I believe that the EPA requires that cars sold in the US have a manual method of reading codes. On Hondas you push and hold some combination of buttons, and it blinks a sequence on the idiot lights that you can record and look up in a book.
You can reset the codes by pulling the "memory" fuse for a few seconds (but have your CD player security code handy!)
Haynes service manuals are pretty good at telling you how to do stuff like this without expensive equipment.
I've wondered for some time what parts of RH Enterprise Linux are open source and what parts aren't, and whether or not it is possible to build an Enterprise look-alike from available components.
Now that RH Linux is being axed, my interest has escalated from casual to keen. Can somebody enlighten me?
In spite of the fury in Groklaw and here, I don't see that SCO's actions constitute anything new. They have distributed and continue to distribute Linux. And they have claimed and continue to claim that they are entitled to additional licencing restrictions/revenues on this code.
As of this summer, they have claimed an additional encumbrance on Linux; that it contains their IP and that users have to pay them additional money. GPL is very clear that they can't distribute the software and also enforce these additional restrictions.
The fact that they are restricting their ftp downloads is moot. They continue to distribute code that they claim is not free and clear, and this distribution is not in accordance with the rights granted to it by the copyright holders.
In their response to IBM's complaint, SCO did not even attempt to claim that they were in compliance with the terms of the copyright holders. Instead their defense was to claim that those terms were invalid.
SCO has essentially stipulated that they operate outside GPL; this newest action seems insignificant to me.
I sent a letter to Forbes; this morning I received the following reply.
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:57:12 -0400 From: "Readers" To: "Readers"
Due to the overwhelming amount of e-mail we have received regarding Dan Lyons' Oct 14th story, " Linux's Hit Men " http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014link sys.html , it has become impossible to respond individually. Instead we have opened a special discussion board http://forums.prospero.com/fdctech/messages?msg=47.1 devoted to this story. Please go there to post your opinion. Dan has promised to weigh in on occasion. Below is his first posting. --Eds.
Of course the Free Software Foundation is entitled to enforce its GNU General Public License (GPL), just as other organizations are entitled to enforce their copyrights and licenses. My article simply points out that the paradoxical effect of these "enforcement actions" (FSF's term) may be to impede the adoption of Linux. By demanding that licensees publish source code for their own "derivative work" code (in addition to the Linux they're using) the FSF is, in effect, charging a royalty that approaches 100% of the value of the licensee's product.
Yes, the FSF is entitled to do this. But some people question the wisdom of this policy. They think it will scare off commercial software and hardware developers who want to use open source software but don't want to destroy the value of their product and don't want get into a hassle like the one Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM) are having. Even within the open source world there is a difference of opinion on this issue. As many readers point out, if a company doesn't like the GPL, they shouldn't use Linux. That's fair enough. No doubt many will stay away. But is that good for Linux?
Finally, some readers point out that in claiming rights over derivative works, and by pursuing enforcement actions and making legal threats, the FSF is only behaving the way any corporate entity would. On this point I agree completely. Thank you, Daniel Lyons
I installed the patch on several machines yesterday. One of them demanded a supplemental EULA. I have not been able to reproduce it on the other machines, so I paraphrase from memory. It said, among other things:
"I will not publish the results of.net benchmarks"
I have never (intentionally) installed the update that installs the.net framework but judging from the EULA I wonder if that happened and that's why this EULA popped up.
The roadmap is written for developers, not users. If Mozilla wishes the size of the latter set to exceed that of the former, it had better address that audience.
My {father, sister, acquaintance} will experience fear, uncertainty, and doubt if and when this change appears on their radar. Fortunately, Mozilla advertising is so poor that that won't happen for a while.
The message users need is: there will always be an easy-to-install, easy-to-use, backwards-compatible Mozilla suite.
