Unix originally didn't even have a network stack, so you would have a
hard time finding a way to "root it in minutes", not to mention that TCP/IP
didn't even exists at the time.
Shadow passwords are more complex than the original UNIX design
Shadow passwords are not a solution, shadow passwords are an ugly hack.
Of course the most secure solution is not the simplest. In the this case, shadow
passwords were barely enough for stand-alone systems; in a networked environment
you need a different kind of distributed authentication framework, and that is
what factotum/secstore
provide with a relatively low complexity keeping in mind the implicit
complexity of the problem domain.
As for problems with how in Unix "everything is a file", the problem is not
with the original Unix ideas, but with how some misguided souls(*cough* USL,
*cough* BSD, *cough* SUN, *cough* RMS/GNU, *cough* Linux, *cough* GNOME,...)
didn't have a clue what they were doing(not to mention they even did a pathetic
job at fucking up the original Unix ideas... hell, at least VMS had technical
quality and some consistency!).
Who added most of the networking functionality to Unix? a bunch of clueless
undergrads in Berkeley, really, who is surprised about the result(BIND,
sendmail, etc..)?
Unix, in it's original and "pure" form, evolved, and most if not all the
original problems where *fixed*, and so Plan 9 was born, more than 10
years ago, but the "UNIX community"(read, "bunch of misguided clueless religious
fanatics") never even understood what Unix was supposed to be like, and more
than 30 years later they keep repeating the same mistakes again and
again, but now they don't have enough with their own mistakes, that they need
to copy others mistakes too(see GNOME...).
There is nothing wrong with the original Unix ideas; yes, there were some
horrible mistakes(*cough* suid,/etc/passwd,...) but the basic ideas were
solid(and in good part based in the best of MULTICS), the problems is people
that _never_ understood those ideas, the people that really understood them
fixed the problems and kept moving forward(until Lucent killed them anyway).
None of the problems you mention applies to Plan 9(and some of them nor to the
last version of Research Unix), and in most cases neither to what Unix was
originally.
BTW, Plan 9 doesn't even have the concept of "root" or "Administrator", so it
can hardly be rooted, as for buffer overflows, all you need is sane libs to
deal with string manipulation, which it's true the original Unix didn't have,
but the problem is people that in more than 30 years is incapable of fixing a
broken lib design, the original Unix designers fixed the "problem" *long*
ago.
You obviously got no clue what you are talking about.
First, M$ might not make very secure software, but they sure got a load of talented people working there, and even if their software is crap they know how to do some things right, the NT kernel is not all that bad(after all, it's just VMS;)), and they did put a *load* of effort in making drivers compatible, and they had the src for all the OSes they wanted to make compatible, and they still failed miserably, other efforts by a bunch of amateur kids aren't going to work much better(and if you do some research, you will find that some other people have tried, and failed too).
And that is for a very simple reasons, drivers and kernel modules, by definition are *very* tied to the underlying kernel architecture, that you really want to be able to change, and when you change that, you will need to change the interface to it, and you will break code that uses that interface, and if you only got a binary you are in a world of shit.
And yes, I *really* need to know how to interface with my hardware, and no, adding a layer of proprietary software on top of proprietary hardware is *not* OK, for *many* reasons, for example security, stability, CPU and OS portability, etc...
There is *no* excuse for not releasing the necessary specs for hardware, the interfaces to them are meaningless to other hardware vendors, and the only reasons hw vendors don't release them are: ignorance; to keep more control over the (l)users and make them more dependant(eg., force upgrades by removing support for old hardware...), and to hide embarrassing bugs in their hardware(or advertise fake features that are implemented in software, eg., winmodems, winprinters, etc.)
In all cases specs are withheld to screw the user, and nothing else, which is *exactly* what Open Source tries to avoid.
You have to remember that in Open Source, we are all the developers, and M$ got access to the src of all their drivers(their license for hardware vendors force them to give the src to M$), and we at the very least need the same.
Binary drivers are a load of braindamage, and should be make as difficult as possible.
With binary drivers the whole point of Open Source is lost, and you could as well have a proprietary kernel.
As you very well know, most BSOD in windoze are mainly caused by faulty drivers, do we want the same "feature" in Linux? what about other OSes like *BSD, what should they do? and other arches like PPC or Alpha? should they all give up their OSes and systems and follow the "one true way of Linux proprietary drivers"?
And don't even tell me about those "cross-platform-driver-interfaces", what a joke... FYI, that didn't work for M$, and it wont work for anyone else, M$ tried to make a "standard" driver interface to allow win9x drivers to work on NT, it was a *DISASTER*; there are loads of hardware out there that didn't make the transition and has *no* drivers for WinNT/2k/xp, because the manufacturers were bankrupt, because they were clueless, because they wanted you to buy new hardware; do you want the same to happen with Linux?
What we *need* is for hardware vendors to get a fucking clue and start releasing documentation about the crap they sell, that is the only way for a stable and open system. Hardware vendors that refuse to document their hardware are just too stupid to be dealt with.
If I buy something, I have a *right* to know how it works and how I can use it in any OS I like.
Best wishes
uriel
Unix has been dead for a *long* time
on
On The Death Of Unix
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
``Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad.'' -- rob pike, Bell Labs 1991
And I'm sorry to tell you that every bit of that applies to Linux and *BSD.
Get the only OS that doesn't stink while you still have a chance: Plan 9 from Bell Labs (and now it's *really* OpenSource)
Plan 9 is what the creators of UNIX thought UNIX should have been. Here is the paper that explains why and how they decided to replace UNIX: http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html
The original windows TCP/IP stack was lifted directly from BSD too... and I'm sure there are many other examples that we will never know of.
Oh, and there was zlib too, because when a hole was found in zlib MS Office and quite a few other MS products had to be patched: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-860328.html
They have even publicly said that they think the BSD license is great, obviously as long as others use it and they can take advantage of it, I can't recall MS ever releasing anything under the BSD or any other open source license(no, "shared source" is _not_ open source).
Still, as Theo says, if MS uses BSD/public-domain code it's great, that is the point of the BSD license, to improve the sorry state of the software quality in our world, if MS uses BSD code to make their software suck less, great that is what people that releases code under the BSD license want, to make software suck less, not to push any stupid political agenda.
