But if they internally developed something but didn't disclose it before the small corporation filed, wouldn't the big company get the patent in the old system anyways since they where first-to-invent?
But if the big company already had made some significant R&D on the subject then they could claim first-to-invent on the old/current system so I don't really see how this is made more bad by changing to first-to-file.
The machines that make up the cloud is set up quite like supers. It's just that they might get a little lousier connection (GB Ethernet instead of Infiniband) but that is by choice of Amazon, there is nothing stopping them from selling IB connected nodes in their cloud. Of course in this specific example they connected more than one cloud with each other and then they had to communicate over the Internet. But that was also by choice and could be compared to when you connect different super centers which happens from time to time.
Ok so the nodes in the cloud is not connected via Infiniband but by Gigabit Ethernet but what made you think that they where connected via the web? And still I don't think that it invalidates that they are constructed quite similarly. Oh and of course you can offer inifiband clustered nodes as the cloud.
It's hard to do when you have a complete monopoly on the desktop. The MSDN forums is full of pissed off developers but they don't feel that they have anywhere to go so they simply move along with the new technology that MS tells them is the next big thing.
Well if you had bothered to check out their website you would see that they make a wide range of products, including POS systems and "Mobile Industrial Solutions" which seams to run Windows Mobile OS according to the screenshots at the site.
They are actually set up quite similarly, the key difference is that cloud usually uses virtualization while the super computers doesn't so there is about 5-10% slowdown which you have to compensate by using more nodes.
If you really read the TFA you would have seen that they actually run the tests on borh rigs, that is why there are two separate bars for each system on the results pages... However what probably is the difference is KDE vs Compiz since the BSD (which runs KDE) numbers vs Ubuntu (who runs Compiz) is showing the exact same numers as when Phoronix tested KDE vs Compiz with Nvidia. Imagine that...
That is not a fact, it simplty means that when the bug was found it was found by someone that had a problem and not by some one who created an exploit. There are many many bugs that when looked upon closed can give root privileges or the possibility to execute code / access privileged memory.
Well if you manage to trojan Linus's machines and inject code into his local machine then of course there is no direct protection against that, and how could there be? However since there are many people who's only hobby/job is to track the changes to the kernel source and some of them would probably raise a question why Linus was committing that code to that part of the kernel (since everything that is commited is also discussed on lkml before). Also note that devs with direct commit access to the main kernel.org repository is not large, everyone else has to have their changes go by these people making it harder to sneak bad code into the kernel. Not saying that it couldn't be done but the detection rate is probably higher than the people interested in such an attack is willing to gamble with (notice that this has happened once against the cvs history of the Linux kernel but was detected by Linus due to his use of bitkeeper).
No it's not, he only points out that the so called security people are out of focus. Linus wants us all to treat all bugs equally and he is right because almost any bug can be used to breach the security in some way so there is in reality no clear distinction between bugs and security bugs. It's just that some guy who wants the fame happened to make an exploit that classifies a bug as a security bug.
Some like Linux does not pull but push. Also in order for git to know which files to send since it doesn't want to send the complete kernel source on every commit it surely performs some check to see which files are modified and if the attackers would have modified any file then it would be flagged then. That and the SHA-1 digest that exists of every commit.
The Linux kernel source is protected against modifications like this. All they have to do is compare the source with that of any of the kernel devs own repository and see if there is any difference. And there are many people including Linus that have the complete source history on their local machines.
or it is automated in such a way that the trojan discovers and collects the compromised users ~/.ssh/* files, and then either brute forces the known_hosts file (the line with the ip address should be somewhat quick to brute force, or the file might be stored unencrypted as some users have it) or the trojan simply uploaded the id_rsa and id_dsa files to the master node who then distributed it out to all it's minions to use when attacking ssh servers.
Not really, you have to remember that the complete code as it was before these naughty bits was introduced is stored on multiple locations including Linus's own hard drive so extracting a diff between the two versions would point at all these changes immediately.
Well such is the bitch that is called patents. This is nothing new, Intel forces their patent license with HDMI. The MPEG consortium does the same, Blu-Ray does it etc etc. This is the industry standard practice that companies like Apple signed on to when they said that they liked the patent system.
Another thing to consider is that, while the XKCD password cracking algorithm does trump most forms of security, that's only true if someone is actually willing to use it. I could see kidnapping and torture as a real possibility if you were dealing with organized crime or an intelligence agency... Otherwise, the escalation of the crime (from simple theft of a moderately expensive piece of hardware to various forms of felony) would deter most people from attempting it.
Not only that, but one also has to consider that most attempts to steal information from say a laptop probably has as an requirement that it is done in stealth which means that they cannot go the XKCD route. Much information gathered would be worthless if the victim knew that it had been stolen.
Every one in the chain, including the end user, is viable for patent infringement. So it does not matter who made the software, Samsung uses the software / distributes it so Samsung can be sued in a patent court. If Apple knew that you as an end user had millions they could have sued you as well (there is a case where some end users of MS SQL got sued do the patent infringement some years ago).
What do you mean? I see apps with price on the default app store on my Galaxy S, do you mean that this isn't the default apps store? Because I have not added anything. And it doesn't matter if that other platform might look better for the dev who want's to make money, it's all about which platform that looks better for the consumer and if an equal app is available on the free apps market then guess what happens (since in order for your theory to work there has to be a free alternative to the app in question, otherwise there would of course not be an argument over price)!
That was before this big app thingy got popular. Unless the popular apps gets ported across the board then we will have a situation where n equals 1 or 2.
Slashdot Mirror
But if they internally developed something but didn't disclose it before the small corporation filed, wouldn't the big company get the patent in the old system anyways since they where first-to-invent?
But if the big company already had made some significant R&D on the subject then they could claim first-to-invent on the old/current system so I don't really see how this is made more bad by changing to first-to-file.
