...the creation of a secure new government communications network separate from the Internet that would be less vulnerable to attack and efforts to disrupt critical federal activities.
Doesn't MILnet do this already? Isn't this why when the DoD gave up control of ARPAnet, they forked and created MILnet to retain a secure channel?
Bush needs to lay off the MSN. The U.S. government is already waaaaaaaaaay ahead on this one.
Who was less professional? Linus or Mundie?
on
Interview With Linus
·
· Score: 1
Did you actually read some of the crap Mundie was saying? Social and Scientific advancements only exist because of the profit motive? What a load of crap. Linus is always well spoken. Consider the following:
When Mundie wants you to think about all the work that companies have done
in order to get patents, he also wants you to forget about all the work
done by people like Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Leonardo da Vinci and a
lot of other people who have done a lot more for humanity than most
companies have ever done. And those people did it for the love of the art,
not for some petty "intellectual property rights". Yet Mundie with a
straight face claims that those intellectual property rights are the thing
that drives science and technology. He seems to think that MS has done
more for the US economy than the discovery of the electron ever did.
His "shared source philosophy" is nothing but the status quo for
Microsoft, and trying to make that status quo sound more like the open
source model. He obviously doesn't "get" it.
The strength of open source is not the source, but the intellectual
property that goes with it - exactly the part that Mundie seems to hate so
much. The fact that when you get involved in open source, you get equal
rights to be involved. You can be another Leonardo da Vinci, you aren't
relegated to just paying for viewing his works.
You don't have to be meek to be professional. And if someone spouts a load of crap, it's not the "professional" thing to shut up and ignore it and pretend it's true.
My Prediction: Since Replay doesn't actually MODIFY the content of the program (which is completely intact on the hard drive), this copyright infringement suit will be lost by the networks.
I used to think that too. Before the Skylarov case, I thought that copyright law was fairly straightforward. If you claimed that someone else's content was yours, you were in violation. And it used to be a civil law too. Now after the DMCA (Digital Mind Control Act), copyright is apparently a criminal matter (one were you enjoy no constitutional rights at that) and apparently ANYTHING can be claimed as a copyright violation. Copyright law has gotten way out of hand with the DMCA.
The type of complaint I thought they'd use here is the "Interference with contract" lawsuit (a tactic commonly used in SLAPP suits).
But I wouldn't even understand the basis for that claim. AFAIK, ReplayTV doesn't "edit" the commericals out of live TV for you (otherwise you'd be looking at a black screen for 2 minutes). It edits commericals out of taped shows. But this is something people do anyway. Most people who tape a show and watch it later, will fastforward through the commericals, intros, outros, credits, etc. And if they happen to be watching the same show they're taping, then most just "Pause" the recording during the commercials. There's an old legal saying that goes: "Unless you defend a right, it doesn't exist." Well these networks have never sued VCR manufacturers in the past 20 years for allowing people to edit out commericials on their own. I don't think the networks have the right to challenge it now.
I'm so glad you pointed this out. It seems there are endless comparisons between Windows and Linux in terms of cost. But I think the thing that gets overlooked the most is how good the IT staff at any particular company/institution might be. If your support staff is good and knows Linux, I can certainly see where it would be possible to save heaps of money running Linux. But if your technology people don't know Linux, then just moving to Linx (be it only in the server space, or desktops, too) wouldn't save any money. The TCO in that case would be extraordinarily high. "Oh shit, we just installed Linux... Nothing works like we expected... What do we do now?"
Any competant NETWORK administrator knows Unix.
Why? Because the Internet and TCP/IP is BASED on Unix. If you're just talking about setting up an office print server using SMB (aka NETBIOS), then sure, you don't need to know Unix. But the minute you try to link your network to the Internet, you better be damned sure that you know Unix.
If you're trying to save a few bucks, by hiring you're kid's friend who knows computers as your network admin, then you're just asking to be hit by Code Red or the like.
But if you're SERIOUS about your network security, you'd better be serious about hiring a competant sysadmin.
And remember, IIS only accounts for 26% of all web servers on the net (and Apache accounts for 59%) -- so it's NOT just a matter of there being more IIS servers out there to hit.
