I know for a fact my Meantime between rootshell is "forever".. Nobody has ever hacked me...
I also know for a fact nobody has ever TRIED or even cares about trying. My computer could quite possably have more security holes than swiss chease.. I'm a non-target..
I try to secure my box becouse random script kiddys don't care if the victom is a major bank or some random users game box. They just want to prove they are cool by distroying something.
I also avoid script kiddies.
So what would it count for?
Nobody ever hacks my computer becouse they don't want to. But ultra secure computers get hit daily. The diffrence is the importence of the box not the quality of security.
That is pritty cool...
It's always nice to remember that thies people are real and do real things in the real world.
Thats kinda neat to think about... Adams using a Kaypro.. That makes me want to smile:)
Side note to troll:
I know people make up storys of meeting famous people and such is not hard to do.
But then on the Internet people clame to be all kinds of things.
People even clame to know non-famous people when they don't.
Just set that fact asside.
Anyone on the Internet can be lying about anything...
After all.. do you really believe my name is Felinoid? I certenly hope not...
People that think linux is the magic bullet to solve every computing problem don't deserve moderator points. Or to be taken seriously.
To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail.
Linux CAN solve every problem..
So can Windows.. MacOs, hay even Dos and CP/M...
I see this to often in ALL platforms.
Windows and Linux are the worst sence Linux users provide ALL Linux marketting and Microsoft sells Windows as all things to all people.
Hay Cp/m can run a GUI...
Hay Windows can be a server..
Hay Linux can be user friendly...
I don't recomend it...
Keep a full tool box.. a hammer may drive in screws and nails that dosn't mean you should..
Actually I don't use a Sun Sparc. But if I could I would.
Here is why I use Linux. I've been dying for a chance to say this on Slashdot and not be flamebate:) I'm in a happy mood and so I won't say anything insulting (and blatently false)
I do not have a lot of money. I have only enough room on my desk for one computer. I need to do everything I do on it.
I need a posix system.
I design and test my website on my computer.
I need a similer (not identical) environment to the one the server will have.
So I need a Unix or Unix like operating system.
I do all my own technical work and I want the option of being able to make changes to the operating system if I want.
This leaves me with BSD and Linux.
BSD pushes the optomised server direction Linux still chases "neat things".. TV cards etc..
Rember I only have enough room on my desk for one computer. That computer has to be my TV and radio also. This means a TV card and a radio card... BSD dosn't support this stuff.. Linux dose..
I know Linux going after drivers for TV cards means Linux isn't doing as much for stability as BSD is. But then let's rember the computer on my desk is NOT a production machine.
My server? I leave that up to the hosting service.. as long as they use Unix I'm happy..
If I had my hands on a Sparc and it could do what I wanted I'd use it.
Sparcs are designed top to buttom to be high end systems..
PCs are trapped in legacy.. It's a bit of a headake to have to deal with...
It sounds regressive...
However rember this is an industry with some pritty dracoinain policys.
No dating employees of compeating companys [Microsoft dosen't have this policy.. at one time IBM did but I think they were sued over it]
You can not work in the same field for a year after you quit.
You can be fired for viewing a porn site on company equipment...
Or worse... for being a henti artist on your own free time.
Some companys dictate you may NOT code on your personal time or that ANYTHING you code is owned by them.
As an open source coder you do need to be careful with the contract. You don't want to sign away your free software to someone else.
The first thing to do when looking at an open source programmer is look at the body of his work. This is production code not some fancy sample so you have a real idea of what he'll do normally.
I could write perfict sample but my real world code leaves a great deal to be desired.
(I can spell better when I do the yoda thing.. dropping words I'm not able to spell.. to produce the image of an alien who dosn't use the same language)
Basicly in sample code I avoid complex tasks and just produce the ideal examples.
But when I'm producing real production code I can not dodge the bullet.