Users have good reason to fear. The 1.4 Windows installation has a serious problem that if you install it over a 1.3 installation that has any components added to it, it will simply crash on start-up. If you report the problem (which is way beyond the ken of a typical user) you will be met with derision. (cf. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195600 )
The bottom line is that the Mozilla community lacks a general empathy for naive users, and that is hurting its adoption.
The Mozilla folks have done a very poor job of justifying the change in direction. All I've seen are nerdy discussions about footprints, streamlining, etc. These discussions all assume inside knowledge of the development process.
I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons. Just that they haven't been adequately communicated to the public. And perhaps that the impact on the public has not adequately been assessed. The move causes confusion, which is the last thing Mozilla needs.
As a Mozilla evangelist, I have no message to take to my congregation.
Spamassin's Bayesian rules are much improved for version 2.60. Unfortunately their unsupervised learning method (that is applied globally) causes drift. It uses different rules when it classifies your mail from what it uses when it trains its database.
The solution is to write a script that applies spamassassin. If it classifies your mail as spam, have your script pipe it to "sa-learn --spam"; if it classifies your mail as ham, pipe it to "sa-learn --ham". You also have to make sure to correct it when it mis-classifies email, using the same sa-learn program.
With this setup, smamassassin almost never makes mistakes. In about 10,000 emails, it misclassified maybe a dozen as spam that weren't. In all cases, the email was 'weird' - generally the first message from an on-line service to which I had subscribed. In the other direction, about 1 spam in 100 slips through under the radar.
Spamassassin was very useful to me during the recent Swen outbreak. At this time I received over 1000 copies of the virus per hour. Spamassassin caught them all. A few "unable to deliver" messages got through, but I was able to train spamassassin to reject those, too.
One unfortunate side-effect of the Swen outbreak is that it flushed some of the memory of my bayesian filter. This is because it uses a window of about 8MB, and the entire window was filled with Swen artifacts. But now that Swen has abated (at least at my site) I've had to kill a few Nigerian send-me-your-bank-account-and-your-mother's-maiden -name scams, but it has quickly learned and I'm back to normal.
I have done side-by-side comparisons with Mozilla's bayesian filter. Overall, spamassassin (at lest spamassassin 2.60 with personal training) is much more effective. On the other hand, Mozilla's filter is easier to use "out of the box." It would be nice to have an easy method to have Mozilla call spamassassin instead of its own training program.
It is hard to get good help these days. While I decry the apparent metamorphosis of the U.S. into a police state, I'm not so sure this is an example. I think this incident is a mistake by the FBI agents handling the case, plain and simple.
Unless John Ashcroft or an FBI official says so, I won't assume that this letter represents justice department policy.
That's market pressure at work. There is more of a tendency to gouge when the market is captive and small. But the price is still low enough to make running to the photocopier unappealing. Copyright pressure has only a small effect on your individual decision (not to photocopy). It stops your prof. or the copy shop next door from copying and selling the book, which is what it was intended to do.
Even with broadband, it is time-consuming to download a CD image. Not everybody wants song-at-a-time poor quality mp3s. Some want high quality, good packaging, and easy storage and cataloguing.
For these uses, CDs provide a high-quality high-bandwidth solution (recall the old saying that there's no higher bandwidth than a station wagon full of tapes). But at $20, CDs are not a cost-effective solution. At 1/10 the price it certainly would be. Perhaps even at 1/5 the price.
I, for one, would fill my bookcases with music CDs at that price. You can bet I'd have a 'complete works' of every artist that I love. But at $20 I can count on zero hands the number of CDs I've purchased in the last year.
I believe that book publishers have set their price-points more in line with the value of the medium. Some people still photocopy entire books, but enough find that the convenience and quality of a bound book is worth the purchase price.
Could distribution companies make money at a few bucks a CD? I don't see why not.
I have boycotted Lexmark for some time due to their gouging on refills. I am also proud author of an expose on how to use Samsung cartridges in a Lexmark E210 printer, at 2/3 the cost.