First, before downloading anything you need to read and accept this license: http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=nv_swlicense
2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed,
provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).
2.1.3 Limitations.
No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.
No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts.
No Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else.
[bold mine]
And so on... I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't look too good to me, let's look at the actual files...
$ ls GNULicense.txt Makefile NVLicense.txt README ReleaseNotes.pdf nvaudio nvnet
$ cat nvnet/nvnet.c | grep '^|\*' |* (c) NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved |* |* THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROPRIETARY AND |* CONFIDENTIAL |* TO NVIDIA, CORPORATION. USE, REPORDUCTION OR DISCLOSURE TO ANY |* THIRD PARTY IS SUBJECT TO WRITTEN PRE-APPROVAL BY NVIDIA CORP.
|* THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT |* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED |* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS |* FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
I don't know about you, but this doesn't look too GPL-compatible, and I'm not going to look into that code.
$ file nvnet/nvnetlib.o nvnet/nvnetlib.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
lol, they even forgot to strip it!! Still, if you remember the license, you are not allowed to do anything that might give you the src code. So I'm sure you could get some good info from that, but I seriously doubt of how you could use that info legally for anything...
As you can see, the 'driver' for nvaudio is a 10 line patch(to the kernel code, and should be under the GPL) that does little more than adding the necessary ids to detect the chip as a Intel i810 clone, which is what I meant by 'dumbed down' as the audio chip in the NForce2 has *many* features not in i810.
In resume:
- nvnet: Nvidia provides a binary(un-striped!)+src(wrapper?) driver under a draconian license that makes it quite useless for those that want to stay legal, I haven't looked at the provided code(maybe some day I will want to write a Plan9 driver, and I don't want to be 'tainted'), but I bet it's little more than a wrapper for the binary file, that is basically what they do with the video drivers, and it's just so it kind of works across different kernel versions. And what matters most, if you want to write a driver for *BSD or any other OSs you are out of luck.
- nvaudio: as I said in my previous post, very basic support is provided but nothing near full support exists, from either OSS or binary/propietary drivers.
Or at least release enough docs so that open source drivers could be implemented; I'm running 2.5.x, and had to use an additional network card because the (crappy)binary drivers from nvidia only support ancient kernels, not to mention there is no support for *BSD or other OSes.
Better audio support would be nice too... ALSA handles it, but in a very dumbed down mode, with many features not supported because nvidia doesn't want to release the docs, and AFAIK there is not even binary drivers for that...
But the network drivers are the biggest pain, in my company we have >20 Linux desktops, and is a PIA to have to install manually the drivers in each box, and pray that the kernel you are using is supported.
Keep in mind that even if the nvidia binary graphics drivers are quite good, the nforce drivers are _crap_ and haven't been updated since November last year, there are various bugs that nvidia said would be fixed in the next release, but so far the users are stuck.
Oh, well, I guess that I(and my company) will buy VIA based boards from now on... *sigh*
You are confusing RMS(http://www.stallman.org/) with ESR(http://www.catb.org/~esr/)!!
Hahahahaha... now that is ironic! (I will let you decide who is more egocentric of both, but aside from that, they have little in common... oh well, and being complete crakpots!)
It was ESR who wanted information about people with access to unix code.
BTW: as far as I know "public sector" != "public domain"
\\K
Re:I was hoping they would wait.
on
New Red Hat Beta
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why don't you check your facts before posting?
1) As others have pointed out, this is a *Beta*, RedHat 8.0.92 to be exact, so many things can change between now and when 8.1 is released 2) This beta actually *includes* KDE 3.1(RC5 or CVS I guess) see http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redh at or check the RPMs in the FTP, or install the damn thing! 3) This is *exactly* the same as with Gnome, the beta includes the latest Gnome 2.1(from CVS I think), that by the time 8.1 final is released will become Gnome 2.2(and the same is also true for XFree 4.3) 4) KDE on RedHat is/was not "crippled", I will not bother arguing about this, but if you think the version in 8.0 was "crippled", then doesn't mater what version they ship in the next release you will think the same. 5) You can be sure that RedHat 8.1 final release will include KDE 3.1, you may think that it's still "crippled" though... (BTW, Gnome 2.2 and KDE 3.1 are both looking very good, I'm sure RH8.1 will be a great release, even better than 8.0, and 8.0 was already very nice)
Hope this sets some facts straight, BTW, I don't even run Linux or KDE/Gnome on my boxes(I administer a few RedHat desktops running both KDE and Gnome at work though), I love my FreeBSD box with Ion, just hate to see people spreading misinformation.
Best wishes and do some research before you post next time!
Seems to work fine, but if IIRC there were other ways to embed Flash(with "object" IIRC), so I used for a long time an even more radical approach:
object, embed { display: none ! important; }
To hit the "object" tag so hard is a bit rough, but that seems to work fine, and I can't think of anyone using it for anything good anyway.
More on topic: I'm the only one who saw this coming? Macromedia has become more and more like MS, well, Flash is a good example of how they can be even worst than MS.
I think I even told someone months ago that MS would end up buying Macromedia, it just makes sense, gives them more power on the client side with Flash and can integrate all the other Macromedia server side crap with.Net, it's a perfect way to strength their control on the browser market(how long before thy kill the NS plugin version of the Flash player leaving only the ActiveX one, not that I would care though) and improve their attack on the server side at the same time./me prays for Flash to die
I know you have more authority to have an opinion on this than me;), but if you ask me, IMHO Flash is the worst that has happen to the Web. As I understand it, it represents everything the Web wasn't supposed to be(eg., binary non standard format, designed for marketing instead of for content and information, an accessibility nightmare, not really crossplatform, and I could go on for ages...), the Web is about *open* access to *information*, the Web is *not* TV!
I would say that Flash is even worst than popup-adds, at least sites with popup-adds work in standard compliant browsers without extra crap(ie. Mozilla), and even if you disable them(eg. with mozilla "popup-killer") you still can see the site content just fine.
