So you're saying that you have two choices: 1) include a clause or 2) only distribute in source form.
I'm sorry, but distributing in source form is not acceptable for a lot of folks who would want to use a LGPL C++ library. I stand by what I originally stated.
they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).
That doesn't matter. It's out there now. You are free to take it, re-release it as OpenWTL, and make all the changes you want. This is the beauty of Open Source. The community now has equal say in the future of this code as Microsoft does.
If they never touched this project again, that would be fine. All they're obligated to do is release the code once. As long as they keep releasing their changes, they are doing well.
Open Source works because people contribute what they want/need. That's all Microsoft has to do to be a good member of the community (yes, Microsoft *can* become a good member of the community).
In fact, I'll go as far as this, Microsoft has submitted to codebases to the community now. How many people can stand up here and claim to have submitted more than Microsoft has? In many ways, Microsoft is a better member of the community than a lot of people reading this right now.
But from that quick glance, the CPL is less "Free".
Woah. Hold your horses there pal. Quotith gnu.org:
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
So the FSF simply states that the CPL has extra clauses that aren't necessarily bad. The FSF is *not* shy about saying something is bad when they think it is. Fact is there are a lot of non-GPL compatible licenses out there. This is not like saying the CPL is OSI approved, but not FSF approved.
I know some of the people that worked on developing the IPL (the predecessor to the CPL). They worked very hard to make a license that would be acceptable to the community. The GPL is vague on patents. Unfortunately in the corporate world, you need to be more specific.
I applaud Microsoft for using the CPL. Keep in mind, the LGPL cannot be used with C++ code without a special clause (see libstdc++ in GCC for more info on this).
You ran linux for 5 years, gave it up b/c 1) you needed to play games (what did you do for the previous 5 years?) and 2) you couldn't get abiword/open office to save a.doc file (File => Save As... not so hard).
Yet being a hardened Linux veteran, Knoppix, which comes with the same X server and abiword/open office as every other distro has switched you back?
Ok, I'm calling shennigans. When you said "I had used linux" did you really mean "I had linux installed on a secondary partion and booted into it once a year when I wanted to be 1337"?
I've been in my apartment for about 2 years. I've had the same shower curtain this entire time. About six months after I got it, it started developing these ugly white bloches.
Not wanting to buy a new curtain I let it go. About 3 months ago, it was so bad, I felt embarassed to let people use my bathroom. Finally, I went to take it down to replace buy a new one and I noticed a little white tag with washer-instructions. Didn't I feel a little sheepish.
Morale of the story: you can wash your shower current:-) It works quite well.
Well, the first time, yes, the did license the documentation too restrictively. But they then rereleased it with no restrictions.
Not that it really mattered. It's pretty easy to decode on its own.
Re:Kerberos Authentication
on
Samba 3 By Example
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Samba can decode the PAC. I don't believe it actually using the information yet.
This is because before using the information, you have to verify the signatures (to ensure the data hasn't been forged). Making use of the information in the PAC is on the TODO list though as it will result in a nice performance increase in some areas.
And the PAC certainly doesn't violate any of the kerberos standards. Placing implementation specific information in the authorization data is what it's there for.
If it was some little sourceforge thing that noone used, it's still better than not having anything. It shows you have motivation and that you can actually program (I've known some people to actually look at the code to judge the person's abilities).
If it was the pre-emptive kernel patch, then expect it to carry quite a bit of wait with Open Source friendly companies.
Personally, I'm starting to get a little wary of people who claim OS experience on their resume as it is becoming a habit of some resume builders to do such things. Not suggest you have but I would take that in to consideration when making your resume.
The black in Black Friday comes from earnings charts where red and black are used to distinguish the difference between loss and profit.
Black means profit and historically, this is the day of the year that most retail chains break the barrier and become profitably for the year. This is also where the expression "In the red" comes from.
Nah, even that approach doesn't work. Windows has an entirely different calling convention than Linux. A lot of the more advanced optimizations rely on interprocedural analysis so getting rid of functions kind of defeats the purpose.
It'd be much easier to just improve GCC's optimizer (although neither is easy).
special driver software on the host operating system is used to execute the coLinux kernel in a privileged mode (known as ring 0 or supervisor mode).
By constantly switching the machine's state between the host OS state and and the coLinux kernel state, coLinux is given full control of the physical machine's MMU (i.e, paging and protection) in its own specially allocated address space, and is able to act just like a native kernel, achieving almost the same performance and functionality that can be expected from a regular Linux which could have ran on the same machine standalone.