I wonder if use of a Philips screwdriver violates the DMCA? The modification involves removing a tab in the printer that matches a slot in the cartridge casting. I suppose this could be considered a digital rights management device.
Absolutely. It is absurd to say that "responsible internet use" implies that I should cripple my email address. I've had it for 20 years; it is in usenet archives; it is on my web page. I want people to be able to reach me easily, and I do not want to terminate my email address.
What I want is for everyone sending to that address to truthfully identify themselves, and for no-one (except me) to sign email with that address. I do not think I am asking too much of my government to support me in those wishes.
I wish that SMTP weren't so easy to spoof, and I'm sure that better authentication will eventually come to pass. But technical enhancements don't obviate legislation any more than better locks obviate break-and-enter legislation.
This is harder than you think. My email was being used by a spammer connected by a major Vegas ISP. They didn't care. Their abuse email address gave me a form response and no action. Their answer desk put me on hold (basically in an infinite loop because I was not a subscriber). Their tech support likewise did nothing. When I screamed and yelled they referred me to their legal department who stonewalled me.
Finally I found the actual extension number of their security/abuse person from a Vegas mailing list archive. Once I phoned that number, the source was eliminated within 24 hours and in a couple of weeks all the Pacific rim sources dried up too.
Total cost to me: 3-4 hours on the phone, 3-4 hours off-line, and much aggravation.
I took the trouble because my email address was being appropriated and used as the From address for a rude advertisement. Would I take the trouble for the other 200 spams that I receive in a typical day? No way!
And this was a Vegas company with a spam-hostile acceptable use policy. What of the thousands of ISPs throughout the world whose livelihood is spam?
IMO, ISPs must be strongly encouraged to block fraudulent email, especially in response to a complaint. Similarly, advertisers who employ fraudulent email should be subject to sanction.
SCO says it has, and IBM says it hasn't. Until
SCO identifies the trade secrets that IBM has
allegedly disclosed, it is impossible for an
outsider to evaluate SCO's claims.
I believe that a stronger conclusions may be drawn from SCO's statements. SCO's (specious) argument is this:
1. IBM is bound to keep derivative works secret
2. AIX is a derivative work
3. JFS, and other components, by virtue of being
added to AIX, are part of the derivative
work.
4. Releasing any part of the derivative work
(i.e. JFS et al) is a violation of the
secrecy agreement.
IMO, the fallacy is in step 4. It is fairly subtle, but has been adressed in the courts.
In any event, in the remote chance that some judge (and appeal judge etc.) agree with this logic, it would not affect the fact that IBM owns the copyright on JFS. On that matter the copyright act is very clear: the 'new stuff' added to a derivative work remains the property of the deriver.
I care about the Segway because there is some chance that I or a loved one will have a collision with one on a sidewalk. I am astonished that the press have bought into the myth that there is "no legislation" governing their use on walkways. Any bylaws I've read prohibit motorized vehicles (and usually bicycles, too) with the exception of wheelchairs.
As for their practicality, give me a break. If you want convenience and a bit of exercise, walk. If you want moderate speed, cycle. If you want to travel eco-killing distances, drive your car, ride your motorcycle, or take the bus, train, plane.
I see no target application for the Segway. It is an expensive toy. Perhaps not as dangerous as Lawn Darts, but with equal merit.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that the EPA requires that cars sold in the US have a manual method of reading codes. On Hondas you push and hold some combination of buttons, and it blinks a sequence on the idiot lights that you can record and look up in a book.
You can reset the codes by pulling the "memory" fuse for a few seconds (but have your CD player security code handy!)
Haynes service manuals are pretty good at telling you how to do stuff like this without expensive equipment.
I've wondered for some time what parts of RH Enterprise Linux are open source and what parts aren't, and whether or not it is possible to build an Enterprise look-alike from available components.
Now that RH Linux is being axed, my interest has escalated from casual to keen. Can somebody enlighten me?
