They use the term esport to differentiate from traditional sports. Clearly it's what would be categorized as a competitive game, like poker, chess, and other competitive games, and not a sport, which historically differed from a competitive game via athleticism.
In that sense, would you consider bowling or golf sports? Certainly neither are what most would consider athletic. It's more or less a meaningless distinction, though.
I've got an X series (X1 carbon) I like as well, if you want a smaller/lighter notebook. Only thing I don't like is the ssd size options aren't as good as apples. Lenovo should really offer 512 and 768g ssd options.
I suspect when they say consumers won't be able to download the operating system they mean google won't be providing a package for end users, nor will it support installation.
As for the os itself, I wonder if it'll support native client or not...i suspect so, it might not be half bad at the low end of the netbook market, which seems to be where they are aiming.
Except, gksudo doesn't come up in response to a failed security authentication. gksudo comes up because the control panel knows it needs administrator permissions and explicitly calls gksudo. gksudo is not sitting around behind the scenes, watching for authentication failures.
Pretty much this. A closer comparison to these patent claims would be openbsd's systrace w/ priv escalation, rather than sudo. Even that's not quite the same thing, though, and is primarily designed for a different purpose. They key behind this patent seems to be that the application does not need to be sudo-aware, and invoke it explicitly -- and it just happens passively as a result of a failure due to permissions.
Also, in the patent apps references section, they call out gksudo, sudo, and several other unix tools that are similar to this if you only read the abstract.
Sure, any wow player can take a few hours out of their tuesday morning to watch the movie, as long as it doesn't extend past 11am pst, there's no problem.
Any software developer is going to probably have their work pirated at one time or another. You have to assess whether or not the people downloading it for free are likely customers. Maybe some are, but likely the vast majority are not.
However, pirate bay did not pirate anything, the facilitated the piracy. They played a relatively small role in piracy, it's like suing an irc network for pirating your software, it's a little bit silly once you think about it.
The answer is simple, it slows down the whole network. The other impact is that things like torrents will more likely produce cease and desist letters to owners of exit nodes, which discourages people from running exit nodes, and it's already difficult enough to convince people to run an exit node.
It's because google insists on writing cross platform apps that are actually native, and dont look like crap. These considerations don't apply to most open source cross platform apps, which take the lazy way out and use gtk, qt, or some other cross platform widget set, to the users' dismay.
Making your personal project into a FOSS one doesn't come burdened with many responsibilities, but it does carry one: to act reasonably on behalf of your users, and that includes acting upon their suggestions --- yes, even some of the whiny ones because where there is smoke there is also usually fire. Putting yourself beyond criticism and beyond appeal for change is not a responsible attitude, and defending the unresponsive developer and/or his bad practice is itself the height of irresponsibility to the users of a project.
Making any project FOSS only means the license is a free or open source license. If you want to participate in the project and effect change, being a whiney user is probably not the most effective course of action. Many projects will just ignore you, or take the position that your ideas are great, email me again when your patch is ready.
...and then reject your patch because it didn't comply with the projects coding practices.
If, on the other hand, you're just whining to whine, and point out problems, that's fine. Just don't mistake that as something productively seeking change, because it won't change anything. It might make you feel a bit better, smug and superior and all, but the project is most likely going to ignore you entirely.
Unix has moved from being an operating system, and in modern times is a set of standards, so basically he's right, linux is unix -- it complies to most of the standards people find relevant. There's no shared code with system v though, nor is it certified (it's unix, but not UNIX).
This does not mean that linux is based on sco or novell code, though. Not all UNIXes are; for example, OS X is also unix, although in the case of leopard it is actually certified as being so, but as in linux, does not share any code with system v (that i'm aware of, anyways).
So yes, he's right, linux is an implementation of unix. It's not a copy of the source, though. That's like saying glibc is a copy of microsoft's libc because they both conform to the ansi standard (ok bad example, because microsoft doesn't conform to the standard in various ways).
