The point is, though, that Stallman doesn't care about your puny little freedom to restrict what people do with code you distribute, he cares about everyone else's freedom to modify and distribute it.
In the words of Kirk and Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Letting other's use your code is the price you pay for getting to use everyone else's. Is this not a fair deal?
Re:mulltiple projector system [redundant]
on
PanQuake
·
· Score: 1
Although I generally come down on Stallman's side in the Stallman versus Everyone Else debate, I have to disagree with this
The major difference I can find between Free Software and Open Source is in presentation and style; FSF present Free Software as being morally superior, OSI present Open Source as having pragmatic benefits
One is no more complete a philosophy than the other, they just have different assumptions
The Free Software style assumes people are moved by core human ideals, those of freedom and goodwill
The Open Source style assumes people are moved by whatever moves the individual; they feel they can't generalise this for everyone so they appeal to pragmatism
Some Open Source supporters have no morals : ¥amoral, not immoral So pragmatism is all they've got; businesses are often like this too
I rest with the Free Software side because I'm moved by freedom and goodwill; there's nothing 'philosophically complete' about this, though
So, where does microsofts implementation of the FTP protocol, the one they took from BSD, the one that's implemented as an application, fit into microsofts TCP/IP stack? Better just remove that Application Layer from the TCP/IP model, because everything there is implemented by applications, instead of "protocols".
My god, I just realised. ALL of microsofts TCP/IP implementation is in the form of programs, not pure protocols! That must mean they don't have a TCP/IP stack!
Ghandi was the master of non-violent protest (and non-violence in general). His comments apply to the context of a virtuous "underdog". Underdog in quotes because as he demonstrated, he who seems to have the lesser power may prove to have the greater.
Microsoft are masters of filthy business practices. So are many proprietary software vendors. They are not virtuous "underdogs"
The Free Software community, on the other hand, are quite definitely virtuous "underdogs". Some find it difficult to compare the causes of free software and the causes Ghandi fought for, but as far as I can see they are both about human opression.
Well, let's hope that administrator isn't using the internet, because many applications, such as some popular IRC clients, use your account name as a default logon.
This is not a security feature of note if other security measures are not taken, such as avoiding transmitting account names over the internet.
My intention is not to troll; one cannot rely on the root account being 'disabled' to prevent it being hijacked. You need to ensure your passwords are hard to guess, and that you don't send out information identifying other priviliged accounts (which must exist, in order to enable the root account) over the internet too.
My suspicion is that it would be more secure to have the root account enabled with a hard password (long, mixed-case letters, numeric and non-alphanumeric, non-dictionary). That way privileged root-enabling accounts are not required.
If a cracker can't get straight to root, but can go via an admin account, the only benefit to the victim is that it takes a bit longer and a little more work.
I'm not sure how root access being disabled by default is a security feature of worth.
Specifically, I don't see how it's tougher to get an Adminstrators password than to get root's. OK, root might have a default, widely known password, but if the 'administrator' doesn't know enough to change that password, my guess is their own password is "password".
Re:Security for Mac Users
on
Cracking OSX
·
· Score: 1
Given there are already, and have been for some time, Solaris and HP-UX ports of IE, I should think this brings us no closer whatsoever.
Since dictionaries record commonly accepted language usage, rather than dictating the "real meaning", I'd be surprised if the OED doesn't follow suite, if it hasn't already.
I saw far more NetWare ABENDs than I've saw NT Bluescreens.
Perhaps because Netware had a much bigger installed base than NT throughout the 'early Nineties'?
I see many more NT blue screens nowadays (i.e. five or six a year... I avoid NT where I can...) than NetWare ABENDS (i.e. 0), esseentially because approx. no-one runs NetWare. Doesn't mean it's more stable.
enough human resources to either build their own specialised OS
I should think it's safer and considerably cheaper to use a system that has been tested in the real world for a while, has been debugged already and has a reputation for uptime, than to write your own code and have to do all the debugging from scratch.
As you mention, a modified version of an existing system would seem more reasonable, say, to add N-version to it at critical points.
Umm.. you don't move from Notes to Outlook, you move from Domino to Exchange.