That is from colinux's page. You're on crack dude. It runs as a driver and it runs in ring 0. Yes, if Windows does something unexpected with the timer interrupt or with kernel memory, it will break coLinux.
What's more, Xen is 1) open source 2) not a virtual machine. It's a hypervisor. Get a clue.
Generating better code is kind of a subjection thing. The only thing I'd suggest is that MSVC generates better code for SPEC than GCC.
At any rate, MSVC will not generate Linux executables. Visual Studios has also run for some time under Wine. You could however use it to build Windows app's on Linux however you could also use mingw to do the same.
Considering a very common (and powerful) optimization of inlining. What you literally do is change function invocations to the code for that function.
Another common (but more advanced optimization) involves making an optimized duplicate of a particular code path.
What you're probably seeing is a difference between the included optimizations in GCC's -O2 verses MSVCP's -02. Try enabling individual optimizations and then comparing code size if that's what you're interested in. That's a more fair metric.
especially since Microsoft has tried to make Visual C++ more conformant to the ISO C++ standard
More ISO conformant? Compared to what? The GNU Fortan77 compiler?
Seriously though, VC++ didn't even support member templates until 6.0. I'm not that familiar with VS.NET, but I know before that there ISO bordered between horrible and pathetic.
In all fairness, I've been told it's not there fault. Something to do with litigation or something.
At any rate, I think this statement of "more standards complaint" certainly could be explained a bit more (especially in terms of how are they more compliant than say, a C++ compiler built with EDG).
I posted something to this effect the first time this was announced. Essentially, I don't think this technology has the likelyhood of producing anything that's ever remotely safe to use. Here's why:
CoLinux essentiallys hooks the timer interrupt IIRC and thereby allows Linux and Windows to play along together. They then take a Linux kernel, and muck with it so that all the memory allocation/potentially nasty stuff goes through Windows first.
However, they make two huge assumptions in this. One, they assume that the Windows OS isn't going to do something very weird/subtle to kernel space code. Two they assume that Linux is going to behave in all places like a Windows device driver.
The danger here is that you're sticking two pieces of software together that were never meant to run together (imagine taking two programs, giving them different start addresses, and running them in the same address space.. you'd get some horribly subtle bugs if either process depended on something in a location that happened to be a location the other was using.).
This is definitely one of those things where it working with limited functionality doesn't mean that with a little more work/polishing it can behave like VMWare or user mode linux.
Besides, if you want to run linux and windows together, check out Xen Hypervisor. A much cleaner (and probably just as fast) solution. Just start bugging redmond to release a hypervisor aware version of Windows (or start writing tools to binary-patch Windows into being hypervisor friendly).
Actually, binary patching Windows to make it be more emulator/virtualizer friendly is not a new concept...
The biggest difference is nevertheless the lack of records during testing...
And this is essentially it. However, let's just say a missle hit a school instead of a terrorist camp because of a bug in software, this is a situation where a paper trail to understand exactly where the system failed. Having the paper trail doesn't guarentee lack of bugs but it creates accountability.
NSA Linux is different. NSA linux isn't actually used on tactical systems. The NSA is not part of the military.
NSA Linux is not a reviewed version of linux, it's a version of linux with enhanced security services (Linux Security Modules grew out of it for example).
I used to work as a Defense contractor and I spent quite a lot of time going through the various processes. As a Linux developer, I can certainly say that Linux has not been developed to the same standards that the projects I've been involved on have.
For starters, in the DoD, every line of code is reviewed by hand by a team of reviewers (usually 4-5). There are records of all the defects found and verification that fixes were made. After the initial development cycle, there's a rigorious testing phase where all specifications are tested, senarios are ran, and stress tests are performed. Any defect from this testing is recorded, and the software doesn't ship until it's fixed. This usually ends up being a 2-4 year process of just doing bug fixes.
And for those that don't know the difference, Windows is *not* certified for tactical use. Having EAL4 is not the same as being certified for tactical use.
It's really a different type of software. It's not that Linux isn't good piece of software, it's just that it wasn't developed for this type of work. There's nothing wrong with that.
I can believe people are answering yes here. If I ever saw in a code review or evaluation what looked like code that can from a personal code library I'd freak and ask management to let the person go.
This is serious stuff. Copying code without permission is stealing. Period.
You know, this post is old, but I can say that current defense systems do use quite a bit of OS stuff and you're absolutely right about distributing.. that's why we don't see the source code.
If talking about boolean logic, that's not necessarily the case.
In logics, you usually start with a very simple syntax that forces parenthesis around all binary operators. You can then add syntactic shortcuts for a + b + c = ((a + b) + c).
Introducing precendence has nothing to do with the logic itself.
