probably better than only by packet info (like IP, port, flags, etc.). If the question were simply "OS/A can block net access by application, is it more secure than OS/B that cannot" would people still say "OS/A is more secure because it's open source?" Or is this an emotional response based on the fact that it was Linux vs Windows?
So what is write only memory, anyway? Memory that verifies that the write was successful for the duration of the write, and then gives no useful information on read, or memory that causes physical failure on read but succeeds on write?
This is an important question that I think needs answering. We need a standard for what qualifies as Write-Only memory. I suppose it could be like WORN memory, Write Once Read Never, where you can detect if something has been written but can never succesfully read it back...
(Seriously. My history class in highschool was supposed to go through the Korean War (police action?), and possibly as far as the Vietnam War, but stopped short of the Civil War. On the last day of reviews for finals, my history teacher made a brave attempt at covering the entire thing in a day. I had to learn about minor things like the Cuban Missile Crisis in college. What's even worse is that this isn't a bad American school, either. It's not exactly an excellent school, but it is "above average" to give you an idea of how low "average" really is. I think most Americans are surprised to learn that Australia has an army, let alone is an important American ally. Most Americans probably think of Australia as that place with the crazy people who hunt crocodiles come from. I know I can't spell Australia and had to correct it multiple times...)
(I would have previewed this post, but apparently Slashcode doesn't want me to and instead shows the stupid sidebar stretched across the window, so please allow for spelling and grammatical mistakes...)