* Mainframes, mainframe software and mainframe support. DASD. Backup equipment (ATLs) * RS6000s of various flavours (pSeries NUMA machines are $$$) * AS400 still has a strong presence * WebSphere (and MQ / MQ Integrator), DB2. * Lotus Notes! * Services - they charge mountains of cash if you want to outsource something to them. Ask them to tender, and weep. Then pay.
We don't use IBM PCs.
I reckon IBM make most of their cash in low volume / high margin. Linux is probably a way to turn the desktop into high volume / medium margin (support).
Well, if nothing is secure, then there is no such thing as a security mechanism, and your original post is meaningless (or theoretical).
If what you are saying is that Word's document protection feature is broken or badly implemented, then say it. The only "unintentional modification avoidance mechanism" I can think of is the read-only flag. This is outwith the scope of security because it does not involve authorisation or authentication, the two components of access control, which is generally the same as security in computing.
The addition of a password is clearly intended to limit access (to those who know the password); limiting access falls under authorisation, which is a security concept.
Is there an archive of chips&dips somewhere? I heard about it for the first time the other day on e2. I was too late to see it for real. My google searches are in vain.
Caveat: I'm talking about court action. Most cases don't get as far as court, and the FSF has helped many Free Software developers resolve GPL violationbs with out-of-court negotiations.
No they won't. FSF will take court action if someone violates their copyright.
Eben Moglen has been known to act as an expert witness, and I can imagine the FSF getting involved financially in a particularly deserving case, but to generalise this to say they will represent arbitrary impoverished open source developers is very wrong.
The FSF will jump in to defend GNU software, that is, code whose copyright is assigned to the FSF. To get their protection you would need to assign your copyright to them.
However, the FSF have their own agenda (creating the GNU system) so your software would need to fit somewhere into the FSF's plans for GNU.
No, it says that if the court deems that some other legal force prevents you from distributing the software under the terms of this license then you may not distribute at all.
This clause is not about the validity of the GPL, but about interactions between the GPL/copyright and other legal forces like patent, trademark, etc.
Do you use them? Or are you involved ("sorlov" sounds a bit russian to me)?
They are offering Aphex Twin "Richard D James Album" for download, for free, and as that album is released on Warp Records (an independent label in the UK) I don't think the RIAA would be able to agree to giving it away on their behalf.
I mean, they look interesting but my trust level would have to be increased before I signed up.
Bruce says he wants to provide as default enterprise class support for one (1) desktop environment.
In his words: Because these service providers are basing their business upon a commodity product, there are already economic limits upon how profitable they can be. The difference between one and two GUIs may spell profitability or bankruptcy for some of our service providers. In a similar vein, internal support and engineering staff at businesses that employ UserLinux would like to have only one GUI SDK to develop for and maintain.
He also says that anyone is free to install Qt/KDE and the vendors are free to sell support for it if they so choose.
Now, I don't see how he can do fairer than this without compromising the stated aims of the project.
...companies like Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Disney, Fujitsu, General Electric, Hitachi, Honda, HP, IBM, Intel etc. have developed QT based applications. Why not many GTK based applications ?
That's fine, but that's their choice; they can still do that under a Gnome-default UserLinux. But do you think it would be right for UserLinux to encourage a TrollTech "tax" by choosing KDE? I don't.
But if a Company chooses UserLinux, the User is the Company, not the employee! When I go to my day-job I am a member of staff, not a customer of software houses. I do what is expected of me contractually using the tools I am provided with; I don't complain if I don't like the colour of the tool.
(OK I do complain and I might bring in my own tool, but I don't believe I occupy the moral high ground by doing so, in fact I consider myself a but of a chancer and it's my good fortune to get away with it).
Slashdot Mirror
Like, "The Europeans have this odd tasting candy" or "The Europeans have some odd TV shows".
They would not say that. We never say "candy", we say "sweets" and we prefer to call "TV shows" "TV programmes".
Also, we wouldn't say "The Europeans"; rather, "the frogs and the krauts".
"The frogs and the krauts have some rather peculiar TV programmes; care for one of their similarly bizarre sweets?"
Where I work, IBM makes loadsamoney on:
* Mainframes, mainframe software and mainframe support. DASD. Backup equipment (ATLs)
* RS6000s of various flavours (pSeries NUMA machines are $$$)
* AS400 still has a strong presence
* WebSphere (and MQ / MQ Integrator), DB2.
* Lotus Notes!
* Services - they charge mountains of cash if you want to outsource something to them. Ask them to tender, and weep. Then pay.
We don't use IBM PCs.
I reckon IBM make most of their cash in low volume / high margin. Linux is probably a way to turn the desktop into high volume / medium margin (support).
Well, if nothing is secure, then there is no such thing as a security mechanism, and your original post is meaningless (or theoretical).
