More likely, not being a native speaker, he might have used words in speech but while writing it, he might have felt the need to look up the correct spelling. Instead of assuming (as a native speaker would) that he knew it already.
I really don't see your complaint with Linus. His responses to the SCO mess have been few, concice, mostly funny and basically along the lines of: "show me, otherwise I have better things to do"
He IS being attacked personally and has every right to respond. Bringing out a new kernel doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I doubt that the SCO top or anybody else will hear about it. Or care about it as much as you do.
An ambassador can invisibly accomplish much that a foot-soldier never could.
Hmm well a lot of things can be said about Stallman, I for one love him for his contributions to the world, his honesty and steadfastness, even though I disagree on a lot of his points, but an ambassador working quietly he is definetly not!
Linus is much more the quiet ambassador type person, but he's usually to busy coding when I try to call him to exchange some quiet ambassador type banter:-).
The fact that US soldiers can't be tried by the International Criminal Court has nothing to do with this: war crimes are crimes against US law just as much as against international law, and 'I was just obeying orders' is no excuse.
Except ofcourse, that it MIGHT be an excuse if you are tried by the same people who gave the orders in the first place. More likely there wouldn't be a trial at all. So tell me again how the USA refusal to work with the International Criminal Court has nothing to do with this?
Ok ok that was a bit unfair (and waaay off-topic to boot) I don't think the US army is particularly evil or that it commits gruesome crimes on the whole, but justice can only be served by an independant organisation.
The idea is not that you cannot discriminate based on the qualifications you need for a job!
Clearly being stupid makes you the wrong choice for a teaching position at MIT.
I'm sure that if a movie company was looking to fill a role defined as 'average white dude' and a black woman showed up for the part, they could safely tell her she didn't get the job for being both black AND female and get away with it.
In most jobs however your color, gender, sexual orientation or religion don't matter to the job you're supposed to do. Only your skills. And the fact is that discriminating on these things is illegal.
You don't know anything about Linux do you?? Not-a-thing...
Ah...honesty, I like you already! (said as a joke, but realy heartfelt:-))
1. People that use Linux stay on top and keep things patched and up to date. Nice generalization. It'd be nicer if it were true.
Full points for you! Seriously, people that use linux are just that, people that use linux.
There is no mythical linux user!
2. Look at the versions of Linux listed, most of them are OLDER versions. We've moved on past those versions. I suppose, then, Microsoft could make the same claim about anything prior to XP when a vulnerability is reported. "Oh, we've moved on..." Furthermore, seeing that these vulnerabilities are found up into Linux kernel 2.4.21 and the latest stable is 2.4.22, one can hardly call these "old."
Hmmmm...well I think we can safely say that the parent poster is a bit of a zealous moron. Anyway MS actually does this with older versions of windows and I think they should have a bigger obligation than software that comes free!
With free software the upgrade path is more natural. As long as there is interest it will be maintained. Even when it is no longer maintained the cost of upgrading will be no more then the cost of upgrading itself plus the cost of any help you might need.
3. It's just not a big problem. Linux is much harder to comprimise. Script kiddies can hack Windows real easy, it takes no brains, just a mouse. I'm afraid typing `gcc -o 0day exploit.c; 0day` doesn't take much more in the way of intelligence, either.
Uhm this is a bit of a silly argument. The fact that you can compile a virus on a system doesn't make the system vurnerable to that virus.
Anyway, you werer right about the parent poster:-)
Even more, MS promises everybody that wants to buy their software that they will be able to use the Internet, email and more without any hassles.
Then when a problem apears they turn around and say 'yes, well the patch has been out for months, if people don't use it it's their own fault'. Most home users won't even be aware of a problem, let alone a fix to it!