There is nothing that pisses me off more than to go to a site that *assumes* that I have flash installed, or that if I don't have it, can install it(there is *no* Flash plugin for FreeBSD, not that I would ever use it if there was one, but I if I hate to be told to do something, I hate it even more when I'm told to do something I can't do it even in the case I would want to!)
Oh, well, and I that was hopping for MS to stop bundling Flash with IE so Flash would die... or Macromedia to go bankrupt *sigh*
The worst place in hell is reserved for web designers that use Flash, you have been warned!
\\Uriel
P.S.: I would like to take this opportunity to ask you what is your personal opinion about Flash and other similar crap(eg. applets), and what you think that can be done to fight it? Thanks:)
1) You don't need a DTD or Schema to have XML 2) The url used in a namespace declaration doesn't need to correspond to a real document 3) Even in case the document used a DTD or Schema, that DTD or Scheme where available, and the document actually validated against it, you still don't know what the hell the tags mean, the DTD or Scheme are just syntactical(and grammatical?) rules, and don't tell you how to interpret the tags or attributes. 4) You can always include binary data in an XML document(ie., base64 encoded) 5) The point of using XML is Buzzword compliance and *perceived* openness
There are more reasons why XML not necessarily = openness. But this ones are more than enough.
XML means nothing, it's just a way to define languages, is like an charset, just because I have a document that is ASCII doesn't mean that I understand what is written on it if I don't know the meaning of the words that are on it(eg., just because you know the name of each letter doesn't mean that you know the meaning of "lkasdertunxsjd", right?)
Even if a language is in XML, you still need to *document it* to be able to *understand* it.
Sorry if I was a bit rough, but I'm sick of people that assume that because something is in XML it's automatically open. That is one of the biggest myths the XML buzz-wagon is based on, and is spreaded by people that don't really understand what XML is.
Please, before you post to/. make sure you know what you are talking about.
Yea, it's a rant, so what? now one can't even rant on/.?? Could you just post what is wrong with my post(sure something is wrong with it, but I would like to know what it is) just saying: "This is a rant, mod it down" isn't very constructive *sigh*
And I also do it some times, but personally I prefer plain water or tea, just some times seems easier to buy a coke than find drinkable water *sigh*
Any way, the point wasn't that drinking coke or living in NewYork is bad, just that not everybody does it, and there are people that prefer other things, and that doesn't mean that they dont matter.
BTW: Apologies to anyone from NewYork that felt offended, it was just the frist big city that came to my mind, I'm sure there are many good reasons to live there, I just, personally, don't like big cities.
It matters to me, and I couldn't care less about the masses or ease of use. I care about something that works for me, and that is free of patents and other traps.
I'm sick of people that think that "masses" are all that matters, if that was the case we would be all running Windows, listening to boys/girls bands, looking TV, drinking coca-cola and living in a big city.
Whatever the masses do, OGG is one of the most important projects out there to protect my freedom of using a hight quality audio format, if you don't like it, unlike with some other "DRM enabled" formats, you wont be obligated to use it any time soon.
For all that I care you and all your masses can go use WMA and all it's DRM trash, browsing AOL, listening Britney(sp?), going to the cinema to see (checks warnerbros.com) Harry Potter, running Windows XP on your palladium enabled Pentium 5 and living in NewYork.
I will continue using ogg, browsing the web with Mozilla, listening to Einsturzende Neubauten and Chopin(two examples of things I have been listening to today), looking Clockwork Orange, Cube and Totoro, running FreeBSD on my AMD Duron, and Plan9 in my old broken Thinkpad; and living in some lost place in the North of Sweden.
Hope you are happy living your prefabricated life in your plastic world. Hurry or you are going to miss your daily brainwashing 4 hour sesion of TV. And don't forget to stay well away from any book, you may learn something from them!
I don't remember much, I just found this links by looking in google for less than one minute, I'm sure you can find some better info elsewhere in the net.
My favorite part of this history is the answer of Nintendo: "We weren't sure what to think when Microsoft made the offer. In fact I was surprised - we didn't need the money. I thought it was a joke."
hehehe...
I wonder what will they try next, it's obvious that they are desperate for finding some other business now that the software licensing is going to become obsolete thanks to opensource, I think they should stick to what(only) they are good at: mouses;)
I hope you aren't insinuating that they should develop something similar to the Exchange configuration... As much as I hate sendmail(I prefer qmail's minimalism) and sendmail.cf Turing-complete rule system; I'll take it any day over the nightmare that is configuring Exchange.
If you can't remember what each file is for, and you are unable to use vi to edit the configuration files, then you shouldn't be allowed to touch them any way.
Email server, calendar server, etc. should be administrated by *professional* system administrators that are supposed to know their stuff, there are few things more dangerous than a incompetent/ignorant MCSE sysadmin that the only thing he knows is how to follow wizards and reset the computer when it crashes.
If you can't edit a damn text file, you can't administer any production grade box.
I'm all for simplicity of configuration systems, but that means text files with sane, consistent, flexible *and* powerful syntax.
Have you ever heard of pen and paper? It's some prehistoric technology still quite popular in most of the world...
Sorry, if you are in the USA probably you can't use it because it infringes the DCMA... well you could use your memory *gasp* oh, sorry, I forgot that most people don't even have a brain.
*sigh*
Sorry if I'm rude again, but I can't believe somebody can't understand this.
BTW: no need to be condescendent, I know pretty well what public key cryptography is and how it works, and it will not stop me from doing whatever the hell I want with the information I have access to.
And I know that if the data protected with DRM was something like video or audio it would be more difficult to workaround it, but it *always* can be done one way or another.
To make this more on topic, take for example the DRM in windows media player this article is about: as soon as the audio comes out of the sound card, I only need a 5cm minijak connector to be able to record it and do whatever I want with it*, you don't need to break the cryptographic system behind a DRM system to be able to copy the information it protects.
\\Uriel
* Of course, you can be sure in the future somebody(M$/RIAA) will try to * convince the rest of the world to throw their perfectly fine speakers, sound cards, and other standard/profesional audio systems and substitute them with one that carry the audio signal encrypted to the speaker, I wish them good luck doing this... they are going to need it.