In spite of the fury in Groklaw and here, I don't see that SCO's actions constitute anything new. They have distributed and continue to distribute Linux. And they have claimed and continue to claim that they are entitled to additional licencing restrictions/revenues on this code.
As of this summer, they have claimed an additional encumbrance on Linux; that it contains their IP and that users have to pay them additional money. GPL is very clear that they can't distribute the software and also enforce these additional restrictions.
The fact that they are restricting their ftp downloads is moot. They continue to distribute code that they claim is not free and clear, and this distribution is not in accordance with the rights granted to it by the copyright holders.
In their response to IBM's complaint, SCO did not even attempt to claim that they were in compliance with the terms of the copyright holders. Instead their defense was to claim that those terms were invalid.
SCO has essentially stipulated that they operate outside GPL; this newest action seems insignificant to me.
I used MapBlast all the time. Then it was bought by Microsoft and was replaced by MSN which is really crappy - low resolution and few street names.
I wonder if there is any way to force Microsoft to sell the original MapBlast system, rather than simply suppressing it.
Aren't anti-competitive takeovers wonderful?
Maple is not based on Maxima. Maple is a from-scratch package originally developed at the University of Waterloo but long-since commercialized.
I sent a letter to Forbes; this morning I received the following reply.
k sys .html , it has become7 .1
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:57:12 -0400
From: "Readers"
To: "Readers"
Due to the overwhelming amount of e-mail we have received regarding Dan
Lyons' Oct 14th story, " Linux's Hit Men "
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014lin
impossible to respond individually. Instead we have opened a special
discussion board http://forums.prospero.com/fdctech/messages?msg=4
devoted to this story. Please go there to post your opinion. Dan has
promised to weigh in on occasion. Below is his first posting. --Eds.
Of course the Free Software Foundation is entitled to enforce its GNU
General Public License (GPL), just as other organizations are entitled
to enforce their copyrights and licenses. My article simply points out
that the paradoxical effect of these "enforcement actions" (FSF's term)
may be to impede the adoption of Linux. By demanding that licensees
publish source code for their own "derivative work" code (in addition to
the Linux they're using) the FSF is, in effect, charging a royalty that
approaches 100% of the value of the licensee's product.
Yes, the FSF is entitled to do this. But some people question the wisdom
of this policy. They think it will scare off commercial software and
hardware developers who want to use open source software but don't want
to destroy the value of their product and don't want get into a hassle
like the one Cisco Systems (nasdaq: CSCO) and Broadcom (nasdaq: BRCM)
are having. Even within the open source world there is a difference of
opinion on this issue.
As many readers point out, if a company doesn't like the GPL, they
shouldn't use Linux. That's fair enough. No doubt many will stay away.
But is that good for Linux?
Finally, some readers point out that in claiming rights over derivative
works, and by pursuing enforcement actions and making legal threats, the
FSF is only behaving the way any corporate entity would. On this point I
agree completely.
Thank you,
Daniel Lyons
I installed the patch on several machines yesterday. One of them demanded a supplemental EULA. I have not been able to reproduce it on the other machines, so I paraphrase from memory. It said, among other things:
.net benchmarks"
.net framework but judging from the EULA I wonder if that happened and that's why this EULA popped up.
"I will not publish the results of
I have never (intentionally) installed the update that installs the
In any event, this clause casts a chill over me.
The roadmap is written for developers, not users. If Mozilla wishes the size of the latter set to exceed that of the former, it had better address that audience.
0 )
My {father, sister, acquaintance} will experience fear, uncertainty, and doubt if and when this change appears on their radar. Fortunately, Mozilla advertising is so poor that that won't happen for a while.
The message users need is: there will always be an easy-to-install, easy-to-use, backwards-compatible Mozilla suite.
Users have good reason to fear. The 1.4 Windows installation has a serious problem that if you install it over a 1.3 installation that has any components added to it, it will simply crash on start-up. If you report the problem (which is way beyond the ken of a typical user) you will be met with derision. (cf. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19560
The bottom line is that the Mozilla community lacks a general empathy for naive users, and that is hurting its adoption.
