Not even that. "Public domain" == "do whatever the hell you want with it." This includes relicensing, and yes, you can even say you authored the thing.
In the case of most public-domain works, however, this is a non-issue. No one is going to believe I wrote Romeo and Juliet, for example. Likewise, nothing stops me from selling digital copies of that story, under an onerous license agreement. Heck, I can even mutilate Shakespeare's prose if I wanted to. It'd be largely an exercise in futility, however-- the work is already established.
Isn't Samba's approach to analyze NT's wire protocol? I would have guessed actually trying to grok binary Microsoft networking code would have been way too complicated to be feasible (unless the crew down under is much better at it than I thought)
But will non-GPL programs (not necessarily proprietary-- think BSD, MPL et. al.) be able to use ALSA? Or is alsa.h (asound.h?) only needed to hack a sound driver?
(My concern is with apps that just play sound-- if they HAVE to be GPL'ed, should they be targetted to ALSA, then there's a bit of a problem there)
Hee hee! For those of you lucky enough to have the Globe's dead-tree edition handy, check out the article. There is a HILARIOUS caricature of Stallman on the front page. I especially like the bird sitting on his head }:-D
"Cheating," in this case, doesn't mean finding the correct key; it's saying to d.net, "I've checked this big set of blocks, and the winning key isn't in any of them." Everyone is scored on how many blocks they've checked, and at what rate, so "cheating" will bump up your score.
Aye, you can bet if anyone did have the winning key, they wouldn't bother toying with d.net. They'd call up RSA in a heartbeat, and get the money and fame:-)
May I ask why you have chosen the name of bugbear3001? This would not be to confuse your postings with those of longtime/. member bugbear3000, no? I notice the above is the first and only posting in your user history.
At any rate, regarding the technical merits of a VW versus a Dell, I suggest you look into the specs of the former. Not only as concerns the graphics pipeline, but also the ultra-high memory and system bus bandwidth. I can't compare the two very well, alas, because there really is no comparison.
If you can consider a Dell, however, then the VW is probably overkill for you. You don't get one of these boxes to play Quake, put it that way:-)
As for SGI needing NT-- I suppose that's true, as things currently stand. A lot of customers are still demanding NT, and SGI would be remiss to not offer that choice. That says nothing of the relative merits of NT, however. If people demanded DOS, SGI would have DOS solutions. What is evident, however, is not only their strong support, but also ardent enthusiasm for Linux. (Coming from one of the premiere high-performance computing firms in existence, the compliment is very well-given).
they're dumping everything to ride in Uncle Bill's backseat
I see absolutely no indication of this. You may as well have said Microsoft was planning on open-sourcing its Windows accessory programs. Please substantiate.
(Actually, never mind. I just saw your "Kool-aid" posting below. You are obviously not here to discuss the topic at hand.)
Did you score it as "Flamebait," too? I tried moderating down bugbear's SHIZ-NIT post yesterday, but made the mistake of scoring it as "OffTopic" when it was already at 0:Flamebait. My guess is, a posting has to get two whammies of the same kind to get it down to -1.
bugbear, why are you pulling this crap? Your user history reveals your past posting have (at least) shown more intelligence. This sort of stunt not only pisses everyone off at you, it also brushes up your account for the axe.
(Filter idea: run gzip on postings, and if the compression ratio is greater than 95%, drop the score!)
Hmmm . . . jMax looks rather like Quack on steroids, no?
(FYI, Quack is a shareware sound generator/mangler program for WinXX. It uses the modules-connected-with-cords paradigm as well, though it probably doesn't do half of what this puppy is capable of)
Whatever this is, it's big. So it seems to be some sort of high-end interactive audio programming software . . . would this be used to develop autonomous audio-processing software (write CoolEditPro for Linux!) or to turn a PC into a super-high-end sound-editing machine? The site's kinda thin on "what it is" exposition . . . .
Is there anyone here that's worked with Max/jMax before?
For some reason, most military stuff is incredibly uncute, rough and seems to be built with a hammer and an axe
Ahhh, but therein lies the beauty of it-- one hundred percent functional design, and absolutely top-of-the-line quality construction. Unlike most consumer products, which are built as cheaply as possible, and usually with the help of "product designers" to make them more palatable to mainstream consumer tastes. Ugh. (Ever seen the interior of a Ford lately?)