I'm not a great coder. My ego some times forgets this but I have enough better coders around to remind me. Vertually ALL the submissions I get are features I couldn't do myself, never got right, or repairing dumb things I did.
In short you will know I'm not some programming demi-god but in reality a coder that leaves a great deal to be desired.
(This of course is why I never got hired to do web work)
Examine that work. As a user e-mail him some tech support questions.
Interpersonal skills are VERY importent and that won't show in the code. You need to understand how this guy will respond to questions.
Even if he is a demi-god in his own right...
Now I'm a demi-idiot:) but thats annother story..
The judge alowed impossable threats with fictional wepons of mass distruction.
If I were to fear for my life from a Usenet post threatonning me with a "Tom Cruse" missle or a photon torpedo the best corse is to find a padded cell for me.. not the threatoner..
At most this is a misscarage not becouse the laws themselfs but becouse a trial was done.
Let's say I accuse the RIAA of criminal harrasment on Napster... now we have a trial and the RIAA isn't allowed to defend itself or take any part in the trial.
Well I'll be able to prove that the RIAA is a conspericy to distory Napster...
Lets forget that the RIAA predate Napster... and all easly accessable data proving the RIAA was consistent when it went after Napster. (They were suing just about everyone using MP3s and distributing digital audio over the net before Napster ever existed)
But we command the details and RIAA can not defend. So RIAA is found guilty of harresy, cultism, and wearing ugly ties...
and hay.. I don't like the RIAA so....
Same deal here.. The guy ran off... The trial held in his absence is a travisty of the legal system.
Now all he has to do is come back.. The ruling can be thrown out and he can not be tried a second time... even thow he wasn't present the first time...
> I am anything but a lawyer, and my solution is potentially libelous, but it a solution that protesters, Unions and consumers employ to publicly shame a contract-violator.
I'm not a lawyer eather. I believe the idea is it's only libal if it's not true. But the suck part is it's on you to prove it's true not them to prove it's a lie. As I understand it and I'm not a lawyer. And this time I didn't read a Nolo book on the subject so I could be talking out my....
Side note.. I don't like larg Unions and larg protestor organisations. Much like larg companys they lose touch and go into bully mode..
Small Unions, protestors and companys I like. They remain in touch and do right by those represented. (The workers, the issues, the consummer)
Just tell them you will drop them.
The reasoning is three fold.
1. They are fearful you will sue. While it's not practical that has not entered the logic. So they'll be conserned that you will sue for moneys owed and they lose you.
2. Something stinks. A sign of bad things. Cut the loss now instead of later when it'll be worse.
3. If they think they need this then if you stick around you may find your survival depends on the rights they are now asking you to sign away.
It is unlikely you'll need those rights normally but when someone asks you to forfit them then chances are really good you'll need em really soon.
Lawsutes are impractical.
So drop them.. If they cave then stay if they don't sticking around is probably not a very healthy thing to do.
I'd like to add. In todays banner ad market I'm supprised more websites don't folow Slashdot's example and set up a banner ad server like AdFu..
Ad services were nice. Someone RELIABLE dose all the hard work and you generate the traffic. It WAS a good healthy relationship. But things went bad. Unreliable services came up and no-so-savy people would buy out successful services.
Eventually everyone would cave to pressuers and go the dishonnest route.
There are some honnest guys left. They'll die off or get take over. The ecconomy is bad. The middle men won't survive. Just cut them out and stay afloat.
Quite a few Microsoft employees use Unix or some other platform and Microsoft dosen't seem to mind one bit.
There is confadence in your product and then there is lunacy.
Ford dosen't expect to deliver it's cars using Ford trucks.
Apple used Crays in connection with Macs...
Cray did same..
I remember seeing a non-Commodore computer being used to test a Commodore 64 on the asembly line.
You don't need to get so wrapped up in your own company you forget the product isn't perfict.
Even Microsoft knows better...
Also.. even profesionals can not resist the urge to write optomised code when coding in house.