If MS ran page-wide ads in all major newspapers and asked attention from other news-media to alert people that there is a problem with the software they're running. If MS let's them know there is an issue and a fix to it, and that if they can't figure it out they can call a toll-free hotline where, if they still can't figure it out, they can also order a free of charge cd to fix the problem.Then, and only then, I will stop blaming MS for the mess they keep making
Nobody hates car manufacturers when a flaw is found because they do exactly these kind of things.
Heh, I can't imagine that many americans saw this but yesterday our prime minister (the Netherlands) visited the white-house and he managed to look like a bigger idiot than bush, even standing next to him. Quite an accomplishment if you ask me;).
P.S. yes, way offtopic here and I'm very ashamed and I promise that perhaps I'll never do it again:)
short for anal-retentive, a 'clever' way of articulating someone has a detail-oriented obsession or obsessive-compulsive behavior. It describes the person as unable to relax, or constipated.
Geeh, thanks. This and the rest of your post sure made things clear to me!:-)
require all software to be guaranteed to perform substantially as indicated on the packaging
Well the thing to remember here is that, to most users (ok let's be frank here, we're talking about MS right?:-)) MS software does perform as indicated . The problem is that it leaves them dangerously vulnerable on other fronts.
If the software would't work as advertised then the laws in most countries would give you the right to a refund without anything additional.
I think a solution might be to force software vendors to show some of that due dilligence in alerting their customers to the problem.. For what it's worth Microsoft DID have patches for the vulnerabilities already out. But most home users probably weren't aware of any problem, let alone a fix to it untill it hit them.
Let them, and any other vendor that makes their customers vulnerable, do the same thing that happens in other industries. Have them use their retail channels to reach every last customer they can and then have them place page-wide adds in the major newspapers of every country they sell their products in, just to make sure to reach everybody.
The message, offourse, should be: "there is a problem with the product you bought from us, here's what you should do....if you need help, call our toll-free helpdesk at +++ where you can also order (free of charge) a cd to remedy the problem".
I don't blame Microsoft for bugs and holes (well ok, I do a little bit), but I do blame them for making software that makes it possible for virtually anyone to use a computer and the Internet and then when a problem arises, turn around and say: "yes well they should have patched: it's not our fault if our customers are morons". Probably not what they said but near enough:-)
While I apreciate your loyalty and I sincerely hope that both you and Mr. Ellison live long and productive lives, comments realy are a lot better when you have at least passing knowledge of the subject at hand.
I think the popularity of MySQL has A LOT to do with the surge in DB-driven websites and little-shop-of-horror IT shops that want to offer them without any know-how.
With MySQL they hardly need to. Whatever gripes you might have with MySQL, it does have this: it is a breeze to administer and work with.
I once heard a fellow programmer say to an intern, in the stern voice of experience: "normalization? I don't even know what it means and I've been working with databases for years, you don't need it!". Not an a attitude I apploud, but one that made MySQL very popular I think.
MySQL IS the popular database and they're working very hard to catch-up featurewise (I bless them for it). But it has a user base that is not really interested in the 'real' RDBMS features.I can't see why their popularity now means anything in the long run.
Before any flames apear:-), I have used both extensively and love both for different reasons. Postgres for it's maturity and features, and MySQL for it's simplicity and ease of use (you really don't need postgres to make a guestbook:-)).
The important thing to remember is that in the end we'll have a fully mature free RDBMS. Either it's MySQL catching-upl, Postgres slowly moving toward it with a headstart.
What will you say when you are not allowed to speak about an issue, or a candidate you hate, because of your laws? [snip]...But what if you want to put together a web site advocating someone. Or fighting against someone. The "laws" that your precious socialistas put together make that kind of thing a "campaign contribution" and ban it. Even if it's just with your own money and you have no official connection to a candidate.
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there supposed to be something like 'freedom of speech'in the US? Obviously regimes that surpress that are bad to democracy in ANY form. None of this is any reason not reform campaign contributions!
Check it out, it happened in the US sometime in the last couple years. I don't have the energy to look it up for you.