It's kind of like UNIX versus Windows, when you think about it. After all, what some might consider ugly, in the aesthetic sense, may be technically beautiful to those in the know;-)
Yeah, I've got those too, and a pretty few of them from tide??.microsoft.com. Aren't those supposed to be company ISP lines? Kinda makes you wonder what Microsoft employees are doing playing around with crawler bots . . .
Anyway, what you might want to do is disallow by user-agent-- e.g. my site has MSIECrawler locked out, because it is brain-dead and it pounded my machine with 57,000+ hits in a single hour due to some error URL funkiness. (How's that to throw off yer Webalizer stats?)
I kind of liked that "Netiquette" anti-spam recent ruling, which suggested (on the side) that in order to spam, you have get a special "spam" contract with the ISP. So they could charge mucho bucks for the privilege, and maybe flag all the outgoing mail like Mr. Taco suggested. Not perfect, but not too bad either.
There's something I'm curious about, however-- so much we hear about Hotmail/Yahoo/whatever accounts being used to spam thousands of people . . . well, wouldn't it be somewhat trivial to simply design the mail system to limit mailing list sizes? At least I'm sure these guys aren't sending each piece of mail individually, even with a perl script or some other robot setup, and sending to a listserv would be kind of pointless. So why is it that the free-mail systems don't get tipped off somehow when one user mails more than 1000+ users in a single day? Am I missing something here?
I believe I recall seeing on certain packs of Kodak 35mm film an actual resolution-- something on the order of 3600x2400 or so. (Just checked a boxed roll I have here, but it's nowhere to be found:-(
What's sort of funny about this, is that the prism/R-G-B sensor idea is actually an old idea. That's how earlier TV cameras worked, IIRC, before we had these newfangled single-chip CCD's. (Though I think high-end TV cameras have used triple CCD's for some time... hmm)
So let me get this right: You mean I'm going to have to remember sixteen 8-bit numbers now to get to my machine? Dangit! If only there were some way to hash an easy-to-remember name to an IP address . . . now that would be really useful. Oh well.
(I know the script kiddies are not gonna like this. "Hey! I got wArEz and p0rn at ftp://24.193.19.162.57.221.85.3.17.177.153.35.45.1 20.221! What's your site?")
Check out the mozilla-fonts package I've put together. It's a complete set of Times, Helvetica, and Courier typefaces for Netscape, in the big, voluptuous sizes your eyes know and love;-)
Having myself been occasionally confused as to the meaning of some obscure acronym mentioned here on/., I can vouch for the superlative usefulness of the following site:
Re:On the other hand... what happens when Linux wi
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
Well, if a Linux hegemony were possible, it wouldn't be so bad. Linux domination would be nothing like Microsoft domination-- it is one operating system, but there are many many vendors who can provide it, and add value. And the GPL would work effectively to keep a measure of technical parity and compatibility between them all.
Kind of like having a form of government take over the world, rather than a single government.
(An interesting thing to note, Linus has mentioned that if such a thing were ever to happen, he will consider Linux a failure. For him, it's always been about choice. With the GPL, and the open development model, everything is in place to ensure it stays that way).
That might be interesting.... You get the source code to the BeOS when you buy it, and you can hack it/fix it all you want, post patches, etc... just not put the whole thing up for free download.
If it weren't for the IP reasons, who knows? They might just have gone that route . . . .
We all know what grief it tends to cause when you have a closed-source operating system with marketshare in the 90th percentile. I think many of us have seen this same potential, given the similar closed-source approach, in this newcomer to the OS show.
It's easy to imagine the "BeOS doomsday scenario"-- Be starts getting popular, then hits it really big, and then things start going wrong. Feature bloat comes in. The excellent API documentation starts slipping. New releases come out in model years. You know the path to the Dark Side.
If BeOS were open-source, we'd know what to do. Fork the code. Let the community keep them honest. But this, as things stand, is not to be an option for us.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Anyone remember the old days, otherwise known as the '80's? I sure don't, but I've heard a lot about how Microsoft was the underdog back then. They were cheered on by many an end user against the behemothy likes of IBM, Lotus, and the other great Titans of old. Well, we know what happened to young Anakin. Is BeOS to become the next Dark Lord?
I don't intend to slight JLG, or any of the other intelligent and zany BeOS developers, whose efforts have proved nothing short of astounding. However, there is at least a basis for some, shall we say, healthy skepticism on the part of our more faithful open-source advocates.