Similar comparisons can be made in Set Theory. In the same order of above: Union, Inclusion, Universal Set, Empty Set, and Set Complement.
Not all set theories have a universal set. Instead of having a universal set, you often define a domain of discourse. Therefore if D is your domain of discourse, you define:
~A = D - A
However, it's important to note that D is not a "universal set".
I knew some folks would get in a tilly over this but since you all gave basically the same argument, I'll just post a defense once.
I did this thinking of an old saying that goes something like:
First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Pornography is an expression of free speech. Plain and simple. We may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the equal right to expression as any other speech. I simply tried to show how we would feel differently about the censorship the original commentor suggested if it was censoring a type of free speech that most people believe has the right to exist (although not everyone does mind you).
No, you cannot consistantly replace a series of nouns and maintain an arguments validity. That's not what I was saying though. Perhaps I should have added a little more to my post, but hey, I thought it spoke well enough for itself.
And as for moderation points, I've been on/. far too long to care about that:-) What's the point since they capped karma.
While I agree that a.black TLD is 1.) a dumb idea, and 2.) a potential legal and regulatory morass, I think it's shortsighted to just roll your eyes and write it off as another "won't someone think of the children" proposal.
Some people just don't like being inundated by black people when they use the Internet. Period.
I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some black person -- or reference to black people -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of black culture.
So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.
Most communities regulate who's allowed in it, housing prices, etc. very strictly. In fact, in the South there are still many towns that do not have a single black person. Even if you, personally, like and talk to black people in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a black person moving in on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving a rap magazine there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from Gangster Rap labels on park benches and bus stops.
I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing black culture. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?
It seems to me that the NAACP has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their agenda out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the NAACP industry does business. The.black domain is one such idea.
Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.
Note: It's amazing how quickly a s/porn/black/g can demonstrate how unreasonable you're actually being.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that you have two choices: 1) include a clause or 2) only distribute in source form.
I'm sorry, but distributing in source form is not acceptable for a lot of folks who would want to use a LGPL C++ library. I stand by what I originally stated.
they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).
That doesn't matter. It's out there now. You are free to take it, re-release it as OpenWTL, and make all the changes you want. This is the beauty of Open Source. The community now has equal say in the future of this code as Microsoft does.
If they never touched this project again, that would be fine. All they're obligated to do is release the code once. As long as they keep releasing their changes, they are doing well.
Open Source works because people contribute what they want/need. That's all Microsoft has to do to be a good member of the community (yes, Microsoft *can* become a good member of the community).
In fact, I'll go as far as this, Microsoft has submitted to codebases to the community now. How many people can stand up here and claim to have submitted more than Microsoft has? In many ways, Microsoft is a better member of the community than a lot of people reading this right now.
Kind of crazy eh?
Woah. Hold your horses there pal. Quotith gnu.org:
So the FSF simply states that the CPL has extra clauses that aren't necessarily bad. The FSF is *not* shy about saying something is bad when they think it is. Fact is there are a lot of non-GPL compatible licenses out there. This is not like saying the CPL is OSI approved, but not FSF approved.
I know some of the people that worked on developing the IPL (the predecessor to the CPL). They worked very hard to make a license that would be acceptable to the community. The GPL is vague on patents. Unfortunately in the corporate world, you need to be more specific.
I applaud Microsoft for using the CPL. Keep in mind, the LGPL cannot be used with C++ code without a special clause (see libstdc++ in GCC for more info on this).
You ran linux for 5 years, gave it up b/c 1) you needed to play games (what did you do for the previous 5 years?) and 2) you couldn't get abiword/open office to save a .doc file (File => Save As... not so hard).
Yet being a hardened Linux veteran, Knoppix, which comes with the same X server and abiword/open office as every other distro has switched you back?
Ok, I'm calling shennigans. When you said "I had used linux" did you really mean "I had linux installed on a secondary partion and booted into it once a year when I wanted to be 1337"?
I've been in my apartment for about 2 years. I've had the same shower curtain this entire time. About six months after I got it, it started developing these ugly white bloches.
:-) It works quite well.
Not wanting to buy a new curtain I let it go. About 3 months ago, it was so bad, I felt embarassed to let people use my bathroom. Finally, I went to take it down to replace buy a new one and I noticed a little white tag with washer-instructions. Didn't I feel a little sheepish.
Morale of the story: you can wash your shower current
Well, the first time, yes, the did license the documentation too restrictively. But they then rereleased it with no restrictions.
Not that it really mattered. It's pretty easy to decode on its own.
Samba can decode the PAC. I don't believe it actually using the information yet.