(and I'm sure once that is done somebody else will waste 5 minutes of his/her time hacking the speakers to take a clear signal out of them)
> Actually, your father and colleagues were correct - Palladium would enable > such a thing as stopping people from forwarding and copying e-mail. Possibly > good - possibly.
What the hell are you smoking?
That will be possible the day pen and paper becomes illegal because of the DCMA. and calling a friend and reading the email to him will also need to be illegal... and we will need to be all locked down in isolated hight security cells to avoid terrorists threats.
If you send me an email, you can bet that I will be able to forward it, post it to slashdot or do whatever the hell I want with it..
I don't have anything against the rest of your post, but the simple idea that something like that could be done is so ridiculous as to be depressing that anyone could think it's true.
The only real way to have DRM is if they hack into our brains... let's hope they do it soon, I'm starting to get bored with the kind of ridiculous schemes they are trying so far...
Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh, but it makes me sick how incredibly ignorant people is, if you really believe this kind of things, you deserve the DCMA and Palladium. If it wasn't because of the ignorance of people we would not have this problems; and no, you don't need to be a technical genius to realize that there is no way anybody is going to stop me from forwarding an email you sent me, you just need a brain, something that most people in this world seems to lack.
The argument about the jobs is really so ridiculous that becomes funny:
It would be like advocating to stop using trucks and any kind of machinery in agriculture and use horses and human power instead, that would create thousands, if not millions of jobs!
<sarcasm>So, lets give up the industrial revolution and go back to the middle ages so we can create thousands of jobs! Let's stop using electricity, cars, planes, and computers all together! they all save jobs!</sarcasm> *sigh*
Open source is a kind of revolution in the IT industry, of course many people will lose their jobs as consequence of it, but many more jobs will be created thanks to it, and many companies will improve how they work allowing them to expand and generate more jobs. Any new tool that helps companies get their jobs done with a minimum cost is good for the economy.
Another of my favorite MS FUD is that the taxes for software are a good thing for the economy, oh well, so then is bad that companies save money? Lets duplicate taxes on software then! It will be even better! This also assumes that the money don't spent in MS software disappears in a black hole, I'm sorry, but it will be spent in more productive ways that will actually help the economy(and generate taxes) instead of just help MS economy.
Disclaimer: I work for a non IT company as software developer and system administrator using only Open/Free Source software, the company is doing quite well, thanks to the use of OSS, among other things(like having a smart boss, hi Carl!;)), and thanks to that, the company is expanding and generating even more jobs, profits and taxes.
Wow, I just took a look at the top three items of the Win2k/Linux comparisons,
and it's really good FUD:
Linux:
- No support for SSO, thus requiring end users to use at least two logon names and passwordsone for Windows and one for Linux/UNIX. What? Have you ever heard about OpenLDAP? Kerberos? Samba? even NIS allows you to do that!
- Support for CIFS but only via Samba, not as an integrated, tested solution. Not integrated and tested by who?? HP, NEC, SGI, IBM, Apple... all them sell Samba based
solutions. I'm quite sure that Samba implementation of CIFS is way betters than MS's,
well known for being broken and quite buggy...(on purpose maybe?)
- [...]it is questionable whether commercial Linux vendors will be around to provide support in the long term, [...] <sarcasm>Yea, I'm sure IBM, HP, Sun, Dell, Intel, and SGI will all go out of business next week... and then, I will not be able to contact
any other linux Company, that will not have access to the src, and will not be able to provide support for my uber-closed Linux systems</sarcasm>
Win2k:
- Integrated support for Windows NT®, FTP, HTTP, Appletalk, and Novell environments, which enables consolidated administration in heterogeneous networks.
Wow! They have "integrated support" for FTP and HTTP!!! OMG! And you only need to patch it every 5min! <sarcasm>I doubt that any OSS operating system will ever match that level of astounding functionality</sarcasm> Not to mention that MS ftpd is one of the worst ftp implementations I have ever seen. BTW, have you every tried to get Appletalk working on Win2k? I had to do it once, I would prefer to burn in hell for
the rest of eternity than having to do it again...
I will not bother with the rest of the list... but it's funny how people can bluntly lie like this
and get away with it... *sigh*
Enough time wasted with this, I'm going back to work with my "inferior" OS, that saves my company loads of money,
not to mention headaches... thanks God that I have a smart boss(hi Carl!) that isn't fooled by shit like this...
Does any body know what happened to the Apache Software Foundation, CollabNet, and O'Reilly?
When the Liberty Alliance was first presented around one year ago, this three organizations where listed as founder members, but I can't find them any more in the members list... what happened to them?
Their involvement in the project was the only thing that gave it a minimum credibility in my eyes... well, probably Sun is screwing up once more by thinking that they live alone in the universe... *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
Unix originally didn't even have a network stack, so you would have a hard time finding a way to "root it in minutes", not to mention that TCP/IP didn't even exists at the time.
...)
didn't have a clue what they were doing(not to mention they even did a pathetic
job at fucking up the original Unix ideas... hell, at least VMS had technical
quality and some consistency!).
/etc/passwd, ...) but the basic ideas were
solid(and in good part based in the best of MULTICS), the problems is people
that _never_ understood those ideas, the people that really understood them
fixed the problems and kept moving forward(until Lucent killed them anyway).
Shadow passwords are more complex than the original UNIX design
Shadow passwords are not a solution, shadow passwords are an ugly hack. Of course the most secure solution is not the simplest. In the this case, shadow passwords were barely enough for stand-alone systems; in a networked environment you need a different kind of distributed authentication framework, and that is what factotum/secstore provide with a relatively low complexity keeping in mind the implicit complexity of the problem domain.
As for problems with how in Unix "everything is a file", the problem is not with the original Unix ideas, but with how some misguided souls(*cough* USL, *cough* BSD, *cough* SUN, *cough* RMS/GNU, *cough* Linux, *cough* GNOME,
Who added most of the networking functionality to Unix? a bunch of clueless undergrads in Berkeley, really, who is surprised about the result(BIND, sendmail, etc..)?
