First, Redhat is just piggybacking on it. I do not thinking giving redhat a big boost this way is 'fair' to others, OR to Microsoft.
Second, Microsoft getting off the hook at all by simply donating some stuff does not address the issue.
We simply need to ensure that microsoft can't stay on the top by bullying people with their size. If they want to stay on top with good software, let them.
Well. my usual sermon..
The internet is not a 'government network'. It's a bunch of networks hooked together using a common protocol. When a government wants to step in and tell a bunch of private entities what they can and cannot look at, over hardware they own.. I have a problem with it.
From the command line, you could do such a thing. But that doesn't help a great many other applications that don't necessarily use the shell.
Also... it's just a huge layer of complexity.. for what? You can achieve the same effect with symlinks if you really don't want to populate/usr/bin with binaries.. just populate it with symlinks.
Of course. It's not the same thing, I realize.
However.. most software nowadays has an installer that checks to see if the required software is installed already.
On top of that, most windows software is largely self-contained.
I'm not excusing it; you are right, it's not nearly as sophisticated.
But package management means, at a base level, the ability to add and remove packages, which this does. It does not do dependency management, version management, etc.
You are mistaken. The triple licenses are just to get a wider audience.
If you have some GPL software, you cannot revoke the rights you have granted others under GPL; that is true.
But if you are the copyright holder, you can ABSOLUTELY stop issuing new versions under GPL.
This is where it gets tricky you see.. if I start an OSS project, and people start submitting patches to me... does that mean they are now co-authors, or have they given me said patches to include in my software? I believe in most cases, I am still the sole copyright holder, I bet. I forget where, but this has happened before, where a company has taken many changes from people, improved their product, then went back to closed source (of course the OSS version is still available.. they can't revoke that). But they did, effectively, steal the work of others.
The reason a great many commands are in/usr/bin is because they are viewed as commands.. or small tools. It's the unix way. I *expect* them to be in/usr/bin; I don't WANT a different subdirectory for each individual file.
Comparing this to Windows using the Windows subdirectory is wrong; that truly WAS a mess.
But I *know* that, if I install a program called, say, fooapp, that the binary will be/usr/bin/fooap, and the config file will be/etc/fooap.something, or if there are more than one config file,/etc/fooap.something/
Before (and after) reading this article, it occurred to me that I just don't see the problem the guy is getting at.
No package manager in Windows? That's funny.. because I find lately that every install I use uses InstallShield or some other similar tool, and windows lets me remove things via Add/Remove programs.
Now.. it's not exactly dpkg/apt, of course...
But it IS a package manager.
Have you actually had to manage a system that works like this? It's a royal pain in the ass.
Seriously.. what problems do people actually have with, say, the way debian organizes files now? Can anyone state a real-life issue and how a different system would make it better?
From all the unixes I've used, I've found, so-far, that debian is by far the easiest one to keep clean; but admin styles differ.. that could just be me.
The one comment I really dig was the one regarding translucent filesystems... I could actually see that working.
Well...looking at my Debian system...
/sbin contains stuff that requires superuser priveleges. Stuff specific to maintaining the hardware, etc.
/bin contains solid, standard system binaries need to work (bash, grep, chmod, z-tools, gzip, etc). Stuff that you basically need.
/usr/bin/ contains... userland stuff. software installed/removed for general use.. I don't know the right way to describe it.
/usr/local/bin.. contains nothing. This is where, generally, I choose to put things I compile myself, so as not to confuse the package management system.
If we look at,say, systems where many things are mounted over nfs../usr/bin is one of these./usr/local/bin is for things local to your machine.
I refuse to waste even MORE of my bandwidth on this 'bandwidth hogging garbage' by responding to it.. so it all goes to/dev/null. The only time I will respond to something is if it is actually having a quantifiable detremental effect on my systems, and I think contacting anyone will resolve it.
Yes.. if we are talking about separate vlans, (conceptually, different networks separated by a router) then the switch IS misbehaving. But that also depends on exactly how the switch is configured.
As for having a switch do arp requests in proxy-like fashion.. that's not the purpose of the switch. As for why it's 'not too wise' I don't understand.. ti's *exactly* what switches were designed to do... the purpose of a switch is to increase network performance (compared to a hub) by a best-effort attempt to put traffic only where it needs to be, without actually changing the behavior of the network itself.
As for a switch sending out an arp request... that in and of itself would be a broadcast packet to everywhere.... besides, as soon as the switch sees traffic from the 'unknown' host it'll populate it's switch table and start working 'normally' again.
That the US Govt saying they want to do this is akin to a company saying they want to build a large, private WAN, because they don't like working on the internet for sharing info between offices. Fair enough.
First fact: Switches are NOT security devices. They are designed to boost network performance, not to provide security from sniffers. There are ways to make most switches broadcast traffic like a hub.