The Mozilla folks have done a very poor job of justifying the change in direction. All I've seen are nerdy discussions about footprints, streamlining, etc. These discussions all assume inside knowledge of the development process.
I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons. Just that they haven't been adequately communicated to the public. And perhaps that the impact on the public has not adequately been assessed. The move causes confusion, which is the last thing Mozilla needs.
As a Mozilla evangelist, I have no message to take to my congregation.
Spamassin's Bayesian rules are much improved for version 2.60. Unfortunately their unsupervised learning method (that is applied globally) causes
n -name
drift. It uses different rules when it classifies your mail from what it uses when it trains its database.
The solution is to write a script that applies spamassassin. If it classifies your mail as spam, have your script pipe it to "sa-learn --spam"; if
it classifies your mail as ham, pipe it to "sa-learn --ham". You also have to make sure to correct it when it mis-classifies email, using the same sa-learn program.
With this setup, smamassassin almost never makes mistakes. In about 10,000 emails, it misclassified maybe a dozen as spam that weren't. In all cases, the email was 'weird' - generally the first message from an on-line service to which I had subscribed. In the other direction, about 1 spam in 100 slips through under the radar.
Spamassassin was very useful to me during the recent Swen outbreak. At this time I received over 1000 copies of the virus per hour. Spamassassin caught them all. A few "unable to deliver" messages got through, but I was able to train spamassassin to reject those, too.
One unfortunate side-effect of the Swen outbreak is that it flushed some of the memory of my bayesian filter. This is because it uses a window of about 8MB, and the entire window was filled with Swen artifacts. But now that Swen has abated (at least at my site) I've had to kill a few Nigerian send-me-your-bank-account-and-your-mother's-maide
scams, but it has quickly learned and I'm back to normal.
I have done side-by-side comparisons with Mozilla's bayesian filter. Overall, spamassassin (at lest spamassassin 2.60 with personal training) is much more effective. On the other hand, Mozilla's filter is easier to use "out of the box." It would be nice to have an easy method to have Mozilla call spamassassin instead of its own training program.
It is hard to get good help these days. While I decry the apparent metamorphosis of the U.S. into a police state, I'm not so sure this is an example. I think this incident is a mistake by the FBI agents handling the case, plain and simple.
Unless John Ashcroft or an FBI official says so, I won't assume that this letter represents justice department policy.
IBM's "Amendment X" agreement with USL specifically overrides this clause, making IBM's license perpetual and irrevokable.
I understand that SGI has a similar amendment, but I haven't seen it.
That's market pressure at work. There is more of a tendency to gouge when the market is captive and small. But the price is still low enough to make running to the photocopier unappealing. Copyright pressure has only a small effect on your individual decision (not to photocopy). It stops your prof. or the copy shop next door from copying and selling the book, which is what it was intended to do.
Even with broadband, it is time-consuming to download a CD image. Not everybody wants song-at-a-time poor quality mp3s. Some want high quality, good packaging, and easy storage and cataloguing.
For these uses, CDs provide a high-quality high-bandwidth solution (recall the old saying that there's no higher bandwidth than a station wagon full of tapes). But at $20, CDs are not a cost-effective solution. At 1/10 the price it certainly would be. Perhaps even at 1/5 the price.
I, for one, would fill my bookcases with music CDs at that price. You can bet I'd have a 'complete works' of every artist that I love. But at $20 I can count on zero hands the number of CDs I've purchased in the last year.
I believe that book publishers have set their price-points more in line with the value of the medium. Some people still photocopy entire books, but enough find that the convenience and quality of a bound book is worth the purchase price.
Could distribution companies make money at a few bucks a CD? I don't see why not.
Are you sure? Samsung manufactures the (Lexmark E210) printer so I assumed they manufactured the cartridges, too.