If they were using a Unix/Sendmail system the code would be optomised for sendmail on Unix... Unlikely they'd ingrane into the exact Unix but it's equally unlikely they'd consider supporting a diffrent mail server than what your using.
(There is a greater chance of moving from BSD to Linux or Linux to Solarus than there is from Sendmail to something else)
And for running on Windows you really want to ingrain your code in the exact software you are using.
> Free software mustmustMUST be combined with pay services and proprietary software for a business to survive.
Replace the AND with OR...
You don't need both pay services and proprietary software. You can do just fine with only one item.
The Free software is the hook.
But alone it won't pay the bills. So you have to pay the bills some other way.
What good is free software? Marketting mostly..
Sell the video card open the drivers..
Sell the computer open the os
Etc....
>Has anyone look at everyline of code in KDE or the linux kernal itself...
Linus and AC have.. but then some Q&A person reviewed every line of Windows code so that dosn't really help.
There are two advantages with open source.. even more so with open source Unix like systems..
You can fix the software.. or you can toss the software.
You are quite familure with the "fix" option.. So let me run over the "toss" option.
With free software (it dosn't need to be open) you invested no money so in tossing the software you aren't throwing money away.
Let's say Linus starts blamming application programmers and end users for defects in Linux. (Ahem.. Microsoft.. Ohh not that Microsoft was the first or only.. Just the best example today..)
Ok so now what? Well you dump Linux... How? I mean I invested umm well.. nothing...
Ok yeah but all my Unix code...
UNIX code.. Switch to BSD.. make some tweeks if nessisary..
At the apps level same deal. If the develuper starts acting goofy and untrustworthy then dump the bad app and switch to something else.
File format issues...
When writing code you almost always come up with something to save that the current standards don't recognise. The solution is simple.. enhance the existing standard or write your own format.
It is usually easyer and better to just write your own format.
Rarely (if ever) is this format documented. Open or closed. The user dosn't need it.
If the user needs to switch from one app to annother he needs to convert his files from one format to annother... No can do mister..
With open source you CAN read the source and discover the format. From there it's pritty brain dead easy.
So basicly open source software has an easyer escape path.
Solarus is pritty blasted secure. But if that ever changes you may have problems.
(Being Unix escaping Solarus is easyer than escaping Windows)
Basicly Unix/Posix and open source provide escape paths that tend to be cut off by closed source propritary systems.
On the older topic the issue of Q&A procedures came up.
A lot of people see open source as being so great becouse you can fix the bugs when the software breaks.
The objective of Q&A is to fix the bugs so when you get the product it is already working.
If the code is writen correctly Q&A can do it's job..
A point was made (in a very crude way) that poorly writen open source isn't going to be easyer to fix under "many eyes". Weak fradual code is going to break no matter what system you use to fix it. Making ANY changes breaks the code.
I should now mention one of the OTHER advantages of open source...
In reality there is only one thing you CAN do with poorly writen code... toss it...
But when you invest $100 to $1,000 into software you are stuck with it.
Having spent no money on the software you downloaded and installed you can throw it away.
I'm sure a lot of open source develupers would prefer you didn't consider this option but it is valuable to know that you are not stuck with it before you get a chance to try it out.
(This is the whole guiding idea behind shareware.. Try before you buy. Freeware has this same advantage. Actually you have this advantage with video games in some cases if the store carrys a console with the games running)
So in short bad products that are byond repair can be disposed of in open source.
Now it would be munch nicer if coders would just not make crap code to start with. Open source dosn't prevent it any more than closed. It's just easyer to dispose of.
Considering you don't have to live and breath 'computer' to use an Apple system, I don't think MacOS X can be classified UNIX.
You just classifyed the entire AT&T 3B (Unix) computer line as not Unix...
They were rather easy to use (as text systems go)
You also ended up calling Windows "unix"...
Macs and AT&T 3B computers have one thing in commen (Nothing else)
They were made ground up to run the operating system they run.
