Anime is one thing, but bringing this idea to life as a jet powered aircraft which could potentially take the life of the person piloting it in some, not too pleasant ways is yet another.
Most of these boards are nothing more than a haven for recruiters who want to get you for a little as possible.
Instead of removing the middleman as Monster is supposed to do, Recruiters are allowed to join for a fee and post the jobs that they are looking for people for. So instead of getting into direct contact with the hiring director, you usually end up talking to some no-nothing recruiter who doesn't know jack about IT and think he or she is your only conduit to getting a decent position.
Please be so kind as to point me to the specific statistics you're referring to which prove that Solaris can handle 100+ way servers.
Besides, doesn't it start hitting the law of diminishing returns after a certain point since the amount of processing needed to keep that many CPUs straight is non-trivial?
Yikes. It's fundamentally impossible for something to be a trade secret and patented. A patent demands that a thing be disclosed in the "letters patent" submitted to the USPTO.
This, by it's nature, contradicts the idea of it being a trade secret since, by definition, it would have to be completely disclosed.
I wonder if this is grounds for DVD Jon to file a lawsuit.
BTW... *PLEASE* when posting to this section, give the patent number involved. It's damn frustrating to guess.:)
As an enginneer who once worked for NASA (through a contractor), I can tell you that there are many pieces of software created at NASA which are useful outside of the space program.
I'm going to discuss some of the more glaring issues with your article below:
"An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: You get what you pay for. When you rely on free or low-cost products, you often get the shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to get."
Much hullaballo has been caused by the use of the word Free in Free Software. Please remember it's free as in freedom, not cost. Also remember that major players such as IBM, HP, and Dell and numerous smaller companies are actively involved in the creation and maintainence of Linux. It's not just a hobbyist OS anymore.
"Eventually--and inevitably--an open source product will be found to contain a security breach--not one discovered by hackers, security personnel, or a CS student or professor. Instead, the security breach will be placed into the open source software from inside, by someone working on the project."
There are known cases where this has happened on closed-source projects. Microsoft Windows, in fact, has many "easter eggs" which are basically hidden suprises for the user if he/she hits a certain combination of keys. Even these relatively minor "jokes in the code" and potential "security problems" wouldn't fly in an open source project since, in order to succeed *all of the people involved in the project* would need to be in on the breach.
Case in point: there was some code which was committed to the Linux kernel a while back which would have introduced a security flaw. Within hours of it's commit to the repository it was caught by the other maintainers, who determined it was a mistake, not a deliberate breach.
"Because anyone can create and market--or give away--a Linux distribution, there's also a reasonably high risk that someone will create a distribution specifically intended to subvert security. And how would anyone know?"
Because they can check the source, and most of us who do use Linux would check the source. Any "subversive" distribution would quickly be detected by the community at large.
"I'm not naive enough to think that proprietary commercial operating system software doesn't have the same sort of vulnerability, but the barriers to implementing them are much higher, because the source is better protected. I think such a scenario is far less likely than finding a group of people willing and able to create and market a malware open source distribution."
Your assertion here is incorrect. Since there are fewer people in a company to actually vet the software out before it gets released, it's much more likely that a problem will get out into the wild before anyone catches it.
Case in point: Microsoft Window's numerous security bugs. A bug in the IP stack of Microsoft Windows is what allowed the CodeRed worm to work it's way into so many corporate networks all over the world year before last.
"Who's Watching the Watchers?"
All of us.
In summary, I find your article to be another piece of FUD from someone who is either unwilling or not capable of fully understanding Free Software or Open Source Software. I find it sad that it passes for news on an otherwise respectable site.
Good day,
GJC
===== Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. -- bheron on #gnustep, #linuxstep, & #gormtalk ---------------- Please sign the petition against software patents at: http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition .html -- Maintainer of Gorm (featured in April Linux Journal) -------
Forget all of the "list your projects" advice and such, although this will work it will limit you to *just those projects*. Just don't sign something that says they own EVERYTHING, as you obviously have done.
Make certain it only says they own things that you've done for them and you problem is solved. I've found that trying to change an agreement once one is in place is difficult, but not impossible.
