Now that I've taken a moment to read the patent abstract, I think it's pretty clear that they are not describing sudo.
The mechanism they describe would more likely have prior art in non-UNIX systems. It sounds like factotum in Plan 9. It might be factotum-minus-encryption-plus-registry.
Patents are supposed to be nonobvious, so the dumb programmer's work *should* (but alas, does not in the USPTO's short-sightedness) fail the test.
Whatever. We know exactly how it does work. It's worked that way for quite some time now. If we would like it to work some other way, it will require change. If we want the problem solved, we require legislative change. As of now, "even the dumbest programmer does 200 patentable things per day."
Wake up. Obviously not patenting SUDO.
on
Microsoft Patents sudo
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
A bunch of comments here are exclaiming that
1) This patent is identical to sudo! Prior art! 2) Microsoft will use its patent on sudo to attack Linux.
Obviously both statements cannot be true. If Microsoft ever attempted to enforce this patent on distributors & users of sudo or a sudo-like device, they would have no case. They would have proven that the patent is invalid, because the product that they are attempting to block is considerably older than the patent.
1) This is like sudo, but different enough to merit a patent. 2) Microsoft will never attempt to enforce this patent on something that is older than the patent.
And I don't even have to read the patent. Keep in mind that "different enough to merit a patent" is barely different at all. Even the dumbest programmer does 200 patentable things per day. If you're the first person to do any of them, you can file. If you're the second person to do any of them, you're liable. That's the problem, not that Microsoft has gotten away with patenting some existing feature of Unix (and Windows, for that matter).
Had our representatives received massive negative input from us, a.k.a. letters, faxes, emails, and public protests, maybe they would have voted otherwise.
There wasn't time.
The Patriot act was submitted and voted on before there was time for people to read it, including most of congress.
All their desktop software is Windows only. Their in house desktop software developement team is probably all geared around Windows.
I'm sure they've discussed the issue, and I'm sure they've come to all the obvious conclusions: It's cheaper & more valuable for them to make Windows only applications.
Blah blah blah blah.
Re:Some of the changes (possible spoilers)
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I don't think the vulnerability that you describe is related to LOAF. The attached LOAF is not what provides trust. It's previously acquired LOAFs that can be used to provide trust to an incoming email. And nobody's computer has to be compromised in order to exploit that: anyone can say their email is from YourFriend@hotmail.com
This isn't a replacement for Sender-ID or SPF or whatever. It's just a relatively safe way to see which of your acquaintances know each other.
It looks like LOAF is still kindof limited. However, they recognize this concern. The technology could allow for a configurable false-positive rate, which could reduce the effectiveness of a dictionary based attack.
But my post indicated two differences: the article distinguishes in both cases. Even if the inter-intra distinction was a typo. The only thing that capitalization indicates is whether the word is a proper noun.
We refer to it as the Internet. Corporations have intranets. The capitalization conveys meaning. Wired's usage is wrong.
Um... reread what you wrote. I don't necessarily agree with Wired's decision, but in that particular case, capitalization does not convey meaning. Spelling does. Internet vs intranet. So does the article: "the" vs "an". WTF are you talking about?
I was responding to the great grandparent poster, not the article. His point was that deregulation in this sort of situation is bad, based on the example of recent attempts at energy deregulation.
My point is that California is a poor example of deregulation: Cato seems 100% in favor of deregulating just about everything, and they were opposed to California's deregulation plan.
Which is why I made the analogy to the USSR: California & energy deregulation are related in the same way that the USSR & socialism are: just like you say, not at all.
Re:A must read for everyone interested in spectrum
on
Spectrum as Property
·
· Score: 1
That's a fascinating article. What does it have to do with radio spectrum?
The RF spectrum is a limited resource, and as such is subject to speculation and fraud -- have we forgotten electricity auctions so quickly?
Whatever. Everything is subject to speculation and fraud. California's electricity deregulation was set up completely wrong. Just like the USSR doesn't prove that socialism is broken, Enron doesn't prove that energy deregulation is broken.
When you have the Cato Institute opposing your "deregulation", you know something is amiss.
Bavarian beer tastes like shandy. I don't understand you people. Sure, it's miles better than Bud, Miller, & the rice beers, but so is the rest of American beer. We do just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations may be the johns, but it's the Olympics who's the streetwalker.
That implies a value judgment that I find reprehensible. I'm not sure you're serious.
I'm paraphrasing other people here, and disagreeing with them.
and has been done by SCO in the past.
OMG!!!
Now that I've taken a moment to read the patent abstract, I think it's pretty clear that they are not describing sudo.
The mechanism they describe would more likely have prior art in non-UNIX systems. It sounds like factotum in Plan 9. It might be factotum-minus-encryption-plus-registry.
But iduno if factotum is even close.