Unix, in it's original and "pure" form, evolved, and most if not all the original problems where *fixed*, and so Plan 9 was born, more than 10 years ago, but the "UNIX community"(read, "bunch of misguided clueless religious fanatics") never even understood what Unix was supposed to be like, and more than 30 years later they keep repeating the same mistakes again and again, but now they don't have enough with their own mistakes, that they need to copy others mistakes too(see GNOME...).
There is nothing wrong with the original Unix ideas; yes, there were some horrible mistakes(*cough* suid,
None of the problems you mention applies to Plan 9(and some of them nor to the last version of Research Unix), and in most cases neither to what Unix was originally.
BTW, Plan 9 doesn't even have the concept of "root" or "Administrator", so it can hardly be rooted, as for buffer overflows, all you need is sane libs to deal with string manipulation, which it's true the original Unix didn't have, but the problem is people that in more than 30 years is incapable of fixing a broken lib design, the original Unix designers fixed the "problem" *long* ago.
Best wishes
uriel
You obviously got no clue what you are talking about.
;)), and they did put a *load* of effort in making drivers compatible, and
First, M$ might not make very secure software, but they sure got a load of
talented people working there, and even if their software is crap they know how
to do some things right, the NT kernel is not all that bad(after all, it's just
VMS
they had the src for all the OSes they wanted to make compatible, and they
still failed miserably, other efforts by a bunch of amateur kids aren't going
to work much better(and if you do some research, you will find that some other
people have tried, and failed too).
And that is for a very simple reasons, drivers and kernel modules, by
definition are *very* tied to the underlying kernel architecture, that you
really want to be able to change, and when you change that, you will need to
change the interface to it, and you will break code that uses that interface,
and if you only got a binary you are in a world of shit.
And yes, I *really* need to know how to interface with my hardware, and no,
adding a layer of proprietary software on top of proprietary hardware is *not*
OK, for *many* reasons, for example security, stability, CPU and OS
portability, etc...
There is *no* excuse for not releasing the necessary specs for hardware, the
interfaces to them are meaningless to other hardware vendors, and the only
reasons hw vendors don't release them are: ignorance; to keep more control over
the (l)users and make them more dependant(eg., force upgrades by removing
support for old hardware...), and to hide embarrassing bugs in their
hardware(or advertise fake features that are implemented in software, eg.,
winmodems, winprinters, etc.)
In all cases specs are withheld to screw the user, and nothing else, which is
*exactly* what Open Source tries to avoid.
You have to remember that in Open Source, we are all the developers, and M$ got
access to the src of all their drivers(their license for hardware vendors force
them to give the src to M$), and we at the very least need the same.
Best wishes
uriel
Binary drivers are a load of braindamage, and should be make as difficult as
possible.
With binary drivers the whole point of Open Source is lost, and you could as
well have a proprietary kernel.
As you very well know, most BSOD in windoze are mainly caused by faulty
drivers, do we want the same "feature" in Linux? what about other OSes like
*BSD, what should they do? and other arches like PPC or Alpha? should they all
give up their OSes and systems and follow the "one true way of Linux proprietary
drivers"?
And don't even tell me about those "cross-platform-driver-interfaces", what a
joke... FYI, that didn't work for M$, and it wont work for anyone else, M$
tried to make a "standard" driver interface to allow win9x drivers to work on NT,
it was a *DISASTER*; there are loads of hardware out there that didn't make the
transition and has *no* drivers for WinNT/2k/xp, because the manufacturers were
bankrupt, because they were clueless, because they wanted you to buy new
hardware; do you want the same to happen with Linux?
What we *need* is for hardware vendors to get a fucking clue and start
releasing documentation about the crap they sell, that is the only way for a
stable and open system. Hardware vendors that refuse to document their hardware
are just too stupid to be dealt with.
If I buy something, I have a *right* to know how it works and how I can use it
in any OS I like.
Best wishes
uriel
``Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad.'' -- rob pike, Bell Labs 1991
And I'm sorry to tell you that every bit of that applies to Linux and *BSD.
Of interest is also "Systems Software Research is Irrelevant".
Get the only OS that doesn't stink while you still have a chance:
Plan 9 from Bell Labs
(and now it's *really* OpenSource)
Plan 9 is what the creators of UNIX thought UNIX should have been. Here is the paper that explains why and how they decided to replace UNIX:
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html
uriel
OK, thanks for your contribution to /. misinformation.
0 008
d e%20in%20Windows
MS has used considerable amounts of BSD code in the past, and still does so, for a recent example(last week) see:
http://www.deadly.org/article.php3?sid=2003092709
You can also just do a strings of the ftp command on windows, for more details:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=BSD%20Co
The original windows TCP/IP stack was lifted directly from BSD too... and I'm sure there are many other examples that we will never know of.
Oh, and there was zlib too, because when a hole was found in zlib MS Office and quite a few other MS products had to be patched:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-860328.html
They have even publicly said that they think the BSD license is great, obviously as long as others use it and they can take advantage of it, I can't recall MS ever releasing anything under the BSD or any other open source license(no, "shared source" is _not_ open source).
Still, as Theo says, if MS uses BSD/public-domain code it's great, that is the point of the BSD license, to improve the sorry state of the software quality in our world, if MS uses BSD code to make their software suck less, great that is what people that releases code under the BSD license want, to make software suck less, not to push any stupid political agenda.
Best wishes
\\Uriel
Just wanted to add yet one more thank you.
Keep the good work.
\\Uriel
Me too, let's hope John Carmack finishes his rocket soon...
\\Uriel
http://www.mozilla.org/banners/
First, before downloading anything you need to read and accept this license: http://www.nvidia.com/view.asp?IO=nv_swlicense
[bold mine]
And so on... I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't look too good to me, let's look at the actual files...
$ ls
GNULicense.txt Makefile NVLicense.txt README ReleaseNotes.pdf nvaudio nvnet
$ ls nvnet/
Makefile adapter.h basetype.h nvnet.c nvnet.h nvnetlib.o os.h phy.h
$ cat nvnet/nvnet.c | grep '^|\*'
|* (c) NVIDIA Corporation. All rights reserved
|*
|* THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROPRIETARY AND
|* CONFIDENTIAL
|* TO NVIDIA, CORPORATION. USE, REPORDUCTION OR DISCLOSURE TO ANY
|* THIRD PARTY IS SUBJECT TO WRITTEN PRE-APPROVAL BY NVIDIA CORP.
|* THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT
|* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED
|* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, AND FITNESS
|* FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
I don't know about you, but this doesn't look too GPL-compatible, and I'm not going to look into that code.