This is because before using the information, you have to verify the signatures (to ensure the data hasn't been forged). Making use of the information in the PAC is on the TODO list though as it will result in a nice performance increase in some areas.
And the PAC certainly doesn't violate any of the kerberos standards. Placing implementation specific information in the authorization data is what it's there for.
If it was some little sourceforge thing that noone used, it's still better than not having anything. It shows you have motivation and that you can actually program (I've known some people to actually look at the code to judge the person's abilities).
If it was the pre-emptive kernel patch, then expect it to carry quite a bit of wait with Open Source friendly companies.
Personally, I'm starting to get a little wary of people who claim OS experience on their resume as it is becoming a habit of some resume builders to do such things. Not suggest you have but I would take that in to consideration when making your resume.
Good luck!
The black in Black Friday comes from earnings charts where red and black are used to distinguish the difference between loss and profit.
Black means profit and historically, this is the day of the year that most retail chains break the barrier and become profitably for the year. This is also where the expression "In the red" comes from.
Nah, even that approach doesn't work. Windows has an entirely different calling convention than Linux. A lot of the more advanced optimizations rely on interprocedural analysis so getting rid of functions kind of defeats the purpose.
It'd be much easier to just improve GCC's optimizer (although neither is easy).
special driver software on the host operating system is used to execute the coLinux kernel in a privileged mode (known as ring 0 or supervisor mode).
By constantly switching the machine's state between the host OS state and and the coLinux kernel state, coLinux is given full control of the physical machine's MMU (i.e, paging and protection) in its own specially allocated address space, and is able to act just like a native kernel, achieving almost the same performance and functionality that can be expected from a regular Linux which could have ran on the same machine standalone.
That is from colinux's page. You're on crack dude. It runs as a driver and it runs in ring 0. Yes, if Windows does something unexpected with the timer interrupt or with kernel memory, it will break coLinux.
What's more, Xen is 1) open source 2) not a virtual machine. It's a hypervisor. Get a clue.
Generating better code is kind of a subjection thing. The only thing I'd suggest is that MSVC generates better code for SPEC than GCC.
At any rate, MSVC will not generate Linux executables. Visual Studios has also run for some time under Wine. You could however use it to build Windows app's on Linux however you could also use mingw to do the same.
Large code size != bad code generation.
Considering a very common (and powerful) optimization of inlining. What you literally do is change function invocations to the code for that function.
Another common (but more advanced optimization) involves making an optimized duplicate of a particular code path.
What you're probably seeing is a difference between the included optimizations in GCC's -O2 verses MSVCP's -02. Try enabling individual optimizations and then comparing code size if that's what you're interested in. That's a more fair metric.
especially since Microsoft has tried to make Visual C++ more conformant to the ISO C++ standard
More ISO conformant? Compared to what? The GNU Fortan77 compiler?
Seriously though, VC++ didn't even support member templates until 6.0. I'm not that familiar with VS.NET, but I know before that there ISO bordered between horrible and pathetic.
In all fairness, I've been told it's not there fault. Something to do with litigation or something.
At any rate, I think this statement of "more standards complaint" certainly could be explained a bit more (especially in terms of how are they more compliant than say, a C++ compiler built with EDG).
It's just you. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving. Do you mean Good Friday?
;-)
One is a retail holiday/consumer-whore-fest and the other is one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar. Quite a bit of difference
I posted something to this effect the first time this was announced. Essentially, I don't think this technology has the likelyhood of producing anything that's ever remotely safe to use. Here's why:
CoLinux essentiallys hooks the timer interrupt IIRC and thereby allows Linux and Windows to play along together. They then take a Linux kernel, and muck with it so that all the memory allocation/potentially nasty stuff goes through Windows first.
However, they make two huge assumptions in this. One, they assume that the Windows OS isn't going to do something very weird/subtle to kernel space code. Two they assume that Linux is going to behave in all places like a Windows device driver.
The danger here is that you're sticking two pieces of software together that were never meant to run together (imagine taking two programs, giving them different start addresses, and running them in the same address space.. you'd get some horribly subtle bugs if either process depended on something in a location that happened to be a location the other was using.).
This is definitely one of those things where it working with limited functionality doesn't mean that with a little more work/polishing it can behave like VMWare or user mode linux.
Besides, if you want to run linux and windows together, check out Xen Hypervisor. A much cleaner (and probably just as fast) solution. Just start bugging redmond to release a hypervisor aware version of Windows (or start writing tools to binary-patch Windows into being hypervisor friendly).
Actually, binary patching Windows to make it be more emulator/virtualizer friendly is not a new concept...