While it's doubtful that such a broad agreement would hold up in court, the best policy is avoidance of companies which use the "we own your brain" clauses the one you're working for seems to like to use.
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but this code is next to useless which is probably why it was released.
I mean this is a program which was big news over a decade ago. Much of the program is in assembler since the Amiga's of the time were 7MHz or maybe 14MHz or 25Mhz, if you were lucky.
Also, the program talks to the hardware of the toaster itself via the Zorro bus, which was a *predecessor* of ISA.
A nice gesture, perhaps a bit nostalgic for those of us, including myself, who once owned Amigas, but, for the most part, totally useless.
Two lines here, five lines there.... at this rate SCO/Caldera could claim that any software anywhere is "derived from UNIX" if this is the basis of their claims.
I'm relieved that they finally relented and showed the code, now the process can begin either way.
Without seeing Dynix's or AIX's code base you can't be sure if they mean that the code has similar function or is an exact copy since in some cases they map 1 line of Dynix code to 5 or more Linux lines of code.
As an experienced professional, I'm sure anyone can agree that similar function sometimes dictates similar structure in the code.
This just shows how desperate they really were at the outset.
SCO has done nothing but double talk for the term of this whole debacle.
To get us and the rest of the world to take your claims seriously you need to show the code *without* requiring an aggregious NDA which is overly broad.
In most copyright cases that I am aware of the primary goal of the plantiff seems to be to *cease being damaged*, but by specifically not showing the code in an acceptable forum, you, Sir, have allowed yourself to be *further* damaged.
You have failed to uphold your end of the case at every turn:
1) Refusing to show the code to the community with out requiring an NDA 2) Purposfully giving IBM 1 million pages of paper with a font so small that it is useless 3) Continually upping the damages which you have caused yourself, by not allowing us to remove the alleged code, if there is any.
Your case is the equivanlent of saying "I own something in your house and I'm going to charge you monthly rent for it, but I wont tell you what it is so that I can continue to extract fees from you". This is absolutely preposterous.
It is absolutely transparent to everyone involved in this case that you are out to capitalize on GNU/Linux's success by using this scheme. It is, to many in the community, a betrayal of monumental proportions that SCO/Caldera has done this when they were once one of the many companys involved in *promoting* open source.
I have a few challenges for you:
1) Show your code in plain daylight, my email is associated with my id here so all you need to do to reach me is click your mouse. We've been begging, no *pleading* with you in every way possible to show the code in a way which isn't an obvious sham (the aforementioned NDA).
2) For any files/code that is in common *prove* to us that it is infringment, unlike the trivial examples you showed at Las Vegas which weren't even SCO's, but come from BSD. Again... we've been hoping that you might do *this* to no avail.
3) Prove my assertion that you're only trying to leach off of Linux's success wrong.
I very seriously doubt that you'll be able to rise to all, not to mention even one of these.
GNU/Linux was built by us, and is maintained by us and would have surpassed UNIX sooner or later with or without IBM's input.
Good day,
Distancing ourselves from extremists.
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
All,
It's difficult to believe that these attacks (DDoS) and threats on SCO might be from GNU/Linux users.
Despite the timing of the attacks, all of the evidence is highly circumstantial.
We, as a community, however, must distance ourselves from extremists or extremist activities such as this by whatever means possible.
We cannot compromise our core values which are embodied by the work done on Open Source and Free Software, but we also cannot allow corporations to usurp our hard work.
We must, *above all else*, allow this to play out in court as this is the *only* way to make certain something like this doesn't happen again.
This is my message and, while I can't speak for the community, I believe these statments to be undeniable. I, personally, don't think a Linux user is behind the attacks, but if it is, then it's one person or a small group of people who are acting foolishly and should not reflect on the community as a whole.
Yes, but any admission stating that they don't have the necessary information would be an admission in court that they didn't fully research their evidence and might be grounds to throw whatever assertions are based on the admission out of the case.
It does allow them some latitude, but not without a cost.
GJC
Re:I'm Doing My Part
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is not helping. Why would you even want to do this??
Please stop as you're injuring the community you're trying to help.
