So you agree with me? They're just figuring out how it works and how to reproduce it. Now that it's something we are beginning to understand, it is a tool that can be used when solving other problems, both theoretical and practical.
It's much to early to tell how this will help us build better boats or water based technologies. If we already knew how to apply the technology, we wouldn't be researching to understand the science of what makes it work.
I'm sure no one could possibly know yet.
How is grinding little pieces of glass to play with light and images going to help anyone? (He writes while wearing corrective lenses.)
I don't think it has much to do with anything being written in Java. The same problems would arise were it written in C++. Java would help reduce the leaked memory given the same code design because Java would GC the objects not used. C++ would leave them behind.
agency trying to enforce copyrights for the artists that make the software instead
Are you saying it's okay for them to send annoying, harrassing letters to innocent people because they're doing for the chil^H^H^H^H poor copyright holders? Hogwash. They're wasting the money of those they claim to be protecting if this is their idea of protection.
Yes, I've worked for big corporations. The IT departments there are should be able to all of the testing necessary and push the patch to all of their users. If they don't want to install security patches for remote exploits, they shouldn't run the risk of having the machines on a non-firewalled network.
At any rate, the users shouldn't have to worry about reading the details of the license. That's the job of the IT department when it decides the patch must be installed.
Did you merrily click past the EULA that said if it destroyed your system and data it wasn't MS's fault or responsibility? Did you install on one box and then do a complete round of System Test, or did you just blindly trust MS?
Do you do this for every piece of software you install from reputable sources? I think most people read the description of the vulnerability and thought they should try the patch. It's not likely that it would OMG DESTROY ALL YOUR PRECIOUS DATA LOLZ!!11! You can also uninstall it I hear.
Don't install and leave gaping goatse-style vulnerability on box.
Install and assume Microsoft has done some testing of the patch as the do with all patches.
The risks of 1 far outweight the risks of 2 in my opinion. Whether it's Microsoft software or GNU software, any remote exploit patches should immediately grab your attention, and you should really consider applying them.
I don't think the point is that Bush is responsible for it but that Bush has the view that we don't need to worry about messing up the environment when the Aral Sea shows that we can very well mess it up. The comparison is between Bush and those who are responsible for the environmental death of the Aral Sea.
It should be easy to show that any copyright claims are false (or not) because there is a clear trail of where all the code came from in the Linux kernel.
Because EE Times states as fact, "a small software company that owns Unix patents," about SCO, they are not attributing this to SCO. If the article said, "a small software company that claims that it owns Unix patents," then it would be SCO's story in dispute.
If I write, "The sky is pink," I need to get my story straight.
I think rather that they should simply ignore the claims after failing to get an explanation of them with any relevant details. If the claims are sent to EB's customers, then EB should sue to have such scare tactics stopped.
Unfortunately, no one can say what the copyright notices say. If one says GNU, and the other says SCO, then we would have to look at the checkins. It seems like it would be much easier, and thus more likely in some sense, that the code was copied from GNU to SCO if the notices are different. It will be hard to know if any SCO evidence of the origin of such notices are authentic. Since SCO won't say, we can only assume that we have no evidence for the alleged infringement. Hearsay, even by "experts" who have seen the code is not evidence.
"I saw what appeared to be a word-for-word copy of about every third line of code in the central module of the Linux kernel," said Enderle of Giga Information Group, who viewed the alleged code violations two weeks ago. "The lines of code contained typos, misspellings and even copyright disclaimers. It appeared to constitute a violation of the license."
Whose copyright?!? Surely, if is a GNU copyright notice, then SCO shouldn't be claiming the code. If it is a SCO copyright notice, then GNU/Linux should have noticed it already. If it is another BSD or other copyright, then what the heck is SCO trying to pull?
Slashdot Mirror
You're an _____. Read the article. WinFS is all about metadata, stored on top of NTFS.
OMGNOTDIGITALMUSTSUCK!
So you agree with me? They're just figuring out how it works and how to reproduce it. Now that it's something we are beginning to understand, it is a tool that can be used when solving other problems, both theoretical and practical.
It's much to early to tell how this will help us build better boats or water based technologies. If we already knew how to apply the technology, we wouldn't be researching to understand the science of what makes it work.
I'm sure no one could possibly know yet. How is grinding little pieces of glass to play with light and images going to help anyone? (He writes while wearing corrective lenses.)
I don't think it has much to do with anything being written in Java. The same problems would arise were it written in C++. Java would help reduce the leaked memory given the same code design because Java would GC the objects not used. C++ would leave them behind.
Those administrators who didn't install this on every machine now get to reinstall on all of them or risk leaving various root-kit stuff on the boxes.
Yes, I've worked for big corporations. The IT departments there are should be able to all of the testing necessary and push the patch to all of their users. If they don't want to install security patches for remote exploits, they shouldn't run the risk of having the machines on a non-firewalled network. At any rate, the users shouldn't have to worry about reading the details of the license. That's the job of the IT department when it decides the patch must be installed.
- Don't install and leave gaping goatse-style vulnerability on box.
- Install and assume Microsoft has done some testing of the patch as the do with all patches.
The risks of 1 far outweight the risks of 2 in my opinion. Whether it's Microsoft software or GNU software, any remote exploit patches should immediately grab your attention, and you should really consider applying them.SCO has shown itself to be willing to attempt to extort money from anyone. If IBM indemnifies their users, then they are just a better target for SCO.
I don't think the point is that Bush is responsible for it but that Bush has the view that we don't need to worry about messing up the environment when the Aral Sea shows that we can very well mess it up. The comparison is between Bush and those who are responsible for the environmental death of the Aral Sea.
Securities fraud is a crime. Reporting it is like reporting any other crime. The state is responsible for enforcement once notified.
It should be easy to show that any copyright claims are false (or not) because there is a clear trail of where all the code came from in the Linux kernel.
This sounds absolutely fantastic. Thank you for the explanations here and at the dragonfly website.
sprintf even, sorry for the typo
I think he meant "typos" like src, dest, byte, sprinf, and char. I mean, some of those aren't even words, dude.
Because EE Times states as fact, "a small software company that owns Unix patents," about SCO, they are not attributing this to SCO. If the article said, "a small software company that claims that it owns Unix patents," then it would be SCO's story in dispute. If I write, "The sky is pink," I need to get my story straight.
They quote him because he claims to have "seen the evidence," but he can't tell what it is besides making comments that make little sense.
I think rather that they should simply ignore the claims after failing to get an explanation of them with any relevant details. If the claims are sent to EB's customers, then EB should sue to have such scare tactics stopped.
Sure, if they can get IBM to pay them, and still get money from the unstoppable Linux force, why wouldn't they?
With what he pulled against Microsoft with DOS, why didn't we see this coming with Unix-like OS's and possibly C++?
Hi, I just wanted to jump on the stupidity-train, too. Chooo-chooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, no one can say what the copyright notices say. If one says GNU, and the other says SCO, then we would have to look at the checkins. It seems like it would be much easier, and thus more likely in some sense, that the code was copied from GNU to SCO if the notices are different. It will be hard to know if any SCO evidence of the origin of such notices are authentic. Since SCO won't say, we can only assume that we have no evidence for the alleged infringement. Hearsay, even by "experts" who have seen the code is not evidence.