By in large, Apache will run just fine OOTB. Can you say the same for IIS?
Okay, here's something I'm bothered by. So many posters in this forum are complaining about Linux being installed in a highschool computer lab. Why? Why does it trouble them so much? They don't attend this highschool. They won't have to maintain this highschool's computer lab. Why do they complain?
"They won't be using IE to browse the web," they complain. So what? Outside of flashy entertainment sites, what REAL educational web sites use Active-X and Windows-only plugins? None.
"They won't learn how to use MS-Office," they whine. Really? So every student who has an option to use a different word processor at school will automatically be ignorant of another word processor? Couldn't it be that maybe, just maybe their parents have a computer at home running MS-Windows? And just perhaps, they have MS-Office as well? I can tell you, I grew up in schools surrounded by Apple IIE's, and 68k's and PowerPC's, but somehow I still know how to use Windows -- and Linux! And even further, EVERY word processor now offers pretty much the same features, interface, etc (except for LaTeX which is WYMIWYG not WYSIWYG). Not to mention that's it's a friggin' graphical interface. I've met people who have used MS-Word back to Win 3.1, and they still don't know any key commands -- they go to the pull down menus. I knew every WordPerfect key command in 5.1, but somehow I still managed to transition to Word, StarOffice, AbiWord, etc..
"Licenses are only $30/seat, that's really not that expensive," they argue. You know what's a better deal than $30/seat? $nothing/seat. (whoa -- kinda looks like Perl). Linux offers them web-browsing, e-mail, remote administration, virtual virus immunity, default filesystem permissions and the school doesn't have to pay $0.01.
"They need to learn MS-Windows for a job." You know this is pure crap because not every company uses MS-Windows. Aside from that, almost every GUI out there looks and acts the same. They all stole the design from Apple, who in turn stole the design from Xerox-PARC. It's a Graphical-User-Interface. MS likes to brag about how it's so intuitive. So it should be no problem to pick up Windows for a job. And if they want to be a secretary instead of a sysadmin, that's fine. But then they don't need an in depth understanding of Windows to do that job either. All they need to know is where to start typing.
You know I don't want to get too Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence on anyone, but isn't their some practical value to having a deeper understanding of how computers work. I'm not talking about requiring assembly language to be taught in every school. I'm just saying that if people understood more about why their computer does the things it does, then maybe they wouldn't hate it so much. And it seems that the best way to learn this is to use a different operating system. To see how the same machine can appear and run completely different, but still do the same job.
For as much as these same people bash over zealous Linux advocates for trying to force their views on others, they are just as guilty for trying to force their system on kids at school. Most higher education institutions in the country run Unix, so doesn't it make sense for secondary schools to do the same? Especially when it's free?
Sure, you CAN do this with 2000 & XP, but how long did it take MS to come up with BASIC security like this? How many focus groups, how many wishlists, or how many marketing managers were necessary for MS to implement security that's been standard in Unix for the past 30+ years?
He's not saying you can't do this in Windows, but he is pointing out that you couldn't do this in Windows until RECENTLY.
P.S. How is it that you can STILL be infected by Word Macro viruses under WinNT/2K/XP even though they have user level security?!
It's kind of interesting, though, because some of the other states are considering breaking out and filing their own suit against Microsoft. The feel that the prospects of a Justice Department settlement would be too lenient.
There's quite a large number of plaintiffs involved, and they're all seeking different things. Maybe it's better if they do file individual suits against Microsoft. Too many chefs spoil the soup anyhow.
I am writing a graphical interface for Pine (called xP -- note I called it this BEFORE MS introduced their XP), and I have been familiar with the complications of the Pine license for some time. Pine is a great e-mail and newsgroup program, but unfortunately, it does have a significant limitations when it comes to licensing.
You're forgetting something -- it's OPEN SOURCE. And one of the greatest features of the GPL is that it prevents someone from stealing someone else's hard work and making money off it.
There is NO LEGAL WAY these people or companies can close up the source and sell stolen open source programs in the United States or other US license/copyright treaty member nations (read EU, Japan, etc). And if they just try to sell their program in China, they'll probably receive just as much respect for their license as they showed to for the GPL.