Sparcs and PCs were not specally made to run a given operating system.
One issue that is now pritty universal for all current operating systems is the off switch.
It is dangerous to give the user control of the off switch.
Mac and 3B2 systems don't give the user access to the off switch. The off switch they offer triggers the system to shut down the operating system. THEN the computer turns itself off.
It is more convent this way.
A user could mistakenly switch the system off at the wrong point during a complex shutdown.
They could.. looking at a blank screen.. think the process is over...
Also Macs can change radicly while PCs have to remain more or less compatable with the original PC.
(The side effect of this is that it's a bastard to install something that isn't MacOs on a Mac...)
>What name would you give the common functionality of Linux, BSD, and MacOS X, anyhow?
*nix seems the populare notation...
Unix is basicly trademarked so it means what the current owner wants it to mean.
People faithful to Solaris and other systems who liccens the Unix name aren't much diffrent from Linux zelots or Microsoft zombies...
But to use the term as it has been used by Unix experts for years Linux and MacOsX are Unix systems.
But they aren't becouse nobody liccensed the name...
Unix now has become a standard rather than an operating system.
Folowing the source isn't helpful. Unix forking itself has made clones more compatable (in some cases) than "offical" source.
Basicly clones make more effort to stay true to Unix.
The rule seems to be the harder it is to do the more likely it is to happen.
Managment may not consider the impact changes may have to compatability when using the offical code.
It's more "in your face" as it were...
So Unix is basicly just a standard.
Folow the standard past the review and liccens the name.
Apple didn't, Linux didn't, So it isn't Unix.
Of someone feals like it they could build a Linux distro folow Unix standard and fork over for the liccens.
Apple could also do this.
So.. considering the diffrence is a liccens to use the name "Unix"... dose it even matter?
By making the links between open source and these companies explicit, we are basically putting ourselves into legal obligation with these companies, sacrificing freedom for security.
No legal obligations exist between open source and the companys who support it.
What a sad day it would be when all it requires to obtain legal binding is to offical support.
Outside of actually signning away freedoms nothing is lost by supporting those who support you..
He brings up some good points. "Shooting back"
Store owners see a lot of theft. A huge amount.
I remember once while I was in a 7-11 the store owner saw kids trying to steal beer on the camera.
The dome refereed to in his concerns are not to hide the existence of the camera.
No body will be fooled by that facade.
The function is to cover for a defect. Cameras swaying back and forth.
Sure you know there is a camera but you don't know where it is pointing at a given moment.
Those cameras are good. They serve a function.
The abuses have to do with cameras placed in dressing rooms and manual control cameras.
Manual control isn't worth the investment. Cameras are 90% deterrent.
In fact there is a big market for fake cameras.
But far to many people risk the camera. So you need the real thing.
Steve Mann makes a very good point.
"Shooting back"...
Cameras in the consumers hands are equally good.
Full disclosure.
They can have them so can you.
You should have every right to carry a camera.
Why the hack not?
I don't like people taking my picture.
But surveillance is just part of life.
Why should only they have that right?
Personal cameras are a good thing...
Any store that won't let people carry personal recording equipment should be devoid of recording equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
I know for a fact my Meantime between rootshell is "forever".. Nobody has ever hacked me...
I also know for a fact nobody has ever TRIED or even cares about trying. My computer could quite possably have more security holes than swiss chease.. I'm a non-target..
I try to secure my box becouse random script kiddys don't care if the victom is a major bank or some random users game box. They just want to prove they are cool by distroying something.
I also avoid script kiddies.
So what would it count for?
Nobody ever hacks my computer becouse they don't want to. But ultra secure computers get hit daily. The diffrence is the importence of the box not the quality of security.
That is pritty cool...
:)
It's always nice to remember that thies people are real and do real things in the real world.