I have boycotted Lexmark for some time due to their gouging on refills. I am also proud author of an expose on how to use Samsung cartridges in a Lexmark E210 printer, at 2/3 the cost.
I wonder if use of a Philips screwdriver violates the DMCA? The modification involves removing a tab in the printer that matches a slot in the cartridge casting. I suppose this could be considered a digital rights management device.
Absolutely. It is absurd to say that "responsible internet use" implies that I should cripple my email address. I've had it for 20 years; it is in usenet archives; it is on my web page. I want people to be able to reach me easily, and I do not want to terminate my email address.
What I want is for everyone sending to that address to truthfully identify themselves, and for no-one (except me) to sign email with that address. I do not think I am asking too much of my government to support me in those wishes.
I wish that SMTP weren't so easy to spoof, and I'm sure that better authentication will eventually come to pass. But technical enhancements don't obviate legislation any more than better locks obviate break-and-enter legislation.
This is harder than you think. My email was being used by a spammer connected by a major Vegas ISP. They didn't care. Their abuse email address gave me a form response and no action. Their answer desk put me on hold (basically in an infinite loop because I was not a subscriber). Their tech support likewise did nothing. When I screamed and yelled they referred me to their legal department who stonewalled me.
Finally I found the actual extension number of their security/abuse person from a Vegas mailing list archive. Once I phoned that number, the source was eliminated within 24 hours and in a couple of weeks all the Pacific rim sources dried up too.
Total cost to me: 3-4 hours on the phone, 3-4 hours off-line, and much aggravation.
I took the trouble because my email address was being appropriated and used as the From address for a rude advertisement. Would I take the trouble for the other 200 spams that I receive in a typical day? No way!
And this was a Vegas company with a spam-hostile acceptable use policy. What of the thousands of ISPs throughout the world whose livelihood is spam?
IMO, ISPs must be strongly encouraged to block fraudulent email, especially in response to a complaint. Similarly, advertisers who employ fraudulent email should be subject to sanction.
From the FAQ:
Has IBM disclosed any of SCO's trade secrets?
SCO says it has, and IBM says it hasn't. Until
SCO identifies the trade secrets that IBM has
allegedly disclosed, it is impossible for an
outsider to evaluate SCO's claims.
I believe that a stronger conclusions may be drawn from SCO's statements. SCO's (specious) argument is this:
1. IBM is bound to keep derivative works secret
2. AIX is a derivative work
3. JFS, and other components, by virtue of being
added to AIX, are part of the derivative
work.
4. Releasing any part of the derivative work
(i.e. JFS et al) is a violation of the
secrecy agreement.
IMO, the fallacy is in step 4. It is fairly subtle, but has been adressed in the courts.
In any event, in the remote chance that some judge (and appeal judge etc.) agree with this logic, it would not affect the fact that IBM owns the copyright on JFS. On that matter the copyright act is very clear: the 'new stuff' added to a derivative work remains the property of the deriver.
SCO recently acquired an Intranet product - WebFace - that they are flogging.
Convea, a UK startup, have offered their competing open source product at no charge to existing and prospective SCO clients.
http://www.convea.com/News_CCScoWebFace.asp
Sorry, what's .txt? I thought it was plain text.
And your pont is? I followed this link and found nothing but html.
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
I'd have given you a "funny" point if you'd dropped "oke, maybe not 'banned.' but i have to predict: the headline will come up..."
I care about the Segway because there is some chance that I or a loved one will have a collision with one on a sidewalk. I am astonished that the press have bought into the myth that there is "no legislation" governing their use on walkways. Any bylaws I've read prohibit motorized vehicles (and usually bicycles, too) with the exception of wheelchairs.
As for their practicality, give me a break. If you want convenience and a bit of exercise, walk. If you want moderate speed, cycle. If you want to travel eco-killing distances, drive your car, ride your motorcycle, or take the bus, train, plane.
I see no target application for the Segway. It is an expensive toy. Perhaps not as dangerous as Lawn Darts, but with equal merit.