I realize this is of little comfort to those who put in the hard work, but if you assume their motivation in stealing your source code was to make money, rest assured that they won't see any.
As an open source developer, I've made extensive use of the services offered by sourceforge in building and releasing my open source project.
When I graduate from college (assuming I get hired somewhere) I wanted to give back to VA Linux for all they've given to me by purchasing a VA Linux workstation. This seemed like one of the best ways I could say thanks, but now that they're leaving the hardware business, what can I do?
The man asked a question (who care's what his motives are), and the two comments that bash the person asking the question are modded up +3 and +2, when really they deserve -1.
Meanwhile, the one comment that may be helpful was left at +1.
What the hell good is ask slashdot if you're just going to be berated by the posters for asking a question. Where is the SUPPORT of the open source community?
Easy. I assume you're running some form of *NIX because you're reading slashdot, so just set up a cacheing DNS and periodically browse some of the hosts that were resolved by your computer.
If you see something you don't recognize (I mean other than http://nsyncgroupies.com) just visit it with a web browser and see what kind of site it is.
This plan isn't foolproof, no form of net monitoring is, b/c if she wants to get around this, she could always go to somewhere like alt.binaries.pictures.teen-idols in a newsgroup reader and you would never know. But its a start.
Of course no amount of net monitoring can take the place of responsible parenting, and I'm glad to see that you are taking a mature attitude towards this.
gutier writes: "It seems that Netscape has recognized that it has lost the browser battle, and has decided to restructure itself into an "Internet Media Hub".
I don't understand what you mean by Lost the Browser War. It's not something you can win or lose, unless you're talking about giving up from the frustration caused by the monopolistic, anticompetitive tactics of a certain company.
As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux. Konqueror is making inroads, but nobody has as complete a market as netscape.
A good friend of mine (of slashdot book review fame) has already started work on a secure mailing list. Many of the existing mailing lists keep all messages in plain text on a server or pass info around without verifying the receiver. Wouldn't it be cool to have a list that could gpg each message using a specific key for each member on the list? That's what SecureList aims to do. Plus it can verify signatures from each user so no one can "ghost" the list.
The show doesn't come on until 7:30 in the Penn State area, so I still have time to buy a tape.
It appears as though the Fresh Air people have either been receiving hoardes of nerd e-mail asking "Where's the Linus Torvalds info" on their site, or amortis is just really oblivious to the prominently featured story.. Probably the former, but I don't really know amortis.;)
Btw, WHYY studios are in Philadelphia. What's the Linux goings on in Philly that I don't know about?
I think many people here are confusing the GPL and the LGPL.
GPL'ed code CANNOT BE USED AS A LIBRARY.
LGPL'ed code can. The author chose the GPL. Vidomi has to live with that decision and either GPL their code or use a different library.
Think of the GPL as King Midas. Anything code that touches it turns GPL.
But the solution for Vidomi is simple. Create a back-end, GPL'ed program using the library and just make execv calls to it from the non-GPL program/frontend.
The FSF isn't adverse to taking money. In fact they are a non-profit charity and they accept donations. It says so on the GNU website. While the Actual Damages from such a lawsuit might not come to any amount of money, the Punitive Damages could run into the millions.
Specifically when you're dealing with a corporation, the only right and wrong they understand is money. So in order to send a message that abusing the GPL is wrong, I think the FSF should seek huge punitive damages.
Yeah, now that I think of it, 1024 Gb isn't that impressive. I think you're correct, it was a multiple of terabytes.
<SLIGHTLY OT> Doesn't it piss you off that disk drive manufacturers are claiming that 1 Gb = 1000 Mb in order to protect the "sanctity" of the metric system. What a load of crap. Byte magnitudes have always been on the order of 2^(n*10). Now all of a suddent they need to protect the SI naming convention? Isn't it convenient that this "protection" makes their drives sound larger without actually being that large?
</SLIGHTLY OT>
I guess I've always been partial to XFS and I hope that it becomes the new default filesystem for Linux.