However, they CAN potentially sue anyone who updates sudo or moves the concept into a new program.
Not unless they change sudo so that it has new features that are described in the patent, in which case they will have actually violated the patent.
Whatever. We know exactly how it does work. It's worked that way for quite some time now. If we would like it to work some other way, it will require change. If we want the problem solved, we require legislative change. As of now, "even the dumbest programmer does 200 patentable things per day."
A bunch of comments here are exclaiming that
1) This patent is identical to sudo! Prior art!
2) Microsoft will use its patent on sudo to attack Linux.
Obviously both statements cannot be true. If Microsoft ever attempted to enforce this patent on distributors & users of sudo or a sudo-like device, they would have no case. They would have proven that the patent is invalid, because the product that they are attempting to block is considerably older than the patent.
1) This is like sudo, but different enough to merit a patent.
2) Microsoft will never attempt to enforce this patent on something that is older than the patent.
And I don't even have to read the patent. Keep in mind that "different enough to merit a patent" is barely different at all. Even the dumbest programmer does 200 patentable things per day. If you're the first person to do any of them, you can file. If you're the second person to do any of them, you're liable. That's the problem, not that Microsoft has gotten away with patenting some existing feature of Unix (and Windows, for that matter).
Um, I take back my previous comment. I think I was confusing the Patriot Act with some other large bill.
Was it the Budget? I totally forget.
Had our representatives received massive negative input from us, a.k.a. letters, faxes, emails, and public protests, maybe they would have voted otherwise.
There wasn't time.
The Patriot act was submitted and voted on before there was time for people to read it, including most of congress.
I mean, come on, Win32 only?
All their desktop software is Windows only. Their in house desktop software developement team is probably all geared around Windows.
I'm sure they've discussed the issue, and I'm sure they've come to all the obvious conclusions: It's cheaper & more valuable for them to make Windows only applications.
Blah blah blah blah.
Greedo shooting first for example.
And taking out the best songs.
Way to suck all the humor out by overexplaining everything.
I definitely like the fact that it has a normal phone form factor, unlike my previous phone... the Nokia 3300 mp3 phone.
Damn... thanks for subsidizing Nokia's R&D for the rest of us.
I don't think the vulnerability that you describe is related to LOAF. The attached LOAF is not what provides trust. It's previously acquired LOAFs that can be used to provide trust to an incoming email. And nobody's computer has to be compromised in order to exploit that: anyone can say their email is from YourFriend@hotmail.com
This isn't a replacement for Sender-ID or SPF or whatever. It's just a relatively safe way to see which of your acquaintances know each other.
It looks like LOAF is still kindof limited. However, they recognize this concern. The technology could allow for a configurable false-positive rate, which could reduce the effectiveness of a dictionary based attack.
But my post indicated two differences: the article distinguishes in both cases. Even if the inter-intra distinction was a typo. The only thing that capitalization indicates is whether the word is a proper noun.
I waren't trolling, whether or not I'm right.
bless you.
In other words, why should I, as an open source developer be interested in Ingres?
$1 million cash money?
While I think I understand what you're saying, I don't understand how your comment relates to my post.
We refer to it as the Internet. Corporations have intranets. The capitalization conveys meaning. Wired's usage is wrong.
Um... reread what you wrote. I don't necessarily agree with Wired's decision, but in that particular case, capitalization does not convey meaning. Spelling does. Internet vs intranet. So does the article: "the" vs "an". WTF are you talking about?
astroturfing
?!
I was responding to the great grandparent poster, not the article. His point was that deregulation in this sort of situation is bad, based on the example of recent attempts at energy deregulation.
My point is that California is a poor example of deregulation: Cato seems 100% in favor of deregulating just about everything, and they were opposed to California's deregulation plan.
Which is why I made the analogy to the USSR: California & energy deregulation are related in the same way that the USSR & socialism are: just like you say, not at all.
That's a fascinating article. What does it have to do with radio spectrum?
The RF spectrum is a limited resource, and as such is subject to speculation and fraud -- have we forgotten electricity auctions so quickly?
Whatever. Everything is subject to speculation and fraud. California's electricity deregulation was set up completely wrong. Just like the USSR doesn't prove that socialism is broken, Enron doesn't prove that energy deregulation is broken.
When you have the Cato Institute opposing your "deregulation", you know something is amiss.
But it choose to stay this way, running like a struggling non-profit, forgoing the dream of uncountable wealth.
What? Wasn't the last story about Craigslist talking about how they were a company with 14 employees, and revenue of $25 million per year?
I think they're doing fine.
Dunno. I wish that mattered to me.
Bavarian beer tastes like shandy. I don't understand you people. Sure, it's miles better than Bud, Miller, & the rice beers, but so is the rest of American beer. We do just fine.