If what you are saying is that Word's document protection feature is broken or badly implemented, then say it. The only "unintentional modification avoidance mechanism" I can think of is the read-only flag. This is outwith the scope of security because it does not involve authorisation or authentication, the two components of access control, which is generally the same as security in computing.
The addition of a password is clearly intended to limit access (to those who know the password); limiting access falls under authorisation, which is a security concept.
OK; what was the domain name? I can't find anything for www.chipsanddips.com|org|net.
Not sure why you were dropping that interface but you can always do:
e rver:~# ifconfig eth0 down; your_commands_here; ifconfig eth0 up
gordonjcp@work:~$ ssh -lroot mail.bigserver.in.colo.farm
Password:
root@bigs
and your SSH session will be intact at the end.
Yeah, but you didn't press F9 did you?
Is there an archive of chips&dips somewhere? I heard about it for the first time the other day on e2. I was too late to see it for real. My google searches are in vain.
Also, am I really pathetic for wanting to see it?
Sorry, I've never read the word "protect" as meaning "avoid unintentional alteraion". To me "protect" means "secure (vb)."
Click the link in the parents sig only if you wish to see the arse which is the source of the studies' objectivity. i.e. don't.
As far as I can see, it's not necessary to treat life as a game, which both you and your parent poster seem keen to do.
Games have winners and losers. At the end of this "game", we're all dead. The "playing field" is leveled at the end of life, for everyone.
So, perhaps life is not a game. Perhaps we can get on and do other things, besides trying to beat one another.
I sound like a hippy, but I have a soft spot for hippies.
Consider:
* Inflation
* Definition of "common"
* Moore's law
You're looking at the present through rose-tinted spectacles.
Caveat: I'm talking about court action. Most cases don't get as far as court, and the FSF has helped many Free Software developers resolve GPL violationbs with out-of-court negotiations.
No they won't. FSF will take court action if someone violates their copyright.
Eben Moglen has been known to act as an expert witness, and I can imagine the FSF getting involved financially in a particularly deserving case, but to generalise this to say they will represent arbitrary impoverished open source developers is very wrong.
Also more here
The FSF will jump in to defend GNU software, that is, code whose copyright is assigned to the FSF. To get their protection you would need to assign your copyright to them.
However, the FSF have their own agenda (creating the GNU system) so your software would need to fit somewhere into the FSF's plans for GNU.
They have a "help wanted" page here.
No, it says that if the court deems that some other legal force prevents you from distributing the software under the terms of this license then you may not distribute at all.
This clause is not about the validity of the GPL, but about interactions between the GPL/copyright and other legal forces like patent, trademark, etc.
IANAL!
I suppose you may have been trying to be funny but I'm not sure...
The OSI which approves the GPL is the Open Source Initiative.
OSI, as an OSI 7-layer model, stands for Open Systems Interconnect and the standard is set by the International Organization for Standardization (I guess IOS was already a Cisco trademark or something...).
Do you use them? Or are you involved ("sorlov" sounds a bit russian to me)?
They are offering Aphex Twin "Richard D James Album" for download, for free, and as that album is released on Warp Records (an independent label in the UK) I don't think the RIAA would be able to agree to giving it away on their behalf.
I mean, they look interesting but my trust level would have to be increased before I signed up.
the GPL allows them to write internal applications and keep them secret
You would think so wouldn't you? But TrollTech don't!
But TrollTech don't!
ISVs! UserLinux make the base distro, ISVs can add to it if desired. They can do the apt-get install, and pass that on to their customers.
Bruce says he wants to provide as default enterprise class support for one (1) desktop environment.
In his words: Because these service providers are basing their business upon a commodity product, there are already economic limits upon how profitable they can be. The difference between one and two GUIs may spell profitability or bankruptcy for some of our service providers. In a similar vein, internal support and engineering staff at businesses that employ UserLinux would like to have only one GUI SDK to develop for and maintain.
He also says that anyone is free to install Qt/KDE and the vendors are free to sell support for it if they so choose.
Now, I don't see how he can do fairer than this without compromising the stated aims of the project.
Quite; note that the specific reason Gnome chose LGPL for it's libraries was to encourage popularity!
...companies like Boeing, Daimler Chrysler, Disney, Fujitsu, General Electric, Hitachi, Honda, HP, IBM, Intel etc. have developed QT based applications. Why not many GTK based applications ?
That's fine, but that's their choice; they can still do that under a Gnome-default UserLinux. But do you think it would be right for UserLinux to encourage a TrollTech "tax" by choosing KDE? I don't.
This is a better link to the GNU perspective on the matter.
But if a Company chooses UserLinux, the User is the Company, not the employee! When I go to my day-job I am a member of staff, not a customer of software houses. I do what is expected of me contractually using the tools I am provided with; I don't complain if I don't like the colour of the tool.
(OK I do complain and I might bring in my own tool, but I don't believe I occupy the moral high ground by doing so, in fact I consider myself a but of a chancer and it's my good fortune to get away with it).