Thats kinda neat to think about... Adams using a Kaypro.. That makes me want to smile
Side note to troll:
I know people make up storys of meeting famous people and such is not hard to do.
But then on the Internet people clame to be all kinds of things.
People even clame to know non-famous people when they don't.
Just set that fact asside.
Anyone on the Internet can be lying about anything...
After all.. do you really believe my name is Felinoid? I certenly hope not...
Solaris and SunOs aren't the same...
SunOs was free and did not conform to Unix standards established AFTER SunOs was created.
Solaris is fully Unix standard.
Sun eventually discontinued SunOs and focused on Solaris.
A lot of people refused to switch to Solarus becouse SunOs ran faster and to be honnest the whole point of using Sun hardware was to run faster.
As I understand it Solarus WAS hiddiously slow.. not so anymore..
People that think linux is the magic bullet to solve every computing problem don't deserve moderator points. Or to be taken seriously.
To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail.
Linux CAN solve every problem..
So can Windows.. MacOs, hay even Dos and CP/M...
I see this to often in ALL platforms.
Windows and Linux are the worst sence Linux users provide ALL Linux marketting and Microsoft sells Windows as all things to all people.
Hay Cp/m can run a GUI...
Hay Windows can be a server..
Hay Linux can be user friendly...
I don't recomend it...
Keep a full tool box.. a hammer may drive in screws and nails that dosn't mean you should..
How is Microsoft to know you use Windows unliccensed?
Same deal..
I don't need to break liccens to use Linux for business
By the time I've tweaked linux into what solaris does, I've lost any perfomance gains i may have had.
I always suspected it was an issue of Solarus features.
Solarus ships stacked to run ideal as web server or database server.
But if your not doing that wouldn't those features slow the system down?
You'll only see a speedup with Linux if you don't need those features..
Actually I don't use a Sun Sparc. But if I could I would.
:) I'm in a happy mood and so I won't say anything insulting (and blatently false)
Here is why I use Linux. I've been dying for a chance to say this on Slashdot and not be flamebate
I do not have a lot of money. I have only enough room on my desk for one computer. I need to do everything I do on it.
I need a posix system.
I design and test my website on my computer.
I need a similer (not identical) environment to the one the server will have.
So I need a Unix or Unix like operating system.
I do all my own technical work and I want the option of being able to make changes to the operating system if I want.
This leaves me with BSD and Linux.
BSD pushes the optomised server direction Linux still chases "neat things".. TV cards etc..
Rember I only have enough room on my desk for one computer. That computer has to be my TV and radio also. This means a TV card and a radio card... BSD dosn't support this stuff.. Linux dose..
I know Linux going after drivers for TV cards means Linux isn't doing as much for stability as BSD is. But then let's rember the computer on my desk is NOT a production machine.
My server? I leave that up to the hosting service.. as long as they use Unix I'm happy..
If I had my hands on a Sparc and it could do what I wanted I'd use it.
Sparcs are designed top to buttom to be high end systems..
PCs are trapped in legacy.. It's a bit of a headake to have to deal with...
One issue when running a server is speed.
Sparcs are designed to run very fast reguardless of the operating system.
Solarus compleatly ignores this issue. As a result Solarus is useless for everything I do.
Linux has issues with high end systems.
This makes Linux useless for a lot of people.
BSD isn't perfict eather.
The right tool for the right JOB..
Not one tool for everyone...
Just becouse a wrench makes an ok hammer and can drive in screws dosen't mean the hammer and screw driver are worthless.
It sounds regressive...
However rember this is an industry with some pritty dracoinain policys.
No dating employees of compeating companys [Microsoft dosen't have this policy.. at one time IBM did but I think they were sued over it]
You can not work in the same field for a year after you quit.
You can be fired for viewing a porn site on company equipment...
Or worse... for being a henti artist on your own free time.
Some companys dictate you may NOT code on your personal time or that ANYTHING you code is owned by them.
As an open source coder you do need to be careful with the contract. You don't want to sign away your free software to someone else.