$ file nvnet/nvnetlib.o
nvnet/nvnetlib.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped
lol, they even forgot to strip it!!
Still, if you remember the license, you are not allowed to do anything that might give you the src code. So I'm sure you could get some good info from that, but I seriously doubt of how you could use that info legally for anything...
Now for the audio:
$ ls nvaudio/
Makefile i810_audio-nforce23.patch
$ cat nvaudio/i810_audio-nforce23.patch |grep '^[+-][^+-]'
+#ifndef PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_MCP2_AUDIO
+#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_MCP2_AUDIO 0x006a
+#endif
+#ifndef PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_MCP3_AUDIO
+#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_MCP3_AUDIO 0x00da
+#endif
+ {PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_MCP2_AUDIO,
+ PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, NVIDIA_NFORCE},
+ {PCI_VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA, PCI_DEVICE_ID_NVIDIA_MCP3_AUDIO,
+ PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, NVIDIA_NFORCE},
As you can see, the 'driver' for nvaudio is a 10 line patch(to the kernel code, and should be under the GPL) that does little more than adding the necessary ids to detect the chip as a Intel i810 clone, which is what I meant by 'dumbed down' as the audio chip in the NForce2 has *many* features not in i810.
In resume:
- nvnet: Nvidia provides a binary(un-striped!)+src(wrapper?) driver under a draconian license that makes it quite useless for those that want to stay legal, I haven't looked at the provided code(maybe some day I will want to write a Plan9 driver, and I don't want to be 'tainted'), but I bet it's little more than a wrapper for the binary file, that is basically what they do with the video drivers, and it's just so it kind of works across different kernel versions. And what matters most, if you want to write a driver for *BSD or any other OSs you are out of luck.
- nvaudio: as I said in my previous post, very basic support is provided but nothing near full support exists, from either OSS or binary/propietary drivers.
Happy now? Best wishes
\\Uriel
Now if only they could release the source for the nvnet Ethernet drivers...
Or at least release enough docs so that open source drivers could be implemented; I'm running 2.5.x, and had to use an additional network card because the (crappy)binary drivers from nvidia only support ancient kernels, not to mention there is no support for *BSD or other OSes.
Better audio support would be nice too... ALSA handles it, but in a very dumbed down mode, with many features not supported because nvidia doesn't want to release the docs, and AFAIK there is not even binary drivers for that...
But the network drivers are the biggest pain, in my company we have >20 Linux desktops, and is a PIA to have to install manually the drivers in each box, and pray that the kernel you are using is supported.
Keep in mind that even if the nvidia binary graphics drivers are quite good, the nforce drivers are _crap_ and haven't been updated since November last year, there are various bugs that nvidia said would be fixed in the next release, but so far the users are stuck.
Oh, well, I guess that I(and my company) will buy VIA based boards from now on... *sigh*
Best wishes
\\Uriel
P.S.: Don't forget to sign the petition, maybe nvidia gets a clue when they realize how many of their customers they are pissing off:
http://petitiononline.com/nforce2/petition.html
You are confusing RMS(http://www.stallman.org/) with ESR(http://www.catb.org/~esr/)!!
Hahahahaha... now that is ironic!
(I will let you decide who is more egocentric of both, but aside from that, they have little in common... oh
well, and being complete crakpots!)
It was ESR who wanted information about people with access to unix code.
BTW: as far as I know "public sector" != "public domain"
\\K
Why don't you check your facts before posting?
h at or check the RPMs in the FTP, or install the damn thing!
1) As others have pointed out, this is a *Beta*, RedHat 8.0.92 to be exact, so many things can change between now and when 8.1 is released
2) This beta actually *includes* KDE 3.1(RC5 or CVS I guess) see http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=red
3) This is *exactly* the same as with Gnome, the beta includes the latest Gnome 2.1(from CVS I think), that by the time 8.1 final is released will become Gnome 2.2(and the same is also true for XFree 4.3)
4) KDE on RedHat is/was not "crippled", I will not bother arguing about this, but if you think the version in 8.0 was "crippled", then doesn't mater what version they ship in the next release you will think the same.
5) You can be sure that RedHat 8.1 final release will include KDE 3.1, you may think that it's still "crippled" though...
(BTW, Gnome 2.2 and KDE 3.1 are both looking very good, I'm sure RH8.1 will be a great release, even better than 8.0, and 8.0 was already very nice)
Hope this sets some facts straight, BTW, I don't even run Linux or KDE/Gnome on my boxes(I administer a few RedHat desktops running both KDE and Gnome at work though), I love my FreeBSD box with Ion, just hate to see people spreading misinformation.
Best wishes and do some research before you post next time!
\\Uriel
Try adding this to your user CSS(eg., chrome/userContent.css in Mozilla):
.Net, it's a perfect way to strength their control on the browser market(how long before thy kill the NS plugin version of the Flash player leaving only the ActiveX one, not that I would care though) and improve their attack on the server side at the same time. /me prays for Flash to die
;), but if you ask me, IMHO Flash is the worst that has happen to the Web. As I understand it, it represents everything the Web wasn't supposed to be(eg., binary non standard format, designed for marketing instead of for content and information, an accessibility nightmare, not really crossplatform, and I could go on for ages...), the Web is about *open* access to *information*, the Web is *not* TV!
:)
embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"] { display: none !important; }
Seems to work fine, but if IIRC there were other ways to embed Flash(with "object" IIRC), so I used for a long time an even more radical approach:
object, embed { display: none ! important; }
To hit the "object" tag so hard is a bit rough, but that seems to work fine, and I can't think of anyone using it for anything good anyway.
More on topic: I'm the only one who saw this coming? Macromedia has become more and more like MS, well, Flash is a good example of how they can be even worst than MS.