Well I don't have the energy to look it up either, but people being banned from excersizing their right is wrong whatever way you look at it. It's a reason to fight the injustice of whatever case you're reffering to, certainly not a reason to all go running in the opposite direction towards what (in my belief) is a lot worse!
I think you're missing the point here. SCO, in the same faq, keeps hammering on the point that end users are liable and that they need a proper license (from CSO ofcourse) but then they go on to state that if you cannot get a license (because you are distributing a kernel yourself) that maybe you should outsource or buy a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux.
So exactly why should end users buy a SCO license then? Evidently SCO thinks you're in the clear if you licensed from someone else.....
Why would anybody pay their outrageous prices after reading their faq?
Shamelesly reposting the same thing to another thread, but this is what their linux license faq states:
the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?
Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users.
So in other words, if you bought, or have a redistributed version of linux then you're already in the clear...even though the faq states quite clearly that EVERY LINUX USER need their license....
I mean, am I reading this wrong or can't these guys get their faqs straight?
Got this off the CSO linux license faq...wich along with other CSO faqs is a funny thing to read in it's own right:-)
If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do? Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users.
So in other words, if you bought, or got a redistributed version of linux then you're already in the clear...even though the faq states quite clearly that EVERY LINUX USER need their license....
I mean am I reading this wrong or can't these guys get their faqs straight?
Slashdot Mirror
More likely, not being a native speaker, he might have used words in speech but while writing it, he might have felt the need to look up the correct spelling. Instead of assuming (as a native speaker would) that he knew it already.
I really don't see your complaint with Linus. His responses to the SCO mess have been few, concice, mostly funny and basically along the lines of: "show me, otherwise I have better things to do"
He IS being attacked personally and has every right to respond. Bringing out a new kernel doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. I doubt that the SCO top or anybody else will hear about it. Or care about it as much as you do.
An ambassador can invisibly accomplish much that a foot-soldier never could.
:-).
Hmm well a lot of things can be said about Stallman, I for one love him for his contributions to the world, his honesty and steadfastness, even though I disagree on a lot of his points, but an ambassador working quietly he is definetly not!
Linus is much more the quiet ambassador type person, but he's usually to busy coding when I try to call him to exchange some quiet ambassador type banter
The fact that US soldiers can't be tried by the International Criminal Court has nothing to do with this: war crimes are crimes against US law just as much as against international law, and 'I was just obeying orders' is no excuse.
Except ofcourse, that it MIGHT be an excuse if you are tried by the same people who gave the orders in the first place. More likely there wouldn't be a trial at all. So tell me again how the USA refusal to work with the International Criminal Court has nothing to do with this?
Ok ok that was a bit unfair (and waaay off-topic to boot) I don't think the US army is particularly evil or that it commits gruesome crimes on the whole, but justice can only be served by an independant organisation.
The US is giving a very bad example here.
The idea is not that you cannot discriminate based on the qualifications you need for a job!
:)
Clearly being stupid makes you the wrong choice for a teaching position at MIT.
I'm sure that if a movie company was looking to fill a role defined as 'average white dude' and a black woman showed up for the part, they could safely tell her she didn't get the job for being both black AND female and get away with it.
In most jobs however your color, gender, sexual orientation or religion don't matter to the job you're supposed to do. Only your skills. And the fact is that discriminating on these things is illegal.
Ok too many beers, time for bed
War?? Fun to watch??? Bah is all I say!
You don't know anything about Linux do you??
:-))
:-)
Not-a-thing...
Ah...honesty, I like you already! (said as a joke, but realy heartfelt
1. People that use Linux stay on top and keep things patched and up to date.
Nice generalization. It'd be nicer if it were true.
Full points for you! Seriously, people that use linux are just that, people that use linux.
There is no mythical linux user!
2. Look at the versions of Linux listed, most of them are OLDER versions. We've moved on past those versions.
I suppose, then, Microsoft could make the same claim about anything prior to XP when a vulnerability is reported. "Oh, we've moved on..." Furthermore, seeing that these vulnerabilities are found up into Linux kernel 2.4.21 and the latest stable is 2.4.22, one can hardly call these "old."