Both the ROR and del.icio.us examples are not prior arts because the format is not domain/searchstring which the patent requires. Of those cited, the only one i've seen that meets the requirement is php.net.
Your examples don't infringe on the patent because they are prefixed by/wiki/. If the example was "http://en.wikipedia.org/some random search term" then it may be different. In your example, you'd either be searching for '/wiki/SomeStupidRandomSearchTerm' or going to a specific defined URL.
If you accept that piracy is copyright infringement (and not stealing) then you can certainly pirate free things. There's many cases of free software being pirated, for example. This is little different, the price may have been zero, but nothing gave anyone rights to redistribute that free material. Ergo, it was pirated.
Try that in 64 bit windows, see how it works out for you.
I dont use usb wifi adapters, but I have no problem with minipci or pcmcia adapters that work in all major operating systems. ath chipsets work well, as do most intel chipsets. Certain intel chipsets need binary drivers, I don't tend to use anything but ath and intel.
I mostly use laptops, and I have no problems getting things working, and most people consider the issues involved with laptop support to be much more challenging than desktop support. Things largely just work (and i mostly use freebsd, which has by most accounts less consumer hardware support than linux).
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, but if it really concerns you, the proper thing to do is just not buy from any vendor that doesnt release hardware documentation, which means researching the device (and the chipset the device uses) before purchase.
Linux supports more devices out of the box than windows does. It's that simple.
I'm willing to bet your usb wifi device was not supported by windows out of the box, it's almost certain it came with a windows driver. No OS can support every device ever made.
If you stick to hardware where specs are available, it will usually work well in all oses. If you use hardware which doesnt make specs available, it will usually only work in windows, and even there sometimes not well (depends how well they wrote the driver).
I'm looking at the kernel source tree now, and I don't see any of those things. What subdir are they contained in, or have you perhaps confused Linux for GNU?
"Changing the memory address layout is roughly akin to doing home security by locking different doors on different nights, but always leaving one unlocked. The would-be burglar just has to try all the doors to get in. Doing this kind of thing is trivial on a computer."
Yes, it's just like that, except you have millions of doors, and a intruder can only try to open one door per night, and the unlocked door changes randomly every night.
"People really need to stop adding these kinds of things that increase complexity and do not address the real issue, which in this case is access to the memory space of another application without some sort of credential or approval. When the real problem is addressed, this overly complex and fundamentally useless random memory address layout 'feature' will be left in to cause bugs and complexity forever."
This has nothing to do with access to the memory space of another application.
If sandboxing is systrace as the article mentions, does this mean they have solved the problems related to syscall wrappers first disclosed by watson's woot07 paper? Is the infrastructure tied directly into the system calls instead, or have they simply ignored the problem?
Yeah, installing mac software is a royal pain. I have to download it, and then drop it into whatever location I want it to live. It's insanely difficult.
I've not heard of sqlite being attempted to be sold back to its author ever, much less 30 minutes later. However yes, I agree -- most people are afraid of freeing their code. It's unfortunate.
"Perhaps now the "BSD is the only free license!!!" zealots will admit that they too want to restrict what others can do with their code. (There is no "100% freedom".)"
Which zealots are these again? I've never seen any bsd zealotry that claimed bsd was the one free license (ie: that would criticize someone for using, say, the mit license). BSD is a permissive license, as such you are afforded greater freedom than the gpl, and less freedom than the public domain.
If software has a copyright, it can never really be free.
If your question is 'will microsoft open source their core competencies, like windows and office' I think the answer is clearly no, not under this nor any other license. However, if your question is 'will microsoft use this license for software they already give away or plan to' I think the answer might be maybe. They've already got some open source software (things like wtl), which I think might be a good fit for MS-PL.
Slashdot Mirror
They use the term esport to differentiate from traditional sports. Clearly it's what would be categorized as a competitive game, like poker, chess, and other competitive games, and not a sport, which historically differed from a competitive game via athleticism.