I think I even told someone months ago that MS would end up buying Macromedia, it just makes sense, gives them more power on the client side with Flash and can integrate all the other Macromedia server side crap with
I know you have more authority to have an opinion on this than me
I would say that Flash is even worst than popup-adds, at least sites with popup-adds work in standard compliant browsers without extra crap(ie. Mozilla), and even if you disable them(eg. with mozilla "popup-killer") you still can see the site content just fine.
There is nothing that pisses me off more than to go to a site that *assumes* that I have flash installed, or that if I don't have it, can install it(there is *no* Flash plugin for FreeBSD, not that I would ever use it if there was one, but I if I hate to be told to do something, I hate it even more when I'm told to do something I can't do it even in the case I would want to!)
Oh, well, and I that was hopping for MS to stop bundling Flash with IE so Flash would die... or Macromedia to go bankrupt *sigh*
The worst place in hell is reserved for web designers that use Flash, you have been warned!
\\Uriel
P.S.: I would like to take this opportunity to ask you what is your personal opinion about Flash and other similar crap(eg. applets), and what you think that can be done to fight it? Thanks
How does this misinformed crap get moderated up?
/. make sure you know what you are talking about.
As some others have pointed out:
1) You don't need a DTD or Schema to have XML
2) The url used in a namespace declaration doesn't need to correspond to a real document
3) Even in case the document used a DTD or Schema, that DTD or Scheme where available, and the document actually validated against it, you still don't know what the hell the tags mean, the DTD or Scheme are just syntactical(and grammatical?) rules, and don't tell you how to interpret the tags or attributes.
4) You can always include binary data in an XML document(ie., base64 encoded)
5) The point of using XML is Buzzword compliance and *perceived* openness
There are more reasons why XML not necessarily = openness. But this ones are more than enough.
XML means nothing, it's just a way to define languages, is like an charset, just because I have a document that is ASCII doesn't mean that I understand what is written on it if I don't know the meaning of the words that are on it(eg., just because you know the name of each letter doesn't mean that you know the meaning of "lkasdertunxsjd", right?)
Even if a language is in XML, you still need to *document it* to be able to *understand* it.
Sorry if I was a bit rough, but I'm sick of people that assume that because something is in XML it's automatically open. That is one of the biggest myths the XML buzz-wagon is based on, and is spreaded by people
that don't really understand what XML is.
Please, before you post to
Best wishes
\\Uriel
Yea, it's a rant, so what? now one can't even rant on /.?? Could you just post
what is wrong with my post(sure something is wrong with it, but I would like to know
what it is) just saying: "This is a rant, mod it down" isn't very constructive
*sigh*
\\Uriel
> hey! I drink coke...
And I also do it some times, but personally I prefer plain water or tea, just
some times seems easier to buy a coke than find drinkable water *sigh*
Any way, the point wasn't that drinking coke or living in NewYork is bad, just
that not everybody does it, and there are people that prefer other things, and
that doesn't mean that they dont matter.
BTW: Apologies to anyone from NewYork that felt offended, it was just the frist
big city that came to my mind, I'm sure there are many good reasons to live
there, I just, personally, don't like big cities.
Best wishes
\\Uriel
It matters to me, and I couldn't care less about the masses or ease of use. I
care about something that works for me, and that is free of patents and other
traps.
I'm sick of people that think that "masses" are all that matters, if that was
the case we would be all running Windows, listening to boys/girls bands,
looking TV, drinking coca-cola and living in a big city.
Whatever the masses do, OGG is one of the most important projects out there to
protect my freedom of using a hight quality audio format, if you don't like it,
unlike with some other "DRM enabled" formats, you wont be obligated to use it
any time soon.
For all that I care you and all your masses can go use WMA and all it's DRM
trash, browsing AOL, listening Britney(sp?), going to the cinema to see (checks
warnerbros.com) Harry Potter, running Windows XP on your palladium enabled
Pentium 5 and living in NewYork.
I will continue using ogg, browsing the web with Mozilla, listening to
Einsturzende Neubauten and Chopin(two examples of things I have been listening
to today), looking Clockwork Orange, Cube and Totoro, running FreeBSD on my AMD
Duron, and Plan9 in my old broken Thinkpad; and living in some lost place in
the North of Sweden.
Hope you are happy living your prefabricated life in your plastic world. Hurry
or you are going to miss your daily brainwashing 4 hour sesion of TV. And don't
forget to stay well away from any book, you may learn something from them!
*sigh*
\\Uriel
Have you tried Chimera?
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/chimer a/
Has GUI as nice as OmniWeb and a Gecko rendering engine.
It rocks.
> I think the obvious next move is for Microsoft to buy Sega.7 1602.html
;)
They already have tried:
http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0716/sega0
And after that they tried to buy Nintendo for 25Bn(I think to remember 2.5Bn,
but in the news sites I found it says 25Bn!):
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131308
http://gameinfowire.com/news.asp?nid=263
I don't remember much, I just found this links by looking in google for less
than one minute, I'm sure you can find some better info elsewhere in the net.
My favorite part of this history is the answer of Nintendo: "We weren't sure
what to think when Microsoft made the offer. In fact I was surprised - we
didn't need the money. I thought it was a joke."
hehehe...
I wonder what will they try next, it's obvious that they are desperate for
finding some other business now that the software licensing is going to become
obsolete thanks to opensource, I think they should stick to what(only) they are
good at: mouses
\\Uriel
I hope you aren't insinuating that they should develop something similar to the
Exchange configuration... As much as I hate sendmail(I prefer qmail's
minimalism) and sendmail.cf Turing-complete rule system; I'll take it any day
over the nightmare that is configuring Exchange.
If you can't remember what each file is for, and you are unable to use vi to
edit the configuration files, then you shouldn't be allowed to touch them any
way.
Email server, calendar server, etc. should be administrated by *professional*
system administrators that are supposed to know their stuff, there are few
things more dangerous than a incompetent/ignorant MCSE sysadmin that the only
thing he knows is how to follow wizards and reset the computer when it crashes.
If you can't edit a damn text file, you can't administer any production grade
box.
I'm all for simplicity of configuration systems, but that means text files with
sane, consistent, flexible *and* powerful syntax.
And no, I don't mean XML.