This guy Dave (I forget his last name now), from sgi gave a presentation to the DC-LUG back in 1999 and talked about XFS and how sgi wanted to release it as GPL to become a core component of Linux. He also talked about the history of XFS and how they had to invent a new size prefix to describe how large a filesystem XFS could accomodate ("exo-byte" = 1024 Gb). XFS has been used by sgi for their MIPS and Cray machines ever since 1984, and now that sgi has donated it to the Linux community, I think we'd be remiss if we didn't welcome it with open arms.
People always ask me why I write open source. They want to know why I will give my source code away for free when others can just steal my hard work and claim it as their own. These people, and apparently Mr. Love, are not familiar with the terms of the GPL.
Because of the GPL my open source code is protected. I can give, sell, or rent my code out to someone, but if they change the code and want to distribute it, they have to play by the exact same rules. They can give, sell or rent their changed code, but they have to provide the source and the same licensing mechanism along with it.
IMHO, the GPL is Open Source's STRONGEST point. It ensures that open source programmers won't be taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies who would simply steal their hard work and claim it as their own (which they could under the BSD license). Remember the Halloween Documents? The ones where Microsoft claimed that the biggest threat they faced from Linux (and by logical extension Open Source) was that by sharing the code, open source could harness the peer review and programming power of millions of programmers all over the world. Wouldn't it just play into Microsoft's hand perfectly if they could absorb all this open source power without having to respect the freedom guaranteed by the GPL?
I don't know what Mr. Love's angle is, but I do know that he is gravely mistaken about what the GPL is and what it represents to the Open Source community. It is one of our cornerstones, it is our Bill of Rights, it guarantees software's freedom and provides a safe environment for intellectual exchange, peer review and software maturation.
Why port to lesser hardware?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
I don't want to troll here, but the x86 is a horrible ISA. It contains kludge upon kludge. You disagree? Okay WTF is EAX?! Or MMX!? The ISA is now so horribly convoluted that the only salvation for Intel is to start fresh with the IA64. Intel has already recognized the inherent disadvantages of the CISC approach and now only uses CISC as a frontend to a RISC core.
Motorola recognized that the 68k processors weren't keeping up with the times, and so despite having an ISA that was more straightforward and not even half as convoluted as the x86 was (at the time), they scrapped it and began the PowerPC. Apple has made the right move by sticking with Motorola based processors, and most people stick with Apples because the hardware and software are so closely interwoven. It would be the wrong move for Apple to port to the x86.
This might be redundant, but Millennium brings up some good points. I like to think of the GPL as the King Midas of licenses. All the GPL touches turns GPL.
<SHAMELESS PLUG>I am developing a project called xP</SHAMELESS PLUG> a graphical (X11) interface to Pine (the Program for Internet News & E-mail), (which is quasi-open sourced). But I am also using the XClass toolkit for graphics and widgets, which is LGPL. The great thing about the LGPL stuff is that you can make function calls to it from non-GPL code.
The Pine license stipulates that I cannot distribute a modified version of the Pine code, but I can distribute patches. So I patch the Pine code to make calls to the LGPL'ed XClass code. This way, XClass functions don't violate Pine's license, but more importantly, the xP project doesn't create "illegal" code by requiring Pine to be GPL (which it would be if XClass were GPL and not LGPL).
When navigating tricky waters with questionable licenses, the best is to use LGPL code.. Although in your particular case, you are developing the code that uses GPL code.. You could always license your program under the GPL. That doesn't mean that you can't sell it, just that if you do, you have to provide the source.
SCREW QUANTUM COMPUTING!
on
Stop, Light.
·
· Score: 1
When do we get the damned spaceships?!!:)
This just serves to reinforce the position that NASA is grossly underfunded. In its heyday NASA went from having NO launch capabilities to the Apollo moon missions in 15 years.
What have we spent the last 15 years doing? Servicing the same damned shuttles and only going into low orbit on each trip. There should be a Moore's law for space technology. I think we've progressed computers far enough to keep us happy for a few years, why not concentrate on the space program?
OOP (IMHO -- I'm crazy for the acronyms today), is just a fad. Like structured programming was before it.. Unfortunately a lot of these companies today fall into "trendy" programming methodologies. Personally, I believe you should program using the style you're most comfortable and familiar with. If you're trying to fit a mold it will slow you down..