Hmmmm...well I think we can safely say that the parent poster is a bit of a zealous moron. Anyway MS actually does this with older versions of windows and I think they should have a bigger obligation than software that comes free!
With free software the upgrade path is more natural. As long as there is interest it will be maintained. Even when it is no longer maintained the cost of upgrading will be no more then the cost of upgrading itself plus the cost of any help you might need.
3. It's just not a big problem. Linux is much harder to comprimise. Script kiddies can hack Windows real easy, it takes no brains, just a mouse.
I'm afraid typing `gcc -o 0day exploit.c; 0day` doesn't take much more in the way of intelligence, either.
Uhm this is a bit of a silly argument. The fact that you can compile a virus on a system doesn't make the system vurnerable to that virus.
Anyway, you werer right about the parent poster
Even more, MS promises everybody that wants to buy their software that they will be able to use the Internet, email and more without any hassles.
Then when a problem apears they turn around and say 'yes, well the patch has been out for months, if people don't use it it's their own fault'. Most home users won't even be aware of a problem, let alone a fix to it!
If MS ran page-wide ads in all major newspapers and asked attention from other news-media to alert people that there is a problem with the software they're running. If MS let's them know there is an issue and a fix to it, and that if they can't figure it out they can call a toll-free hotline where, if they still can't figure it out, they can also order a free of charge cd to fix the problem.Then, and only then, I will stop blaming MS for the mess they keep making
Nobody hates car manufacturers when a flaw is found because they do exactly these kind of things.
I mislike MS because they can but won't!
Well I've never had either, soooo . . .
:-)
So....we both should spend some time away from slashdot
Heh, I can't imagine that many americans saw this but yesterday our prime minister (the Netherlands) visited the white-house and he managed to look like a bigger idiot than bush, even standing next to him. Quite an accomplishment if you ask me ;).
:)
P.S. yes, way offtopic here and I'm very ashamed and I promise that perhaps I'll never do it again
GPL: Free as in Herpes
:)
Huh? As in, you can't get it if you don't have sex?
That's not true, I swear!
short for anal-retentive, a 'clever' way of articulating someone has a detail-oriented obsession or obsessive-compulsive behavior. It describes the person as unable to relax, or constipated.
:-)
Geeh, thanks. This and the rest of your post sure made things clear to me!
require all software to be guaranteed to perform substantially as indicated on the packaging
:-)) MS software does perform as indicated . The problem is that it leaves them dangerously vulnerable on other fronts.
:-)
Well the thing to remember here is that, to most users (ok let's be frank here, we're talking about MS right?
If the software would't work as advertised then the laws in most countries would give you the right to a refund without anything additional.
I think a solution might be to force software vendors to show some of that due dilligence in alerting their customers to the problem.. For what it's worth Microsoft DID have patches for the vulnerabilities already out. But most home users probably weren't aware of any problem, let alone a fix to it untill it hit them.
Let them, and any other vendor that makes their customers vulnerable, do the same thing that happens in other industries. Have them use their retail channels to reach every last customer they can and then have them place page-wide adds in the major newspapers of every country they sell their products in, just to make sure to reach everybody.
The message, offourse, should be: "there is a problem with the product you bought from us, here's what you should do....if you need help, call our toll-free helpdesk at +++ where you can also order (free of charge) a cd to remedy the problem".
I don't blame Microsoft for bugs and holes (well ok, I do a little bit), but I do blame them for making software that makes it possible for virtually anyone to use a computer and the Internet and then when a problem arises, turn around and say: "yes well they should have patched: it's not our fault if our customers are morons". Probably not what they said but near enough
While I apreciate your loyalty and I sincerely hope that both you and Mr. Ellison live long and productive lives, comments realy are a lot better when you have at least passing knowledge of the subject at hand.