Any other questions?? This is an odd article. I have Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, and a myriad of other OSes (legitimately licensed -- I have my own company) and I don't feel "guilt" at using or abusing any single one of them.:)
> Speak for yourself. I note that nothing points the > sharp fingernail of attention at windows security > issues quite like a round of email viruses that > make it around the world.
This isn't about Windows security. It's about someone exploiting Windows security issues to perform attacks.
> Perhaps it is illegal where you live. Perhaps > the author lives somewhere else. Possibly some > place where it is illegal for a foreign party to > place a bounty on the arrest of an unknown > individual?
The attack is occuring against a company based in the US, United States jurisdiction applies. Period.
While I don't think SCO has a chance in hell, I denouce these types of tactics being used against anyone in any situation.
Although there is no evidence that you're a Linux user, by doing this you're giving the Linux community a bad name. Please stop this foolish and childish attack. Open Source and Free Software are a force for good and you're not helping people to see that that by doing this.
Please remember the following.
1) No one likes or respects you for this.
2) It's illegal.
3) It harms GNU/Linux's image as the good guy against SCO's obviously bogus case.
4) It makes the community look bad even though 99.999999% of us aren't foolish enough to engage in something like this.
In short you're accomplishing nothing by doing this.
SCO will pay for what it's done (either in fines or with jail time), by LAWFUL means. I urge you to stop the attack by whatever means NOW.
Slashdot Mirror
So long as they are aware that they might get slammed into the ground at great speed, I suppose it's okay. ;)
GJC
Anime is one thing, but bringing this idea to life as a jet powered aircraft which could potentially take the life of the person piloting it in some, not too pleasant ways is yet another.
GJC
Most of these boards are nothing more than a haven for recruiters who want to get you for a little as possible.
Instead of removing the middleman as Monster is supposed to do, Recruiters are allowed to join for a fee and post the jobs that they are looking for people for. So instead of getting into direct contact with the hiring director, you usually end up talking to some no-nothing recruiter who doesn't know jack about IT and think he or she is your only conduit to getting a decent position.
A wonderful experience, bah!
GJC
From what I can see it allows "themes" but does not allow "Window Managers". I see this as a significant weakness.
Thanks, GJC
states that AT&T has no interest or title in works derived from or used with UNIX. I remember reading this someplace.
So SCO has no case.
GJC
This is probably what they're thinking. I would love to see GNU/Linux crush Solaris and Sun and all their hopes.
GJC
Please be so kind as to point me to the specific statistics you're referring to which prove that Solaris can handle 100+ way servers.
Besides, doesn't it start hitting the law of diminishing returns after a certain point since the amount of processing needed to keep that many CPUs straight is non-trivial?
GJC
So long as Sun continues to ignore GNU/Linux as a serious high-end competitor to Solaris, GNU/Linux has an advantage.
Sun seems to be of the opinion, "If we ignore this GNU/Linux thing it will go away" and that's never going to happen.
GJC
Good point, but from my understanding CSS is such a rudimentary protection system that it would be difficult to only expose part of it in a patent.
:)
It is, according to my understanding, done using the application of a simple watermark.
This is akin to applying rot13 to a message and calling it a copy protection device.
GJC
Yikes. It's fundamentally impossible for something to be a trade secret and patented. A patent demands that a thing be disclosed in the "letters patent" submitted to the USPTO.
:)
This, by it's nature, contradicts the idea of it being a trade secret since, by definition, it would have to be completely disclosed.
I wonder if this is grounds for DVD Jon to file a lawsuit.
BTW... *PLEASE* when posting to this section, give the patent number involved. It's damn frustrating to guess.
As an enginneer who once worked for NASA (through a contractor), I can tell you that there are many pieces of software created at NASA which are useful outside of the space program.
This might be one possible use for such a thing.
GJC
Ron,
n .html
I'm going to discuss some of the more glaring issues with your article below:
"An old adage that governments would be well-served to heed is: You get what
you pay for. When you rely on free or low-cost products, you often get the
shaft, and that, in my opinion, is exactly what governments are on track to
get."
Much hullaballo has been caused by the use of the word Free in Free Software.
Please remember it's free as in freedom, not cost. Also remember that major
players such as IBM, HP, and Dell and numerous smaller companies are actively
involved in the creation and maintainence of Linux. It's not just a hobbyist
OS anymore.