We know Open Source isn't pixie dust, but it is a very good way of keeping a company from doing Microsoft-like things. BeOS has decided to keep their source secret. So far, they're doing this for pretty harmless reasons-- to run a tight ship, not tell the whole world exactly how the BeOS kicks a$$, generally reasonable things like that.
The problem is, at some point, it becomes very easy to do things with closed source that one really shouldn't do. Things like AARD, funky file formats, and talking paperclips come to mind.
I think the biggest fear around here is that, if Be does break critical mass and gets to the point where they can do that-- quite possible, in a post-Microsoft world-- there isn't going to be much we can do about it. Except kick ourselves for cheering Be on in their early days, call it BeO$, and have a Torvalds-wannabe write a new operating system that totally blows it out of the water. (After several years of careful development, of course).
Anyway, if Open Source isn't in place to keep them honest, I'm not sure what else could. Perhaps a cross-platform superset-of-POSIX API, such that the important apps can easily jump ship to Linux. (But then, given the differences between the systems, you either get an API that doesn't take full advantage of the BeOS, or that can't be acceptably implemented on Linux).
I'll definitely check out BeOS someday, but I do sometimes wish there were some tacitly acknowledged mechanism in place to keep Be in check, should such circumstances ever arise. RedHat has the GPL watching over its shoulder; TrollTech has the doomsday clause in the QPL. Be...?
Wow... for someone who had such a big part in personal-computer history, he sure looks like a pretty down-to-earth guy.
Of course, with a name like Woz, you just can't help but be lovable:-) I, for one, can attest to having encountered a great many hamsters named after him.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even that. "Public domain" == "do whatever the hell you want with it." This includes relicensing, and yes, you can even say you authored the thing.
In the case of most public-domain works, however, this is a non-issue. No one is going to believe I wrote Romeo and Juliet, for example. Likewise, nothing stops me from selling digital copies of that story, under an onerous license agreement. Heck, I can even mutilate Shakespeare's prose if I wanted to. It'd be largely an exercise in futility, however-- the work is already established.
PD is the absolute zero of IP protection.
Isn't Samba's approach to analyze NT's wire protocol? I would have guessed actually trying to grok binary Microsoft networking code would have been way too complicated to be feasible (unless the crew down under is much better at it than I thought)
But will non-GPL programs (not necessarily proprietary-- think BSD, MPL et. al.) be able to use ALSA? Or is alsa.h (asound.h?) only needed to hack a sound driver?
(My concern is with apps that just play sound-- if they HAVE to be GPL'ed, should they be targetted to ALSA, then there's a bit of a problem there)
Hee hee! For those of you lucky enough to have the Globe's dead-tree edition handy, check out the article. There is a HILARIOUS caricature of Stallman on the front page. I especially like the bird sitting on his head }:-D
"Cheating," in this case, doesn't mean finding the correct key; it's saying to d.net, "I've checked this big set of blocks, and the winning key isn't in any of them." Everyone is scored on how many blocks they've checked, and at what rate, so "cheating" will bump up your score.
:-)
Aye, you can bet if anyone did have the winning key, they wouldn't bother toying with d.net. They'd call up RSA in a heartbeat, and get the money and fame
Incidentally, how do you pronounce that? Hacks-or?
(b/c it would sound kind of silly for CNN et. al. to say, "The FBI's servers were hacksored again today")
May I ask why you have chosen the name of bugbear3001? This would not be to confuse your postings with those of longtime /. member bugbear3000, no? I notice the above is the first and only posting in your user history.
:-)
At any rate, regarding the technical merits of a VW versus a Dell, I suggest you look into the specs of the former. Not only as concerns the graphics pipeline, but also the ultra-high memory and system bus bandwidth. I can't compare the two very well, alas, because there really is no comparison.
If you can consider a Dell, however, then the VW is probably overkill for you. You don't get one of these boxes to play Quake, put it that way
As for SGI needing NT-- I suppose that's true, as things currently stand. A lot of customers are still demanding NT, and SGI would be remiss to not offer that choice. That says nothing of the relative merits of NT, however. If people demanded DOS, SGI would have DOS solutions. What is evident, however, is not only their strong support, but also ardent enthusiasm for Linux. (Coming from one of the premiere high-performance computing firms in existence, the compliment is very well-given).
they're dumping everything to ride in Uncle Bill's backseat
I see absolutely no indication of this. You may as well have said Microsoft was planning on open-sourcing its Windows accessory programs. Please substantiate.