Notes has a big installed base in the UK, especially in the finance industry, just take a look through the job listings; I can't believe the proportions are that much different in the US considering it's a big US company. You may never have met someone outside IBM who uses it but then perhaps you don't get out much:)
In other words, I see no reason why you and I cannot coexist in a world where we are not compelled to share the software/poetry/diaries we create.
Absolutely.
The GPL does not compel anyone to share anything.
However, if you do share something under the GPL, it provides legal (copyright) protection to the recipient, that they can share it too, under the same conditions.
If the state "did not disallow one to do anything, such as create software for her/his own purposes, that does not actively harm someone else.", then there would be no need for the GPL. However, the state currently provides artifical copyright protection, which prevents me from sharing proprietary software. The sharing of that software does not hurt anyone, because software has a zero marginal cost of distribution.
In the absence of artificial copyright protection, there would be no incentive for companies to release proprietary software, because the advantages of sharing code (feedback) would outweigh the costs of enforcing copy protection devices (which can always be circumvented).
The GPL is an attempt to create the idyll of shared code (i.e. knowledge) in a world where greed inspires lawmakers to enforce appropriation of knowledge.
I am sure that you are right (though I do not know who you are) that you and I could happily co-exist in the world you describe; unfortunately this is not that world.
None of which refutes my argument, expressed elsewhere in this subthread, that BSD-style licenses, like the MIT license, are a bad thing, because they allow appropriation of code. Indeed it supports it.
Re:Fear that the GPL doesn't offer protection?
on
FreeBSD 4.3 Released
·
· Score: 1
I am yet to see real evidence of this GPL violation, I will be trying a web search later on using unobvious search terms provided by another anonymous coward, however.
I never argued that the violation didn't matter, just that it is not at all clear to me that there was time for any action to take place between (alleged) infringement and withdrawal.
Slashdot Mirror
Made sense to me.
care about your puny little freedom to
restrict what people do with code you distribute,
he cares about everyone else's freedom to
modify and distribute it.
In the words of Kirk and Spock, the needs of the
many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Letting other's use your code is the price you
pay for getting to use everyone else's. Is
this not a fair deal?
Yeah, well it does say that on their web page...
Although I generally come down on Stallman's side in the Stallman versus Everyone Else debate, I have to disagree with this
The major difference I can find between Free Software and Open Source is in presentation and style; FSF present Free Software as being morally superior, OSI present Open Source as having pragmatic benefits
One is no more complete a philosophy than the other, they just have different assumptions
The Free Software style assumes people are moved by core human ideals, those of freedom and goodwill
The Open Source style assumes people are moved by whatever moves the individual; they feel they can't generalise this for everyone so they appeal to pragmatism
Some Open Source supporters have no morals : ¥amoral, not immoral So pragmatism is all they've got; businesses are often like this too
I rest with the Free Software side because I'm moved by freedom and goodwill; there's nothing 'philosophically complete' about this, though
woops, for some reason I wrote <a> instead of <\i>©
So, where does microsofts implementation of the FTP protocol, the one they took from BSD, the one that's implemented as an application, fit into microsofts TCP/IP stack? Better just remove that Application Layer from the TCP/IP model, because everything there is implemented by applications, instead of "protocols".
My god, I just realised. ALL of microsofts TCP/IP implementation is in the form of programs, not pure protocols! That must mean they don't have a TCP/IP stack!
doesn't this also apply to Microsoft?
Ghandi was the master of non-violent protest (and non-violence in general). His comments apply to the context of a virtuous "underdog". Underdog in quotes because as he demonstrated, he who seems to have the lesser power may prove to have the greater.
Microsoft are masters of filthy business practices. So are many proprietary software vendors. They are not virtuous "underdogs"
The Free Software community, on the other hand, are quite definitely virtuous "underdogs". Some find it difficult to compare the causes of free software and the causes Ghandi fought for, but as far as I can see they are both about human opression.
Well, let's hope that administrator isn't using the internet, because many applications, such as some popular IRC clients, use your account name as a default logon.
This is not a security feature of note if other security measures are not taken, such as avoiding transmitting account names over the internet.
My intention is not to troll; one cannot rely on the root account being 'disabled' to prevent it being hijacked. You need to ensure your passwords are hard to guess, and that you don't send out information identifying other priviliged accounts (which must exist, in order to enable the root account) over the internet too.