"Eventually--and inevitably--an open source product will be found to contain a
security breach--not one discovered by hackers, security personnel, or a CS
student or professor. Instead, the security breach will be placed into the open
source software from inside, by someone working on the project."
There are known cases where this has happened on closed-source projects.
Microsoft Windows, in fact, has many "easter eggs" which are basically hidden
suprises for the user if he/she hits a certain combination of keys. Even
these relatively minor "jokes in the code" and potential "security problems"
wouldn't fly in an open source project since, in order to succeed *all of the
people involved in the project* would need to be in on the breach.
Case in point: there was some code which was committed to the Linux kernel a
while back which would have introduced a security flaw. Within hours of it's
commit to the repository it was caught by the other maintainers, who determined
it was a mistake, not a deliberate breach.
"Because anyone can create and market--or give away--a Linux distribution,
there's also a reasonably high risk that someone will create a distribution
specifically intended to subvert security. And how would anyone know?"
Because they can check the source, and most of us who do use Linux would check
the source. Any "subversive" distribution would quickly be detected by the
community at large.
"I'm not naive enough to think that proprietary commercial operating system
software doesn't have the same sort of vulnerability, but the barriers to
implementing them are much higher, because the source is better protected. I
think such a scenario is far less likely than finding a group of people willing
and able to create and market a malware open source distribution."
Your assertion here is incorrect. Since there are fewer people in a company
to actually vet the software out before it gets released, it's much more likely
that a problem will get out into the wild before anyone catches it.
Case in point: Microsoft Window's numerous security bugs. A bug in the IP
stack of Microsoft Windows is what allowed the CodeRed worm to work it's way
into so many corporate networks all over the world year before last.
"Who's Watching the Watchers?"
All of us.
In summary, I find your article to be another piece of FUD from someone who is
either unwilling or not capable of fully understanding Free Software or Open
Source Software. I find it sad that it passes for news on an otherwise
respectable site.
Good day,
GJC
=====
Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp.
-- bheron on #gnustep, #linuxstep, & #gormtalk ----------------
Please sign the petition against software patents at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petitio
-- Maintainer of Gorm (featured in April Linux Journal) -------
I'll be jumping to buy one. :P
(proud Mac owner already)
GJC
Forget all of the "list your projects" advice and such, although this will work it will limit you to *just those projects*. Just don't sign something that says they own EVERYTHING, as you obviously have done.
:)
Make certain it only says they own things that you've done for them and you problem is solved. I've found that trying to change an agreement once one is in place is difficult, but not impossible.
While it's doubtful that such a broad agreement would hold up in court, the best policy is avoidance of companies which use the "we own your brain" clauses the one you're working for seems to like to use.
Good advice jars the ears.
Later, GJC
I must find it amusing that someone actually believed the claims these companies were making. :)
GJC
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but this code is next to useless which is probably why it was released.
I mean this is a program which was big news over a decade ago. Much of the program is in assembler since the Amiga's of the time were 7MHz or maybe 14MHz or 25Mhz, if you were lucky.
Also, the program talks to the hardware of the toaster itself via the Zorro bus, which was a *predecessor* of ISA.
A nice gesture, perhaps a bit nostalgic for those of us, including myself, who once owned Amigas, but, for the most part, totally useless.
GJC
Two lines here, five lines there.... at this rate SCO/Caldera could claim that any software anywhere is "derived from UNIX" if this is the basis of their claims.
I'm relieved that they finally relented and showed the code, now the process can begin either way.
Without seeing Dynix's or AIX's code base you can't be sure if they mean that the code has similar function or is an exact copy since in some cases they map 1 line of Dynix code to 5 or more Linux lines of code.
As an experienced professional, I'm sure anyone can agree that similar function sometimes dictates similar structure in the code.
This just shows how desperate they really were at the outset.
GJC
Dear Sir,
SCO has done nothing but double talk for the term of this whole debacle.
To get us and the rest of the world to take your claims seriously you need to show the code *without* requiring an aggregious NDA which is overly broad.