In that sense, would you consider bowling or golf sports? Certainly neither are what most would consider athletic. It's more or less a meaningless distinction, though.
I've got an X series (X1 carbon) I like as well, if you want a smaller/lighter notebook. Only thing I don't like is the ssd size options aren't as good as apples. Lenovo should really offer 512 and 768g ssd options.
I suspect when they say consumers won't be able to download the operating system they mean google won't be providing a package for end users, nor will it support installation.
As for the os itself, I wonder if it'll support native client or not...i suspect so, it might not be half bad at the low end of the netbook market, which seems to be where they are aiming.
Except, gksudo doesn't come up in response to a failed security authentication. gksudo comes up because the control panel knows it needs administrator permissions and explicitly calls gksudo. gksudo is not sitting around behind the scenes, watching for authentication failures.
Pretty much this. A closer comparison to these patent claims would be openbsd's systrace w/ priv escalation, rather than sudo. Even that's not quite the same thing, though, and is primarily designed for a different purpose. They key behind this patent seems to be that the application does not need to be sudo-aware, and invoke it explicitly -- and it just happens passively as a result of a failure due to permissions.
Also, in the patent apps references section, they call out gksudo, sudo, and several other unix tools that are similar to this if you only read the abstract.
Sure, any wow player can take a few hours out of their tuesday morning to watch the movie, as long as it doesn't extend past 11am pst, there's no problem.
Any software developer is going to probably have their work pirated at one time or another. You have to assess whether or not the people downloading it for free are likely customers. Maybe some are, but likely the vast majority are not.
However, pirate bay did not pirate anything, the facilitated the piracy. They played a relatively small role in piracy, it's like suing an irc network for pirating your software, it's a little bit silly once you think about it.
The answer is simple, it slows down the whole network. The other impact is that things like torrents will more likely produce cease and desist letters to owners of exit nodes, which discourages people from running exit nodes, and it's already difficult enough to convince people to run an exit node.
It's because google insists on writing cross platform apps that are actually native, and dont look like crap. These considerations don't apply to most open source cross platform apps, which take the lazy way out and use gtk, qt, or some other cross platform widget set, to the users' dismay.
Making your personal project into a FOSS one doesn't come burdened with many responsibilities, but it does carry one: to act reasonably on behalf of your users, and that includes acting upon their suggestions --- yes, even some of the whiny ones because where there is smoke there is also usually fire. Putting yourself beyond criticism and beyond appeal for change is not a responsible attitude, and defending the unresponsive developer and/or his bad practice is itself the height of irresponsibility to the users of a project.
Making any project FOSS only means the license is a free or open source license. If you want to participate in the project and effect change, being a whiney user is probably not the most effective course of action. Many projects will just ignore you, or take the position that your ideas are great, email me again when your patch is ready.
...and then reject your patch because it didn't comply with the projects coding practices.
If, on the other hand, you're just whining to whine, and point out problems, that's fine. Just don't mistake that as something productively seeking change, because it won't change anything. It might make you feel a bit better, smug and superior and all, but the project is most likely going to ignore you entirely.
Unix has moved from being an operating system, and in modern times is a set of standards, so basically he's right, linux is unix -- it complies to most of the standards people find relevant. There's no shared code with system v though, nor is it certified (it's unix, but not UNIX).
This does not mean that linux is based on sco or novell code, though. Not all UNIXes are; for example, OS X is also unix, although in the case of leopard it is actually certified as being so, but as in linux, does not share any code with system v (that i'm aware of, anyways).
So yes, he's right, linux is an implementation of unix. It's not a copy of the source, though. That's like saying glibc is a copy of microsoft's libc because they both conform to the ansi standard (ok bad example, because microsoft doesn't conform to the standard in various ways).