Any group of free thinking indivduals should contradict each other and bicker often.
The first thing to do when looking at an open source programmer is look at the body of his work. This is production code not some fancy sample so you have a real idea of what he'll do normally.
:) but thats annother story..
I could write perfict sample but my real world code leaves a great deal to be desired.
(I can spell better when I do the yoda thing.. dropping words I'm not able to spell.. to produce the image of an alien who dosn't use the same language)
Basicly in sample code I avoid complex tasks and just produce the ideal examples.
But when I'm producing real production code I can not dodge the bullet.
I'm not a great coder. My ego some times forgets this but I have enough better coders around to remind me. Vertually ALL the submissions I get are features I couldn't do myself, never got right, or repairing dumb things I did.
In short you will know I'm not some programming demi-god but in reality a coder that leaves a great deal to be desired.
(This of course is why I never got hired to do web work)
Examine that work. As a user e-mail him some tech support questions.
Interpersonal skills are VERY importent and that won't show in the code. You need to understand how this guy will respond to questions.
Even if he is a demi-god in his own right...
Now I'm a demi-idiot
The judge alowed impossable threats with fictional wepons of mass distruction.
If I were to fear for my life from a Usenet post threatonning me with a "Tom Cruse" missle or a photon torpedo the best corse is to find a padded cell for me.. not the threatoner..
At most this is a misscarage not becouse the laws themselfs but becouse a trial was done.
Let's say I accuse the RIAA of criminal harrasment on Napster... now we have a trial and the RIAA isn't allowed to defend itself or take any part in the trial.
Well I'll be able to prove that the RIAA is a conspericy to distory Napster...
Lets forget that the RIAA predate Napster... and all easly accessable data proving the RIAA was consistent when it went after Napster. (They were suing just about everyone using MP3s and distributing digital audio over the net before Napster ever existed)
But we command the details and RIAA can not defend. So RIAA is found guilty of harresy, cultism, and wearing ugly ties...
and hay.. I don't like the RIAA so....
Same deal here.. The guy ran off... The trial held in his absence is a travisty of the legal system.
Now all he has to do is come back.. The ruling can be thrown out and he can not be tried a second time... even thow he wasn't present the first time...
> I am anything but a lawyer, and my solution is potentially libelous, but it a solution that protesters, Unions and consumers employ to publicly shame a contract-violator.
I'm not a lawyer eather. I believe the idea is it's only libal if it's not true. But the suck part is it's on you to prove it's true not them to prove it's a lie. As I understand it and I'm not a lawyer. And this time I didn't read a Nolo book on the subject so I could be talking out my....
Side note.. I don't like larg Unions and larg protestor organisations. Much like larg companys they lose touch and go into bully mode..
Small Unions, protestors and companys I like. They remain in touch and do right by those represented. (The workers, the issues, the consummer)
Anyway... This is a good idea.
Just tell them you will drop them.
The reasoning is three fold.
1. They are fearful you will sue. While it's not practical that has not entered the logic. So they'll be conserned that you will sue for moneys owed and they lose you.
2. Something stinks. A sign of bad things. Cut the loss now instead of later when it'll be worse.
3. If they think they need this then if you stick around you may find your survival depends on the rights they are now asking you to sign away.
It is unlikely you'll need those rights normally but when someone asks you to forfit them then chances are really good you'll need em really soon.
Lawsutes are impractical.
So drop them.. If they cave then stay if they don't sticking around is probably not a very healthy thing to do.
I'd like to add. In todays banner ad market I'm supprised more websites don't folow Slashdot's example and set up a banner ad server like AdFu..
Ad services were nice. Someone RELIABLE dose all the hard work and you generate the traffic. It WAS a good healthy relationship. But things went bad. Unreliable services came up and no-so-savy people would buy out successful services.
Eventually everyone would cave to pressuers and go the dishonnest route.