In most copyright cases that I am aware of the primary goal of the plantiff seems to be to *cease being damaged*, but by specifically not showing the code in an acceptable forum, you, Sir, have allowed yourself to be *further* damaged.
You have failed to uphold your end of the case at every turn:
1) Refusing to show the code to the community with out requiring an NDA
2) Purposfully giving IBM 1 million pages of paper with a font so small that it is useless
3) Continually upping the damages which you have caused yourself, by not allowing us to remove the alleged code, if there is any.
Your case is the equivanlent of saying "I own something in your house and I'm going to charge you monthly rent for it, but I wont tell you what it is so that I can continue to extract fees from you". This is absolutely preposterous.
It is absolutely transparent to everyone involved in this case that you are out to capitalize on GNU/Linux's success by using this scheme. It is, to many in the community, a betrayal of monumental proportions that SCO/Caldera has done this when they were once one of the many companys involved in *promoting* open source.
I have a few challenges for you:
1) Show your code in plain daylight, my email is associated with my id here so all you need to do to reach me is click your mouse. We've been begging, no *pleading* with you in every way possible to show the code in a way which isn't an obvious sham (the aforementioned NDA).
2) For any files/code that is in common *prove* to us that it is infringment, unlike the trivial examples you showed at Las Vegas which weren't even SCO's, but come from BSD. Again... we've been hoping that you might do *this* to no avail.
3) Prove my assertion that you're only trying to leach off of Linux's success wrong.
I very seriously doubt that you'll be able to rise to all, not to mention even one of these.
GNU/Linux was built by us, and is maintained by us and would have surpassed UNIX sooner or later with or without IBM's input.
Good day,
All,
It's difficult to believe that these attacks (DDoS) and threats on SCO might be from GNU/Linux users.
Despite the timing of the attacks, all of the evidence is highly circumstantial.
We, as a community, however, must distance ourselves from extremists or extremist activities such as this by whatever means possible.
We cannot compromise our core values which are embodied by the work done on Open Source and Free Software, but we also cannot allow corporations to usurp our hard work.
We must, *above all else*, allow this to play out in court as this is the *only* way to make certain something like this doesn't happen again.
This is my message and, while I can't speak for the community, I believe these statments to be undeniable. I, personally, don't think a Linux user is behind the attacks, but if it is, then it's one person or a small group of people who are acting foolishly and should not reflect on the community as a whole.
Thanks, GJC
Yes, but any admission stating that they don't have the necessary information would be an admission in court that they didn't fully research their evidence and might be grounds to throw whatever assertions are based on the admission out of the case.
It does allow them some latitude, but not without a cost.
GJC
This is not helping. Why would you even want to do this??
Please stop as you're injuring the community you're trying to help.
GJC
Any other questions?? This is an odd article. I have Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris, and a myriad of other OSes (legitimately licensed -- I have my own company) and I don't feel "guilt" at using or abusing any single one of them. :)
:)
Thanks, GJC
Motive does not constitute proof.
> Speak for yourself. I note that nothing points the
> sharp fingernail of attention at windows security
> issues quite like a round of email viruses that
> make it around the world.
This isn't about Windows security. It's about someone exploiting Windows security issues to perform attacks.
> Perhaps it is illegal where you live. Perhaps
> the author lives somewhere else. Possibly some
> place where it is illegal for a foreign party to
> place a bounty on the arrest of an unknown
> individual?
The attack is occuring against a company based in the US, United States jurisdiction applies. Period.
While I don't think SCO has a chance in hell, I denouce these types of tactics being used against anyone in any situation.
GJC
Although there is no evidence that you're a Linux user, by doing this you're giving the Linux community a bad name. Please stop this foolish and childish attack. Open Source and Free Software are a force for good and you're not helping people to see that that by doing this.
Please remember the following.
1) No one likes or respects you for this.
2) It's illegal.
3) It harms GNU/Linux's image as the good guy against SCO's obviously bogus case.
4) It makes the community look bad even though 99.999999% of us aren't foolish enough to engage in something like this.
In short you're accomplishing nothing by doing this.
SCO will pay for what it's done (either in fines or with jail time), by LAWFUL means. I urge you to stop the attack by whatever means NOW.
GJC