My suspicion is that it would be more secure to have the root account enabled with a hard password (long, mixed-case letters, numeric and non-alphanumeric, non-dictionary). That way privileged root-enabling accounts are not required.
Sounds more like "irrelevant to security" to me.
If a cracker can't get straight to root, but can go via an admin account, the only benefit to the victim is that it takes a bit longer and a little more work.
Yes, but with an Administrators account I can apparently:
1. Enable the root account
2. Set the password.
Then I can do whatever I like.
Excuse me moderators, but how was the parent post 'Off-Topic'? It was a concise, on-topic reply. Insightful, even, I thought.
I'm not sure how root access being disabled by default is a security feature of worth.
Specifically, I don't see how it's tougher to get an Adminstrators password than to get root's. OK, root might have a default, widely known password, but if the 'administrator' doesn't know enough to change that password, my guess is their own password is "password".
Given there are already, and have been for some time, Solaris and HP-UX ports of IE, I should think this brings us no closer whatsoever.
Even if you 'reverse engineer' the piece yourself?
Since dictionaries record commonly accepted language usage, rather than dictating the "real meaning", I'd be surprised if the OED doesn't follow suite, if it hasn't already.
I saw far more NetWare ABENDs than I've saw NT Bluescreens.
Perhaps because Netware had a much bigger installed base than NT throughout the 'early Nineties'?
I see many more NT blue screens nowadays (i.e. five or six a year... I avoid NT where I can...) than NetWare ABENDS (i.e. 0), esseentially because approx. no-one runs NetWare. Doesn't mean it's more stable.
Hehe, well, I wasn't talking about windows...
enough human resources to either build their own specialised OS
I should think it's safer and considerably cheaper to use a system that has been tested in the real world for a while, has been debugged already and has a reputation for uptime, than to write your own code and have to do all the debugging from scratch.
As you mention, a modified version of an existing system would seem more reasonable, say, to add N-version to it at critical points.
MCI did for a while before moving to MS Outlook
:)
Umm.. you don't move from Notes to Outlook, you move from Domino to Exchange.
Notes has a big installed base in the UK, especially in the finance industry, just take a look through the job listings; I can't believe the proportions are that much different in the US considering it's a big US company. You may never have met someone outside IBM who uses it but then perhaps you don't get out much
To clarify, if they give a recommendation for disabling ECN this implies it is already enabled.
If employees aren't given unnecesdary priveleges on their machines, then you don't need to worry about hiding the cd-rom drives and floppies.
Some employees might need cd-rom drives for multimedia, CBT, etc. Many more employees need floppies to carry their work home.
In other words, I see no reason why you and I cannot coexist in a world where we are not compelled to share the software/poetry/diaries we create.
Absolutely.
The GPL does not compel anyone to share anything.
However, if you do share something under the GPL, it provides legal (copyright) protection to the recipient, that they can share it too, under the same conditions.
If the state "did not disallow one to do anything, such as create software for her/his own purposes, that does not actively harm someone else.", then there would be no need for the GPL. However, the state currently provides artifical copyright protection, which prevents me from sharing proprietary software. The sharing of that software does not hurt anyone, because software has a zero marginal cost of distribution.
In the absence of artificial copyright protection, there would be no incentive for companies to release proprietary software, because the advantages of sharing code (feedback) would outweigh the costs of enforcing copy protection devices (which can always be circumvented).
The GPL is an attempt to create the idyll of shared code (i.e. knowledge) in a world where greed inspires lawmakers to enforce appropriation of knowledge.
I am sure that you are right (though I do not know who you are) that you and I could happily co-exist in the world you describe; unfortunately this is not that world.
In the absence of artificial laws protecting "intellectual property", yes, the world would be as you describe it.
And yes, that would be better for society.
None of which refutes my argument, expressed elsewhere in this subthread, that BSD-style licenses, like the MIT license, are a bad thing, because they allow appropriation of code. Indeed it supports it.
I am yet to see real evidence of this GPL violation, I will be trying a web search later on using unobvious search terms provided by another anonymous coward, however.
I never argued that the violation didn't matter, just that it is not at all clear to me that there was time for any action to take place between (alleged) infringement and withdrawal.
At least that's what my girlfriend tells me.