There are some honnest guys left. They'll die off or get take over. The ecconomy is bad. The middle men won't survive. Just cut them out and stay afloat.
Quite a few Microsoft employees use Unix or some other platform and Microsoft dosen't seem to mind one bit.
There is confadence in your product and then there is lunacy.
Ford dosen't expect to deliver it's cars using Ford trucks.
Apple used Crays in connection with Macs...
Cray did same..
I remember seeing a non-Commodore computer being used to test a Commodore 64 on the asembly line.
You don't need to get so wrapped up in your own company you forget the product isn't perfict.
Even Microsoft knows better...
AoL/TW however....
Also.. even profesionals can not resist the urge to write optomised code when coding in house.
If they were using a Unix/Sendmail system the code would be optomised for sendmail on Unix... Unlikely they'd ingrane into the exact Unix but it's equally unlikely they'd consider supporting a diffrent mail server than what your using.
(There is a greater chance of moving from BSD to Linux or Linux to Solarus than there is from Sendmail to something else)
And for running on Windows you really want to ingrain your code in the exact software you are using.
> Free software mustmustMUST be combined with pay services and proprietary software for a business to survive.
Replace the AND with OR...
You don't need both pay services and proprietary software. You can do just fine with only one item.
The Free software is the hook.
But alone it won't pay the bills. So you have to pay the bills some other way.
What good is free software? Marketting mostly..
Sell the video card open the drivers..
Sell the computer open the os
Etc....
But free software dosen't pay for itself..
>Has anyone look at everyline of code in KDE or the linux kernal itself...
Linus and AC have.. but then some Q&A person reviewed every line of Windows code so that dosn't really help.
There are two advantages with open source.. even more so with open source Unix like systems..
You can fix the software.. or you can toss the software.
You are quite familure with the "fix" option.. So let me run over the "toss" option.
With free software (it dosn't need to be open) you invested no money so in tossing the software you aren't throwing money away.
Let's say Linus starts blamming application programmers and end users for defects in Linux. (Ahem.. Microsoft.. Ohh not that Microsoft was the first or only.. Just the best example today..)
Ok so now what? Well you dump Linux... How? I mean I invested umm well.. nothing...
Ok yeah but all my Unix code...
UNIX code.. Switch to BSD.. make some tweeks if nessisary..
At the apps level same deal. If the develuper starts acting goofy and untrustworthy then dump the bad app and switch to something else.
File format issues...
When writing code you almost always come up with something to save that the current standards don't recognise. The solution is simple.. enhance the existing standard or write your own format.
It is usually easyer and better to just write your own format.
Rarely (if ever) is this format documented. Open or closed. The user dosn't need it.
If the user needs to switch from one app to annother he needs to convert his files from one format to annother... No can do mister..
With open source you CAN read the source and discover the format. From there it's pritty brain dead easy.
So basicly open source software has an easyer escape path.
Solarus is pritty blasted secure. But if that ever changes you may have problems.
(Being Unix escaping Solarus is easyer than escaping Windows)
Basicly Unix/Posix and open source provide escape paths that tend to be cut off by closed source propritary systems.
On the older topic the issue of Q&A procedures came up.
A lot of people see open source as being so great becouse you can fix the bugs when the software breaks.
The objective of Q&A is to fix the bugs so when you get the product it is already working.
If the code is writen correctly Q&A can do it's job..
A point was made (in a very crude way) that poorly writen open source isn't going to be easyer to fix under "many eyes". Weak fradual code is going to break no matter what system you use to fix it. Making ANY changes breaks the code.
I should now mention one of the OTHER advantages of open source...
In reality there is only one thing you CAN do with poorly writen code... toss it...
But when you invest $100 to $1,000 into software you are stuck with it.
Having spent no money on the software you downloaded and installed you can throw it away.
I'm sure a lot of open source develupers would prefer you didn't consider this option but it is valuable to know that you are not stuck with it before you get a chance to try it out.