The biggest difference is nevertheless the lack of records during testing...
And this is essentially it. However, let's just say a missle hit a school instead of a terrorist camp because of a bug in software, this is a situation where a paper trail to understand exactly where the system failed. Having the paper trail doesn't guarentee lack of bugs but it creates accountability.
NSA Linux is different. NSA linux isn't actually used on tactical systems. The NSA is not part of the military.
NSA Linux is not a reviewed version of linux, it's a version of linux with enhanced security services (Linux Security Modules grew out of it for example).
I used to work as a Defense contractor and I spent quite a lot of time going through the various processes. As a Linux developer, I can certainly say that Linux has not been developed to the same standards that the projects I've been involved on have.
For starters, in the DoD, every line of code is reviewed by hand by a team of reviewers (usually 4-5). There are records of all the defects found and verification that fixes were made. After the initial development cycle, there's a rigorious testing phase where all specifications are tested, senarios are ran, and stress tests are performed. Any defect from this testing is recorded, and the software doesn't ship until it's fixed. This usually ends up being a 2-4 year process of just doing bug fixes.
And for those that don't know the difference, Windows is *not* certified for tactical use. Having EAL4 is not the same as being certified for tactical use.
It's really a different type of software. It's not that Linux isn't good piece of software, it's just that it wasn't developed for this type of work. There's nothing wrong with that.
I can believe people are answering yes here. If I ever saw in a code review or evaluation what looked like code that can from a personal code library I'd freak and ask management to let the person go.
This is serious stuff. Copying code without permission is stealing. Period.
You know, this post is old, but I can say that current defense systems do use quite a bit of OS stuff and you're absolutely right about distributing.. that's why we don't see the source code.
If talking about boolean logic, that's not necessarily the case.
In logics, you usually start with a very simple syntax that forces parenthesis around all binary operators. You can then add syntactic shortcuts for a + b + c = ((a + b) + c).
Introducing precendence has nothing to do with the logic itself.
Similar comparisons can be made in Set Theory. In the same order of above: Union, Inclusion, Universal Set, Empty Set, and Set Complement.
Not all set theories have a universal set. Instead of having a universal set, you often define a domain of discourse. Therefore if D is your domain of discourse, you define:
~A = D - A
However, it's important to note that D is not a "universal set".
I knew some folks would get in a tilly over this but since you all gave basically the same argument, I'll just post a defense once.
/. far too long to care about that :-) What's the point since they capped karma.
I did this thinking of an old saying that goes something like:
First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,
so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
Pornography is an expression of free speech. Plain and simple. We may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the equal right to expression as any other speech. I simply tried to show how we would feel differently about the censorship the original commentor suggested if it was censoring a type of free speech that most people believe has the right to exist (although not everyone does mind you).
No, you cannot consistantly replace a series of nouns and maintain an arguments validity. That's not what I was saying though. Perhaps I should have added a little more to my post, but hey, I thought it spoke well enough for itself.
And as for moderation points, I've been on
While I agree that a .black TLD is 1.) a dumb idea, and 2.) a potential legal and regulatory morass, I think it's shortsighted to just roll your eyes and write it off as another "won't someone think of the children" proposal.
.black domain is one such idea.
Some people just don't like being inundated by black people when they use the Internet. Period.
I mean, come on -- we all know that if you spend time randomly surfing the Web, you can hardly go an hour or two without randomly stumbling across some black person -- or reference to black people -- in the form of an advertisement or a pop-up or a joke site or whatever. Half the spam you receive -- and you can't help receiving it -- falls under most people's definition of black culture.
So why is that? We don't put up with it in the rest of our day to day lives.
Most communities regulate who's allowed in it, housing prices, etc. very strictly. In fact, in the South there are still many towns that do not have a single black person. Even if you, personally, like and talk to black people in the privacy of your own home, if you leased an office building, you probably wouldn't want a black person moving in on either side of you. If your office had a magazine-swap rack in the break room, you probably wouldn't want your employees leaving a rap magazine there. Very few people would vote to let their city accept advertising from Gangster Rap labels on park benches and bus stops.
I don't think it's out of line to have a reasonable expectation of being able to spend your day without viewing black culture. So how to tackle that problem on the Internet?
It seems to me that the NAACP has a lot of money, and they're willing to pay it to people to get their advertising and their agenda out there to where people will pay to consume them. If that's the root of the problem, then it does not seem unreasonable to me to propose possible ways of regulating the way the NAACP industry does business. The
Not the best one, perhaps, but a legitimate one nonetheless.
Note: It's amazing how quickly a s/porn/black/g can demonstrate how unreasonable you're actually being.