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't MILnet do this already? Isn't this why when the DoD gave up control of ARPAnet, they forked and created MILnet to retain a secure channel?
Bush needs to lay off the MSN. The U.S. government is already waaaaaaaaaay ahead on this one.
You don't have to be meek to be professional. And if someone spouts a load of crap, it's not the "professional" thing to shut up and ignore it and pretend it's true.
I used to think that too. Before the Skylarov case, I thought that copyright law was fairly straightforward. If you claimed that someone else's content was yours, you were in violation. And it used to be a civil law too. Now after the DMCA (Digital Mind Control Act), copyright is apparently a criminal matter (one were you enjoy no constitutional rights at that) and apparently ANYTHING can be claimed as a copyright violation. Copyright law has gotten way out of hand with the DMCA.
The type of complaint I thought they'd use here is the "Interference with contract" lawsuit (a tactic commonly used in SLAPP suits).
But I wouldn't even understand the basis for that claim. AFAIK, ReplayTV doesn't "edit" the commericals out of live TV for you (otherwise you'd be looking at a black screen for 2 minutes). It edits commericals out of taped shows. But this is something people do anyway. Most people who tape a show and watch it later, will fastforward through the commericals, intros, outros, credits, etc. And if they happen to be watching the same show they're taping, then most just "Pause" the recording during the commercials. There's an old legal saying that goes: "Unless you defend a right, it doesn't exist." Well these networks have never sued VCR manufacturers in the past 20 years for allowing people to edit out commericials on their own. I don't think the networks have the right to challenge it now.
Any competant NETWORK administrator knows Unix.
Why? Because the Internet and TCP/IP is BASED on Unix. If you're just talking about setting up an office print server using SMB (aka NETBIOS), then sure, you don't need to know Unix. But the minute you try to link your network to the Internet, you better be damned sure that you know Unix.
If you're trying to save a few bucks, by hiring you're kid's friend who knows computers as your network admin, then you're just asking to be hit by Code Red or the like.
But if you're SERIOUS about your network security, you'd better be serious about hiring a competant sysadmin.
On CERT, I can find SIX exploits in IIS in this year alone.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-26.html
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-19.html
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-13.html
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-12.html
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-11.html
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2001-10.html
The last Apache exploit mentioned on CERT happened in 1996.
And remember, IIS only accounts for 26% of all web servers on the net (and Apache accounts for 59%) -- so it's NOT just a matter of there being more IIS servers out there to hit.
By in large, Apache will run just fine OOTB. Can you say the same for IIS?
"They won't be using IE to browse the web," they complain. So what? Outside of flashy entertainment sites, what REAL educational web sites use Active-X and Windows-only plugins? None.
"They won't learn how to use MS-Office," they whine. Really? So every student who has an option to use a different word processor at school will automatically be ignorant of another word processor? Couldn't it be that maybe, just maybe their parents have a computer at home running MS-Windows? And just perhaps, they have MS-Office as well? I can tell you, I grew up in schools surrounded by Apple IIE's, and 68k's and PowerPC's, but somehow I still know how to use Windows -- and Linux! And even further, EVERY word processor now offers pretty much the same features, interface, etc (except for LaTeX which is WYMIWYG not WYSIWYG). Not to mention that's it's a friggin' graphical interface. I've met people who have used MS-Word back to Win 3.1, and they still don't know any key commands -- they go to the pull down menus. I knew every WordPerfect key command in 5.1, but somehow I still managed to transition to Word, StarOffice, AbiWord, etc..
"Licenses are only $30/seat, that's really not that expensive," they argue. You know what's a better deal than $30/seat? $nothing/seat. (whoa -- kinda looks like Perl). Linux offers them web-browsing, e-mail, remote administration, virtual virus immunity, default filesystem permissions and the school doesn't have to pay $0.01.
"They need to learn MS-Windows for a job." You know this is pure crap because not every company uses MS-Windows. Aside from that, almost every GUI out there looks and acts the same. They all stole the design from Apple, who in turn stole the design from Xerox-PARC. It's a Graphical-User-Interface. MS likes to brag about how it's so intuitive. So it should be no problem to pick up Windows for a job. And if they want to be a secretary instead of a sysadmin, that's fine. But then they don't need an in depth understanding of Windows to do that job either. All they need to know is where to start typing.