(Actually, never mind. I just saw your "Kool-aid" posting below. You are obviously not here to discuss the topic at hand.)
Did you score it as "Flamebait," too? I tried moderating down bugbear's SHIZ-NIT post yesterday, but made the mistake of scoring it as "OffTopic" when it was already at 0:Flamebait. My guess is, a posting has to get two whammies of the same kind to get it down to -1.
bugbear, why are you pulling this crap? Your user history reveals your past posting have (at least) shown more intelligence. This sort of stunt not only pisses everyone off at you, it also brushes up your account for the axe.
(Filter idea: run gzip on postings, and if the compression ratio is greater than 95%, drop the score!)
Very good page! 'preciate the link!
Hmmm . . . jMax looks rather like Quack on steroids, no?
(FYI, Quack is a shareware sound generator/mangler program for WinXX. It uses the modules-connected-with-cords paradigm as well, though it probably doesn't do half of what this puppy is capable of)
Whatever this is, it's big. So it seems to be some sort of high-end interactive audio programming software . . . would this be used to develop autonomous audio-processing software (write CoolEditPro for Linux!) or to turn a PC into a super-high-end sound-editing machine? The site's kinda thin on "what it is" exposition . . . .
Is there anyone here that's worked with Max/jMax before?
There's nothing more sinister-looking than a dark brooding Courier, with its row of hellish-looking red LEDs flashing.
;-)
So I'm not the only one that thought WOPR (from WarGames) was the damndest cool-looking computer ever?
(Okay, so it wasn't black, but it was definitely sinister-looking
For some reason, most military stuff is incredibly uncute, rough and seems to be built with a hammer and an axe
;-)
Ahhh, but therein lies the beauty of it-- one hundred percent functional design, and absolutely top-of-the-line quality construction. Unlike most consumer products, which are built as cheaply as possible, and usually with the help of "product designers" to make them more palatable to mainstream consumer tastes. Ugh. (Ever seen the interior of a Ford lately?)
It's kind of like UNIX versus Windows, when you think about it. After all, what some might consider ugly, in the aesthetic sense, may be technically beautiful to those in the know
Yeah, I've got those too, and a pretty few of them from tide??.microsoft.com. Aren't those supposed to be company ISP lines? Kinda makes you wonder what Microsoft employees are doing playing around with crawler bots . . .
:-)
Anyway, what you might want to do is disallow by user-agent-- e.g. my site has MSIECrawler locked out, because it is brain-dead and it pounded my machine with 57,000+ hits in a single hour due to some error URL funkiness. (How's that to throw off yer Webalizer stats?)
P.S.: Use logresolve! IP numbers no pretty
Wow, those graphics look sweet . . . so what is this puppy built on, anyway? SVGAlib? SDL? Glide? Or true-blue OpenGL?
I kind of liked that "Netiquette" anti-spam recent ruling, which suggested (on the side) that in order to spam, you have get a special "spam" contract with the ISP. So they could charge mucho bucks for the privilege, and maybe flag all the outgoing mail like Mr. Taco suggested. Not perfect, but not too bad either.
There's something I'm curious about, however-- so much we hear about Hotmail/Yahoo/whatever accounts being used to spam thousands of people . . . well, wouldn't it be somewhat trivial to simply design the mail system to limit mailing list sizes? At least I'm sure these guys aren't sending each piece of mail individually, even with a perl script or some other robot setup, and sending to a listserv would be kind of pointless. So why is it that the free-mail systems don't get tipped off somehow when one user mails more than 1000+ users in a single day? Am I missing something here?
Criminy, that's awesome. I want one! :-)
:-(
I believe I recall seeing on certain packs of Kodak 35mm film an actual resolution-- something on the order of 3600x2400 or so. (Just checked a boxed roll I have here, but it's nowhere to be found
What's sort of funny about this, is that the prism/R-G-B sensor idea is actually an old idea. That's how earlier TV cameras worked, IIRC, before we had these newfangled single-chip CCD's. (Though I think high-end TV cameras have used triple CCD's for some time... hmm)
So here's one thing I never got straight . . . is it "Seuss" or "Sousa?"
.")
(.au file with thick German accent: "Hello, my name ist Marc Torres und I pronounce 'SuSE' as . .