Both the ROR and del.icio.us examples are not prior arts because the format is not domain/searchstring which the patent requires. Of those cited, the only one i've seen that meets the requirement is php.net.
Your examples don't infringe on the patent because they are prefixed by /wiki/. If the example was "http://en.wikipedia.org/some random search term" then it may be different. In your example, you'd either be searching for '/wiki/SomeStupidRandomSearchTerm' or going to a specific defined URL.
If you accept that piracy is copyright infringement (and not stealing) then you can certainly pirate free things. There's many cases of free software being pirated, for example. This is little different, the price may have been zero, but nothing gave anyone rights to redistribute that free material. Ergo, it was pirated.
Try that in 64 bit windows, see how it works out for you.
I dont use usb wifi adapters, but I have no problem with minipci or pcmcia adapters that work in all major operating systems. ath chipsets work well, as do most intel chipsets. Certain intel chipsets need binary drivers, I don't tend to use anything but ath and intel.
I mostly use laptops, and I have no problems getting things working, and most people consider the issues involved with laptop support to be much more challenging than desktop support. Things largely just work (and i mostly use freebsd, which has by most accounts less consumer hardware support than linux).
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, but if it really concerns you, the proper thing to do is just not buy from any vendor that doesnt release hardware documentation, which means researching the device (and the chipset the device uses) before purchase.
Linux supports more devices out of the box than windows does. It's that simple.
I'm willing to bet your usb wifi device was not supported by windows out of the box, it's almost certain it came with a windows driver. No OS can support every device ever made.
If you stick to hardware where specs are available, it will usually work well in all oses. If you use hardware which doesnt make specs available, it will usually only work in windows, and even there sometimes not well (depends how well they wrote the driver).
I'm looking at the kernel source tree now, and I don't see any of those things. What subdir are they contained in, or have you perhaps confused Linux for GNU?
"Changing the memory address layout is roughly akin to doing home security by locking different doors on different nights, but always leaving one unlocked. The would-be burglar just has to try all the doors to get in. Doing this kind of thing is trivial on a computer."
Yes, it's just like that, except you have millions of doors, and a intruder can only try to open one door per night, and the unlocked door changes randomly every night.
"People really need to stop adding these kinds of things that increase complexity and do not address the real issue, which in this case is access to the memory space of another application without some sort of credential or approval. When the real problem is addressed, this overly complex and fundamentally useless random memory address layout 'feature' will be left in to cause bugs and complexity forever."
This has nothing to do with access to the memory space of another application.
If sandboxing is systrace as the article mentions, does this mean they have solved the problems related to syscall wrappers first disclosed by watson's woot07 paper? Is the infrastructure tied directly into the system calls instead, or have they simply ignored the problem?
http://www.watson.org/~robert/2007woot/
Yeah, installing mac software is a royal pain. I have to download it, and then drop it into whatever location I want it to live. It's insanely difficult.
I've not heard of sqlite being attempted to be sold back to its author ever, much less 30 minutes later. However yes, I agree -- most people are afraid of freeing their code. It's unfortunate.
"Perhaps now the "BSD is the only free license!!!" zealots will admit that they too want to restrict what others can do with their code. (There is no "100% freedom".)"
Which zealots are these again? I've never seen any bsd zealotry that claimed bsd was the one free license (ie: that would criticize someone for using, say, the mit license). BSD is a permissive license, as such you are afforded greater freedom than the gpl, and less freedom than the public domain.
If software has a copyright, it can never really be free.
Slavery can be a good thing too, cept they tend to beat you.
...unless it's a library, then encumbering use is ok.
If your question is 'will microsoft open source their core competencies, like windows and office' I think the answer is clearly no, not under this nor any other license. However, if your question is 'will microsoft use this license for software they already give away or plan to' I think the answer might be maybe. They've already got some open source software (things like wtl), which I think might be a good fit for MS-PL.
vi...bah.
you kids and your fancy screen oriented editors. Back in the day we had ed, and were glad to have it!