You know I don't want to get too Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence on anyone, but isn't their some practical value to having a deeper understanding of how computers work. I'm not talking about requiring assembly language to be taught in every school. I'm just saying that if people understood more about why their computer does the things it does, then maybe they wouldn't hate it so much. And it seems that the best way to learn this is to use a different operating system. To see how the same machine can appear and run completely different, but still do the same job.
For as much as these same people bash over zealous Linux advocates for trying to force their views on others, they are just as guilty for trying to force their system on kids at school. Most higher education institutions in the country run Unix, so doesn't it make sense for secondary schools to do the same? Especially when it's free?
What are all these people afraid of?
He's not saying you can't do this in Windows, but he is pointing out that you couldn't do this in Windows until RECENTLY.
P.S. How is it that you can STILL be infected by Word Macro viruses under WinNT/2K/XP even though they have user level security?!
There's quite a large number of plaintiffs involved, and they're all seeking different things. Maybe it's better if they do file individual suits against Microsoft. Too many chefs spoil the soup anyhow.
I am writing a graphical interface for Pine (called xP -- note I called it this BEFORE MS introduced their XP), and I have been familiar with the complications of the Pine license for some time. Pine is a great e-mail and newsgroup program, but unfortunately, it does have a significant limitations when it comes to licensing.
There is NO LEGAL WAY these people or companies can close up the source and sell stolen open source programs in the United States or other US license/copyright treaty member nations (read EU, Japan, etc). And if they just try to sell their program in China, they'll probably receive just as much respect for their license as they showed to for the GPL.
I realize this is of little comfort to those who put in the hard work, but if you assume their motivation in stealing your source code was to make money, rest assured that they won't see any.
When I graduate from college (assuming I get hired somewhere) I wanted to give back to VA Linux for all they've given to me by purchasing a VA Linux workstation. This seemed like one of the best ways I could say thanks, but now that they're leaving the hardware business, what can I do?
The man asked a question (who care's what his motives are), and the two comments that bash the person asking the question are modded up +3 and +2, when really they deserve -1.
Meanwhile, the one comment that may be helpful was left at +1.
What the hell good is ask slashdot if you're just going to be berated by the posters for asking a question. Where is the SUPPORT of the open source community?
If you see something you don't recognize (I mean other than http://nsyncgroupies.com) just visit it with a web browser and see what kind of site it is.
This plan isn't foolproof, no form of net monitoring is, b/c if she wants to get around this, she could always go to somewhere like alt.binaries.pictures.teen-idols in a newsgroup reader and you would never know. But its a start.
Of course no amount of net monitoring can take the place of responsible parenting, and I'm glad to see that you are taking a mature attitude towards this.
I don't understand what you mean by Lost the Browser War. It's not something you can win or lose, unless you're talking about giving up from the frustration caused by the monopolistic, anticompetitive tactics of a certain company.
As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux. Konqueror is making inroads, but nobody has as complete a market as netscape.
Check it out!
It appears as though the Fresh Air people have either been receiving hoardes of nerd e-mail asking "Where's the Linus Torvalds info" on their site, or amortis is just really oblivious to the prominently featured story.. Probably the former, but I don't really know amortis. ;)
Btw, WHYY studios are in Philadelphia. What's the Linux goings on in Philly that I don't know about?
GPL'ed code CANNOT BE USED AS A LIBRARY.
LGPL'ed code can. The author chose the GPL. Vidomi has to live with that decision and either GPL their code or use a different library.
Think of the GPL as King Midas. Anything code that touches it turns GPL.
But the solution for Vidomi is simple. Create a back-end, GPL'ed program using the library and just make execv calls to it from the non-GPL program/frontend.
Specifically when you're dealing with a corporation, the only right and wrong they understand is money. So in order to send a message that abusing the GPL is wrong, I think the FSF should seek huge punitive damages.
