HyperCard was a great program; it was my first programming language as a teenager. The English syntax was truly remarkable, as was the way it could use context to determine certain elements.
I've spoken with Steve, although it was in a bad context (Apple wanted to sue the company I work for) He's got all of his marbles so far as I can tell, but I think his ego often gets the best of him.
Give me a break; forcing companies to release source code removes *their* freedom. Remember, they, like individuals, have freedom, too. Legally they are classified as individuals, with their own EIN (an SSN for businesses). If they want to modify source for internal use, let them. The examples are not convincing. I don't see that they are particularly vague enough to inspire a change to the GPL. If "MegaSoft" decides to put their modified programs onto PCs and send them out, this is distribution. Simply because a few people don't understand what "distribute" means (taking lessons from Clinton, perhaps) doesn't mean the law or the GPL is vague.
Very nice; then it would be subject to the whims of speculators and the ignorant public who really don't give a shit about Linux as long as it generate profits... which, of course, it wouldn't just as many of these "open source" venture-capital companies will either fold or be acquired.
Get out of the late 90's; that stuff is over. Thank God.
With talk about cracking and the like, my question is: since a GUI is supposed to eliminate or cover up various features of Linux to simplify its operation, what sort of implications does this have for security issues.
In its default configuration, for instance, most distributions of Linux try not to have any holes -- yet if one were to throw a GUI over this and one could not see what was going on in the background, the average user would probably not venture beyond its comforts.
Imagine what would happen if, after attracting more of the Windows crowd with this new GUI, whether it be tools from Eazel or whatever, a new security hole was discovered in a particular part of it. These people can't figure out the Windows Update, much less how to recompile a kernel or set user permissions. My grandfather, who has a cable modem, would be having to deal with things like sendmail attacks, port scanning, BIND holes, etc.
Perhaps I might be taking this too seriously. I mean, the risks involved in "bringing Linux to the consumer masses" were overlooked in the pipedream hype of the late 90's -- which was when the negotiations for Eazel's venture capital financing began.
Slashdot Mirror
HyperCard was a great program; it was my first programming language as a teenager. The English syntax was truly remarkable, as was the way it could use context to determine certain elements.
I've spoken with Steve, although it was in a bad context (Apple wanted to sue the company I work for) He's got all of his marbles so far as I can tell, but I think his ego often gets the best of him.
put "HyperCard" into nostalgia_bin
close stack
Give me a break; forcing companies to release source code removes *their* freedom. Remember, they, like individuals, have freedom, too. Legally they are classified as individuals, with their own EIN (an SSN for businesses). If they want to modify source for internal use, let them. The examples are not convincing. I don't see that they are particularly vague enough to inspire a change to the GPL. If "MegaSoft" decides to put their modified programs onto PCs and send them out, this is distribution. Simply because a few people don't understand what "distribute" means (taking lessons from Clinton, perhaps) doesn't mean the law or the GPL is vague.
WTF?! Are you *crazy*? An IPO?
Very nice; then it would be subject to the whims of speculators and the ignorant public who really don't give a shit about Linux as long as it generate profits... which, of course, it wouldn't just as many of these "open source" venture-capital companies will either fold or be acquired.
Get out of the late 90's; that stuff is over. Thank God.
With talk about cracking and the like, my question is: since a GUI is supposed to eliminate or cover up various features of Linux to simplify its operation, what sort of implications does this have for security issues.
In its default configuration, for instance, most distributions of Linux try not to have any holes -- yet if one were to throw a GUI over this and one could not see what was going on in the background, the average user would probably not venture beyond its comforts.
Imagine what would happen if, after attracting more of the Windows crowd with this new GUI, whether it be tools from Eazel or whatever, a new security hole was discovered in a particular part of it. These people can't figure out the Windows Update, much less how to recompile a kernel or set user permissions. My grandfather, who has a cable modem, would be having to deal with things like sendmail attacks, port scanning, BIND holes, etc.
Perhaps I might be taking this too seriously. I mean, the risks involved in "bringing Linux to the consumer masses" were overlooked in the pipedream hype of the late 90's -- which was when the negotiations for Eazel's venture capital financing began.