(This is the whole guiding idea behind shareware.. Try before you buy. Freeware has this same advantage. Actually you have this advantage with video games in some cases if the store carrys a console with the games running)
So in short bad products that are byond repair can be disposed of in open source.
Now it would be munch nicer if coders would just not make crap code to start with. Open source dosn't prevent it any more than closed. It's just easyer to dispose of.
Considering you don't have to live and breath 'computer' to use an Apple system, I don't think MacOS X can be classified UNIX.
You just classifyed the entire AT&T 3B (Unix) computer line as not Unix...
They were rather easy to use (as text systems go)
You also ended up calling Windows "unix"...
Macs and AT&T 3B computers have one thing in commen (Nothing else)
They were made ground up to run the operating system they run.
Sparcs and PCs were not specally made to run a given operating system.
One issue that is now pritty universal for all current operating systems is the off switch.
It is dangerous to give the user control of the off switch.
Mac and 3B2 systems don't give the user access to the off switch. The off switch they offer triggers the system to shut down the operating system. THEN the computer turns itself off.
It is more convent this way.
A user could mistakenly switch the system off at the wrong point during a complex shutdown.
They could.. looking at a blank screen.. think the process is over...
Also Macs can change radicly while PCs have to remain more or less compatable with the original PC.
(The side effect of this is that it's a bastard to install something that isn't MacOs on a Mac...)
>What name would you give the common functionality of Linux, BSD, and MacOS X, anyhow?
*nix seems the populare notation...
Unix is basicly trademarked so it means what the current owner wants it to mean.
People faithful to Solaris and other systems who liccens the Unix name aren't much diffrent from Linux zelots or Microsoft zombies...
But to use the term as it has been used by Unix experts for years Linux and MacOsX are Unix systems.
But they aren't becouse nobody liccensed the name...
Unix now has become a standard rather than an operating system.
Folowing the source isn't helpful. Unix forking itself has made clones more compatable (in some cases) than "offical" source.
Basicly clones make more effort to stay true to Unix.
The rule seems to be the harder it is to do the more likely it is to happen.
Managment may not consider the impact changes may have to compatability when using the offical code.
It's more "in your face" as it were...
So Unix is basicly just a standard.
Folow the standard past the review and liccens the name.
Apple didn't, Linux didn't, So it isn't Unix.
Of someone feals like it they could build a Linux distro folow Unix standard and fork over for the liccens.
Apple could also do this.
So.. considering the diffrence is a liccens to use the name "Unix"... dose it even matter?
By making the links between open source and these companies explicit, we are basically putting ourselves into legal obligation with these companies, sacrificing freedom for security.
No legal obligations exist between open source and the companys who support it.
What a sad day it would be when all it requires to obtain legal binding is to offical support.
Outside of actually signning away freedoms nothing is lost by supporting those who support you..
He brings up some good points. "Shooting back"
Store owners see a lot of theft. A huge amount.
I remember once while I was in a 7-11 the store owner saw kids trying to steal beer on the camera.
The dome refereed to in his concerns are not to hide the existence of the camera.
No body will be fooled by that facade.
The function is to cover for a defect. Cameras swaying back and forth.
Sure you know there is a camera but you don't know where it is pointing at a given moment.
Those cameras are good. They serve a function.
The abuses have to do with cameras placed in dressing rooms and manual control cameras.
Manual control isn't worth the investment. Cameras are 90% deterrent.
In fact there is a big market for fake cameras.
But far to many people risk the camera. So you need the real thing.
Steve Mann makes a very good point.
"Shooting back"...
Cameras in the consumers hands are equally good.
Full disclosure.
They can have them so can you.
You should have every right to carry a camera.
Why the hack not?
I don't like people taking my picture.
But surveillance is just part of life.
Why should only they have that right?
Personal cameras are a good thing...
Any store that won't let people carry personal recording equipment should be devoid of recording equipment.