<SLIGHTLY OT>
Doesn't it piss you off that disk drive manufacturers are claiming that 1 Gb = 1000 Mb in order to protect the "sanctity" of the metric system. What a load of crap. Byte magnitudes have always been on the order of 2^(n*10). Now all of a suddent they need to protect the SI naming convention? Isn't it convenient that this "protection" makes their drives sound larger without actually being that large?
</SLIGHTLY OT>
This guy Dave (I forget his last name now), from sgi gave a presentation to the DC-LUG back in 1999 and talked about XFS and how sgi wanted to release it as GPL to become a core component of Linux. He also talked about the history of XFS and how they had to invent a new size prefix to describe how large a filesystem XFS could accomodate ("exo-byte" = 1024 Gb). XFS has been used by sgi for their MIPS and Cray machines ever since 1984, and now that sgi has donated it to the Linux community, I think we'd be remiss if we didn't welcome it with open arms.
But that's just MHO. ;)
People always ask me why I write open source. They want to know why I will give my source code away for free when others can just steal my hard work and claim it as their own. These people, and apparently Mr. Love, are not familiar with the terms of the GPL.
Because of the GPL my open source code is protected. I can give, sell, or rent my code out to someone, but if they change the code and want to distribute it, they have to play by the exact same rules. They can give, sell or rent their changed code, but they have to provide the source and the same licensing mechanism along with it.
IMHO, the GPL is Open Source's STRONGEST point. It ensures that open source programmers won't be taken advantage of by unscrupulous companies who would simply steal their hard work and claim it as their own (which they could under the BSD license). Remember the Halloween Documents? The ones where Microsoft claimed that the biggest threat they faced from Linux (and by logical extension Open Source) was that by sharing the code, open source could harness the peer review and programming power of millions of programmers all over the world. Wouldn't it just play into Microsoft's hand perfectly if they could absorb all this open source power without having to respect the freedom guaranteed by the GPL?
I don't know what Mr. Love's angle is, but I do know that he is gravely mistaken about what the GPL is and what it represents to the Open Source community. It is one of our cornerstones, it is our Bill of Rights, it guarantees software's freedom and provides a safe environment for intellectual exchange, peer review and software maturation.
Motorola recognized that the 68k processors weren't keeping up with the times, and so despite having an ISA that was more straightforward and not even half as convoluted as the x86 was (at the time), they scrapped it and began the PowerPC. Apple has made the right move by sticking with Motorola based processors, and most people stick with Apples because the hardware and software are so closely interwoven. It would be the wrong move for Apple to port to the x86.
<SHAMELESS PLUG>I am developing a project called xP</SHAMELESS PLUG> a graphical (X11) interface to Pine (the Program for Internet News & E-mail), (which is quasi-open sourced). But I am also using the XClass toolkit for graphics and widgets, which is LGPL. The great thing about the LGPL stuff is that you can make function calls to it from non-GPL code.
The Pine license stipulates that I cannot distribute a modified version of the Pine code, but I can distribute patches. So I patch the Pine code to make calls to the LGPL'ed XClass code. This way, XClass functions don't violate Pine's license, but more importantly, the xP project doesn't create "illegal" code by requiring Pine to be GPL (which it would be if XClass were GPL and not LGPL).
When navigating tricky waters with questionable licenses, the best is to use LGPL code.. Although in your particular case, you are developing the code that uses GPL code.. You could always license your program under the GPL. That doesn't mean that you can't sell it, just that if you do, you have to provide the source.
When do we get the damned spaceships?!! :)
This just serves to reinforce the position that NASA is grossly underfunded. In its heyday NASA went from having NO launch capabilities to the Apollo moon missions in 15 years.
What have we spent the last 15 years doing? Servicing the same damned shuttles and only going into low orbit on each trip. There should be a Moore's law for space technology. I think we've progressed computers far enough to keep us happy for a few years, why not concentrate on the space program?
OOP (IMHO -- I'm crazy for the acronyms today), is just a fad. Like structured programming was before it.. Unfortunately a lot of these companies today fall into "trendy" programming methodologies. Personally, I believe you should program using the style you're most comfortable and familiar with. If you're trying to fit a mold it will slow you down..