Best wishes
\\Uriel
Have you ever heard of pen and paper? It's some prehistoric technology still
quite popular in most of the world...
Sorry, if you are in the USA probably you can't use it because it infringes the
DCMA... well you could use your memory *gasp* oh, sorry, I forgot that most
people don't even have a brain.
*sigh*
Sorry if I'm rude again, but I can't believe somebody can't understand this.
BTW: no need to be condescendent, I know pretty well what public key
cryptography is and how it works, and it will not stop me from doing whatever
the hell I want with the information I have access to.
And I know that if the data protected with DRM was something like video or
audio it would be more difficult to workaround it, but it *always* can be done
one way or another.
To make this more on topic, take for example the DRM in windows media player
this article is about: as soon as the audio comes out of the sound card, I only
need a 5cm minijak connector to be able to record it and do whatever I want
with it*, you don't need to break the cryptographic system behind a DRM system
to be able to copy the information it protects.
\\Uriel
* Of course, you can be sure in the future somebody(M$/RIAA) will try to
* convince
the rest of the world to throw their perfectly fine speakers, sound cards, and
other standard/profesional audio systems and substitute them with one that
carry the audio signal encrypted to the speaker, I wish them good luck doing
this... they are going to need it.
(and I'm sure once that is done somebody else will waste 5 minutes of his/her
time hacking the speakers to take a clear signal out of them)
> Actually, your father and colleagues were correct - Palladium would enable
/end rant
> such a thing as stopping people from forwarding and copying e-mail. Possibly
> good - possibly.
What the hell are you smoking?
That will be possible the day pen and paper becomes illegal because of the
DCMA. and calling a friend and reading the email to him will also need to be
illegal... and we will need to be all locked down in isolated hight security cells to avoid
terrorists threats.
If you send me an email, you can bet that I will be able to forward it, post it
to slashdot or do whatever the hell I want with it..
I don't have anything against the rest of your post, but the simple idea that
something like that could be done is so ridiculous as to be depressing that
anyone could think it's true.
The only real way to have DRM is if they hack into our brains... let's hope
they do it soon, I'm starting to get bored with the kind of ridiculous schemes
they are trying so far...
Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh, but it makes me sick how incredibly ignorant
people is, if you really believe this kind of things, you deserve the DCMA and
Palladium. If it wasn't because of the ignorance of people we would not have
this problems; and no, you don't need to be a technical genius to realize that
there is no way anybody is going to stop me from forwarding an email you sent
me, you just need a brain, something that most people in this world seems to
lack.
*sigh*
Best wishes
\\Uriel
The argument about the jobs is really so ridiculous that becomes funny:
;)), and thanks to that, the company is expanding and generating even more jobs, profits and taxes.
It would be like advocating to stop using trucks and any kind of machinery in agriculture and use horses and human power instead, that would create thousands, if not millions of jobs!
<sarcasm>So, lets give up the industrial revolution and go back to the middle ages so we can create thousands of jobs!
Let's stop using electricity, cars, planes, and computers all together! they all save jobs!</sarcasm> *sigh*
Open source is a kind of revolution in the IT industry, of course many people will lose their jobs as consequence of it, but many more jobs will be created thanks to it, and many companies will improve how they work allowing them to expand and generate more jobs. Any new tool that helps companies get their jobs done with a minimum cost is good for the economy.
Another of my favorite MS FUD is that the taxes for software are a good thing for the economy, oh well, so then is bad that companies save money? Lets duplicate taxes on software then! It will be even better! This also assumes that the money don't spent in MS software disappears in a black hole, I'm sorry, but it will be spent in more productive ways that will actually help the economy(and generate taxes) instead of just help MS economy.
Disclaimer: I work for a non IT company as software developer and system administrator using only Open/Free Source software, the company is doing quite well, thanks to the use of OSS, among other things(like having a smart boss, hi Carl!
\\Uriel
Wow, I just took a look at the top three items of the Win2k/Linux comparisons, and it's really good FUD:
Linux:
- No support for SSO, thus requiring end users to use at least two logon names and passwordsone for Windows and one for Linux/UNIX.
What? Have you ever heard about OpenLDAP? Kerberos? Samba? even NIS allows you to do that!
- Support for CIFS but only via Samba, not as an integrated, tested solution.
Not integrated and tested by who?? HP, NEC, SGI, IBM, Apple... all them sell Samba based solutions. I'm quite sure that Samba implementation of CIFS is way betters than MS's, well known for being broken and quite buggy...(on purpose maybe?)
- [...]it is questionable whether commercial Linux vendors will be around to provide support in the long term, [...]
<sarcasm>Yea, I'm sure IBM, HP, Sun, Dell, Intel, and SGI will all go out of business next week... and then, I will not be able to contact any other linux Company, that will not have access to the src, and will not be able to provide support for my uber-closed Linux systems</sarcasm>
Win2k:
- Integrated support for Windows NT®, FTP, HTTP, Appletalk, and Novell environments, which enables consolidated administration in heterogeneous networks. Wow! They have "integrated support" for FTP and HTTP!!! OMG!
And you only need to patch it every 5min!
<sarcasm>I doubt that any OSS operating system will ever match that level of astounding functionality</sarcasm>
Not to mention that MS ftpd is one of the worst ftp implementations I have ever seen.
BTW, have you every tried to get Appletalk working on Win2k? I had to do it once, I would prefer to burn in hell for the rest of eternity than having to do it again...
I will not bother with the rest of the list... but it's funny how people can bluntly lie like this and get away with it... *sigh*
Enough time wasted with this, I'm going back to work with my "inferior" OS, that saves my company loads of money, not to mention headaches... thanks God that I have a smart boss(hi Carl!) that isn't fooled by shit like this...
\\Uriel
Does any body know what happened to the Apache Software Foundation,
CollabNet, and O'Reilly?
When the Liberty Alliance was first presented around one year ago,
this three organizations where listed as founder members, but I can't
find them any more in the members list... what happened to them?
Their involvement in the project was the only thing that gave it
a minimum credibility in my eyes... well, probably Sun is screwing
up once more by thinking that they live alone in the universe...
*sigh*
\\Uriel