The machines that make up the cloud is set up quite like supers. It's just that they might get a little lousier connection (GB Ethernet instead of Infiniband) but that is by choice of Amazon, there is nothing stopping them from selling IB connected nodes in their cloud. Of course in this specific example they connected more than one cloud with each other and then they had to communicate over the Internet. But that was also by choice and could be compared to when you connect different super centers which happens from time to time.
Ok so the nodes in the cloud is not connected via Infiniband but by Gigabit Ethernet but what made you think that they where connected via the web? And still I don't think that it invalidates that they are constructed quite similarly. Oh and of course you can offer inifiband clustered nodes as the cloud.
It's hard to do when you have a complete monopoly on the desktop. The MSDN forums is full of pissed off developers but they don't feel that they have anywhere to go so they simply move along with the new technology that MS tells them is the next big thing.
Well if you had bothered to check out their website you would see that they make a wide range of products, including POS systems and "Mobile Industrial Solutions" which seams to run Windows Mobile OS according to the screenshots at the site.
Yes, I know that it's hard to believe but Microsoft actually predated the Xbox360!
They are actually set up quite similarly, the key difference is that cloud usually uses virtualization while the super computers doesn't so there is about 5-10% slowdown which you have to compensate by using more nodes.
And interestingly enough, KDE vs Unity on Nvidia shows the same numbers as BSD vs Ubuntu did: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?60243-FreeBSD-A-Faster-Platform-For-Linux-Gaming-Than-Linux&p=226522#post226522
So this is simply Nvidia having regressions on Unity/Gnome but not with KDE.
If you really read the TFA you would have seen that they actually run the tests on borh rigs, that is why there are two separate bars for each system on the results pages... However what probably is the difference is KDE vs Compiz since the BSD (which runs KDE) numbers vs Ubuntu (who runs Compiz) is showing the exact same numers as when Phoronix tested KDE vs Compiz with Nvidia. Imagine that...
That is not a fact, it simplty means that when the bug was found it was found by someone that had a problem and not by some one who created an exploit. There are many many bugs that when looked upon closed can give root privileges or the possibility to execute code / access privileged memory.
Well if you manage to trojan Linus's machines and inject code into his local machine then of course there is no direct protection against that, and how could there be? However since there are many people who's only hobby/job is to track the changes to the kernel source and some of them would probably raise a question why Linus was committing that code to that part of the kernel (since everything that is commited is also discussed on lkml before). Also note that devs with direct commit access to the main kernel.org repository is not large, everyone else has to have their changes go by these people making it harder to sneak bad code into the kernel. Not saying that it couldn't be done but the detection rate is probably higher than the people interested in such an attack is willing to gamble with (notice that this has happened once against the cvs history of the Linux kernel but was detected by Linus due to his use of bitkeeper).
No it's not, he only points out that the so called security people are out of focus. Linus wants us all to treat all bugs equally and he is right because almost any bug can be used to breach the security in some way so there is in reality no clear distinction between bugs and security bugs. It's just that some guy who wants the fame happened to make an exploit that classifies a bug as a security bug.
I means some people like Linus
Some like Linux does not pull but push. Also in order for git to know which files to send since it doesn't want to send the complete kernel source on every commit it surely performs some check to see which files are modified and if the attackers would have modified any file then it would be flagged then. That and the SHA-1 digest that exists of every commit.
Thats the interesting one, hopefully we will get full details about that one soon.
The Linux kernel source is protected against modifications like this. All they have to do is compare the source with that of any of the kernel devs own repository and see if there is any difference. And there are many people including Linus that have the complete source history on their local machines.
or it is automated in such a way that the trojan discovers and collects the compromised users ~/.ssh/* files, and then either brute forces the known_hosts file (the line with the ip address should be somewhat quick to brute force, or the file might be stored unencrypted as some users have it) or the trojan simply uploaded the id_rsa and id_dsa files to the master node who then distributed it out to all it's minions to use when attacking ssh servers.
Not really, you have to remember that the complete code as it was before these naughty bits was introduced is stored on multiple locations including Linus's own hard drive so extracting a diff between the two versions would point at all these changes immediately.
Well such is the bitch that is called patents. This is nothing new, Intel forces their patent license with HDMI. The MPEG consortium does the same, Blu-Ray does it etc etc. This is the industry standard practice that companies like Apple signed on to when they said that they liked the patent system.
Another thing to consider is that, while the XKCD password cracking algorithm does trump most forms of security, that's only true if someone is actually willing to use it. I could see kidnapping and torture as a real possibility if you were dealing with organized crime or an intelligence agency... Otherwise, the escalation of the crime (from simple theft of a moderately expensive piece of hardware to various forms of felony) would deter most people from attempting it.
Not only that, but one also has to consider that most attempts to steal information from say a laptop probably has as an requirement that it is done in stealth which means that they cannot go the XKCD route. Much information gathered would be worthless if the victim knew that it had been stolen.
Every one in the chain, including the end user, is viable for patent infringement. So it does not matter who made the software, Samsung uses the software / distributes it so Samsung can be sued in a patent court. If Apple knew that you as an end user had millions they could have sued you as well (there is a case where some end users of MS SQL got sued do the patent infringement some years ago).
What do you mean? I see apps with price on the default app store on my Galaxy S, do you mean that this isn't the default apps store? Because I have not added anything. And it doesn't matter if that other platform might look better for the dev who want's to make money, it's all about which platform that looks better for the consumer and if an equal app is available on the free apps market then guess what happens (since in order for your theory to work there has to be a free alternative to the app in question, otherwise there would of course not be an argument over price)!
That was before this big app thingy got popular. Unless the popular apps gets ported across the board then we will have a situation where n equals 1 or 2.