So let me get this right: You mean I'm going to have to remember sixteen 8-bit numbers now to get to my machine? Dangit! If only there were some way to hash an easy-to-remember name to an IP address . . . now that would be really useful. Oh well.
1 20.221! What's your site?")
(I know the script kiddies are not gonna like this. "Hey! I got wArEz and p0rn at ftp://24.193.19.162.57.221.85.3.17.177.153.35.45.
Check out the mozilla-fonts package I've put together. It's a complete set of Times, Helvetica, and Courier typefaces for Netscape, in the big, voluptuous sizes your eyes know and love ;-)
Get 'em right here!
see subject :-)
Having myself been occasionally confused as to the meaning of some obscure acronym mentioned here on /., I can vouch for the superlative usefulness of the following site:
http://www.acronymfinder.com/
Well, if a Linux hegemony were possible, it wouldn't be so bad. Linux domination would be nothing like Microsoft domination-- it is one operating system, but there are many many vendors who can provide it, and add value. And the GPL would work effectively to keep a measure of technical parity and compatibility between them all.
Kind of like having a form of government take over the world, rather than a single government.
(An interesting thing to note, Linus has mentioned that if such a thing were ever to happen, he will consider Linux a failure. For him, it's always been about choice. With the GPL, and the open development model, everything is in place to ensure it stays that way).
Touche. I'd forgotten about that one :-)
That might be interesting.... You get the source code to the BeOS when you buy it, and you can hack it/fix it all you want, post patches, etc... just not put the whole thing up for free download.
If it weren't for the IP reasons, who knows? They might just have gone that route . . . .
We all know what grief it tends to cause when you have a closed-source operating system with marketshare in the 90th percentile. I think many of us have seen this same potential, given the similar closed-source approach, in this newcomer to the OS show.
It's easy to imagine the "BeOS doomsday scenario"-- Be starts getting popular, then hits it really big, and then things start going wrong. Feature bloat comes in. The excellent API documentation starts slipping. New releases come out in model years. You know the path to the Dark Side.
If BeOS were open-source, we'd know what to do. Fork the code. Let the community keep them honest. But this, as things stand, is not to be an option for us.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Anyone remember the old days, otherwise known as the '80's? I sure don't, but I've heard a lot about how Microsoft was the underdog back then. They were cheered on by many an end user against the behemothy likes of IBM, Lotus, and the other great Titans of old. Well, we know what happened to young Anakin. Is BeOS to become the next Dark Lord?
I don't intend to slight JLG, or any of the other intelligent and zany BeOS developers, whose efforts have proved nothing short of astounding. However, there is at least a basis for some, shall we say, healthy skepticism on the part of our more faithful open-source advocates.
We know Open Source isn't pixie dust, but it is a very good way of keeping a company from doing Microsoft-like things. BeOS has decided to keep their source secret. So far, they're doing this for pretty harmless reasons-- to run a tight ship, not tell the whole world exactly how the BeOS kicks a$$, generally reasonable things like that.
The problem is, at some point, it becomes very easy to do things with closed source that one really shouldn't do. Things like AARD, funky file formats, and talking paperclips come to mind.
I think the biggest fear around here is that, if Be does break critical mass and gets to the point where they can do that-- quite possible, in a post-Microsoft world-- there isn't going to be much we can do about it. Except kick ourselves for cheering Be on in their early days, call it BeO$, and have a Torvalds-wannabe write a new operating system that totally blows it out of the water. (After several years of careful development, of course).
Anyway, if Open Source isn't in place to keep them honest, I'm not sure what else could. Perhaps a cross-platform superset-of-POSIX API, such that the important apps can easily jump ship to Linux. (But then, given the differences between the systems, you either get an API that doesn't take full advantage of the BeOS, or that can't be acceptably implemented on Linux).
I'll definitely check out BeOS someday, but I do sometimes wish there were some tacitly acknowledged mechanism in place to keep Be in check, should such circumstances ever arise. RedHat has the GPL watching over its shoulder; TrollTech has the doomsday clause in the QPL. Be...?
My five cents. (keep the change)
Wow... for someone who had such a big part in personal-computer history, he sure looks like a pretty down-to-earth guy.
:-) I, for one, can attest to having encountered a great many hamsters named after him.
Of course, with a name like Woz, you just can't help but be lovable
P.S.: Sharp-looking site, too!