I think the popularity of MySQL has A LOT to do with the surge in DB-driven websites and little-shop-of-horror IT shops that want to offer them without any know-how.
:-), I have used both extensively and love both for different reasons. Postgres for it's maturity and features, and MySQL for it's simplicity and ease of use (you really don't need postgres to make a guestbook :-)).
With MySQL they hardly need to. Whatever gripes you might have with MySQL, it does have this: it is a breeze to administer and work with.
I once heard a fellow programmer say to an intern, in the stern voice of experience: "normalization? I don't even know what it means and I've been working with databases for years, you don't need it!". Not an a attitude I apploud, but one that made MySQL very popular I think.
MySQL IS the popular database and they're working very hard to catch-up featurewise (I bless them for it). But it has a user base that is not really interested in the 'real' RDBMS features.I can't see why their popularity now means anything in the long run.
Before any flames apear
The important thing to remember is that in the end we'll have a fully mature free RDBMS. Either it's MySQL catching-upl, Postgres slowly moving toward it with a headstart.
"PostgreSQL Inc, the commercial company providing replication software and support for PostgreSQL, open sourced their eRServer replication product"
Many thanks you guys....we've been waiting for this a long time
OK, problem: which one of the machines is running the copied version?
What will you say when you are not allowed to speak about an issue, or a candidate you hate, because of your laws? [snip]...But what if you want to put together a web site advocating someone. Or fighting against someone. The "laws" that your precious socialistas put together make that kind of thing a "campaign contribution" and ban it. Even if it's just with your own money and you have no official connection to a candidate.
Well correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there supposed to be something like 'freedom of speech'in the US? Obviously regimes that surpress that are bad to democracy in ANY form. None of this is any reason not reform campaign contributions!
Check it out, it happened in the US sometime in the last couple years. I don't have the energy to look it up for you.
Well I don't have the energy to look it up either, but people being banned from excersizing their right is wrong whatever way you look at it. It's a reason to fight the injustice of whatever case you're reffering to, certainly not a reason to all go running in the opposite direction towards what (in my belief) is a lot worse!
that would lead to the fact that government would favor those politicians that are closeer to their political views.
If every candidate gets THE SAME amount of money, how could the gov. favor anyone?
To me thats pretty democratic. And its a open system, that promotes politicans that wants the best for our great country.
Actually it promotes politicians who want the best for people and corporations that have money to give.
At the same time this system helps bussiness achive their goals, something thats good for our country.
Ehr, this is good for the country, and more importantly to the people in it, exactly how?
I'll take sperm, egg sausage and sperm, that hasn't got much sperm in it.
Ok, forgive me I'll go away quietly now.
Hmm really, I don't follow Leviticus that closely anymore :-)
I think you're missing the point here. SCO, in the same faq, keeps hammering on the point that end users are liable and that they need a proper license (from CSO ofcourse) but then they go on to state that if you cannot get a license (because you are distributing a kernel yourself) that maybe you should outsource or buy a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux.
So exactly why should end users buy a SCO license then? Evidently SCO thinks you're in the clear if you licensed from someone else.....
Why would anybody pay their outrageous prices after reading their faq?
Shamelesly reposting the same thing to another thread, but this is what their linux license faq states:
the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?
Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users.
So in other words, if you bought, or have a redistributed version of linux then you're already in the clear...even though the faq states quite clearly that EVERY LINUX USER need their license.... I mean, am I reading this wrong or can't these guys get their faqs straight?
Got this off the CSO linux license faq...wich along with other CSO faqs is a funny thing to read in it's own right :-)
If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?
Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users.
So in other words, if you bought, or got a redistributed version of linux then you're already in the clear...even though the faq states quite clearly that EVERY LINUX USER need their license....
I mean am I reading this wrong or can't these guys get their faqs straight?
They have more rights than the average person imprisoned in "Camp Castro" that takes up the rest of that island.
How would you know?