Second.. we're talking about the switching tables on the switch, not the arp cache (arp cache is the wrong word probably in this case). A switch keeps track of which mac address is on which port. These things time out after a while. So when a switch gets a packet with a destination mac address it doesn't recognize.. it HAS to broadcast it to all ports.
BTW, standard learning bridges work the same way.
He was asked to remove it in a letter, in accordance with the DMCA.
THe DMCA lets a copyright holder do this, to protect their work. They can write a letter, and have material taken down.
However... the counter to this is that the person with the site merely has to send a letter back declaring that the information does NOT infringe on their copyrights. They then have a certain number of days to file suit or drop it.
Yeah. Because, although I didn't buy into it during all the hype.. I really enjoyed reading these books recently. Not in any kind of cult-worship way.. but I definately enjoyed reading them.
It was to regulate the sale of these items to minors.. not to regulate minors from using them.
A parent is still legally free to purchase a game for their child, and let them play it. Just as a parent is still free to take their child to an R rated movie. (Funny, though, I've seen a movie theater manager actually arguing with a lady that she shouldn't be taking her child to Terminator-2)
Regulating smoking *DOES* work. there are less teenage smokers now than there used to be.
No matter how you slice it, though, excessive regulation is a waste of money, and they are bang on. If parents can't control the video games their children play, they aren't spending enough time with their children (or their children are smart enough to do it anyway).
The original intent of the law was to prevent kids from buying the games, ie: to force the decision on the parents.
Those duck-humping wankers that were in power in BC for so long are gone. I'm not one for politics.. but those jerks screwed up *so much* in the last few years.
Now, maybe they can turn my beloved province back into somewhere I can actually work for actual reasonable money and I can move back home.
Slashdot Mirror
Niether settlement is good in my books.
First, Redhat is just piggybacking on it. I do not thinking giving redhat a big boost this way is 'fair' to others, OR to Microsoft.
Second, Microsoft getting off the hook at all by simply donating some stuff does not address the issue.
We simply need to ensure that microsoft can't stay on the top by bullying people with their size. If they want to stay on top with good software, let them.
Well. my usual sermon..
The internet is not a 'government network'. It's a bunch of networks hooked together using a common protocol. When a government wants to step in and tell a bunch of private entities what they can and cannot look at, over hardware they own.. I have a problem with it.
From the command line, you could do such a thing. But that doesn't help a great many other applications that don't necessarily use the shell.
/usr/bin with binaries.. just populate it with symlinks.
Also... it's just a huge layer of complexity.. for what? You can achieve the same effect with symlinks if you really don't want to populate
Of course. It's not the same thing, I realize.
However.. most software nowadays has an installer that checks to see if the required software is installed already.
On top of that, most windows software is largely self-contained.
I'm not excusing it; you are right, it's not nearly as sophisticated.
But package management means, at a base level, the ability to add and remove packages, which this does. It does not do dependency management, version management, etc.
No. It couldn't, as far as I know.
Shell variables are not eval'd every time they are used.
But what are you saying? Even if you could do this....
So if I want to execute 'mozilla' I first have to enter $APP=mozilla, then run 'mozilla'?
You are mistaken. The triple licenses are just to get a wider audience.
If you have some GPL software, you cannot revoke the rights you have granted others under GPL; that is true.
But if you are the copyright holder, you can ABSOLUTELY stop issuing new versions under GPL.
This is where it gets tricky you see.. if I start an OSS project, and people start submitting patches to me... does that mean they are now co-authors, or have they given me said patches to include in my software? I believe in most cases, I am still the sole copyright holder, I bet. I forget where, but this has happened before, where a company has taken many changes from people, improved their product, then went back to closed source (of course the OSS version is still available.. they can't revoke that). But they did, effectively, steal the work of others.
The reason a great many commands are in /usr/bin is because they are viewed as commands.. or small tools. It's the unix way. I *expect* them to be in /usr/bin; I don't WANT a different subdirectory for each individual file.
/usr/bin/fooap, and the config file will be /etc/fooap.something, or if there are more than one config file, /etc/fooap.something/
Comparing this to Windows using the Windows subdirectory is wrong; that truly WAS a mess.
But I *know* that, if I install a program called, say, fooapp, that the binary will be
Before (and after) reading this article, it occurred to me that I just don't see the problem the guy is getting at.
No package manager in Windows? That's funny.. because I find lately that every install I use uses InstallShield or some other similar tool, and windows lets me remove things via Add/Remove programs.
Now.. it's not exactly dpkg/apt, of course...
But it IS a package manager.
Have you actually had to manage a system that works like this? It's a royal pain in the ass.
Seriously.. what problems do people actually have with, say, the way debian organizes files now? Can anyone state a real-life issue and how a different system would make it better?
From all the unixes I've used, I've found, so-far, that debian is by far the easiest one to keep clean; but admin styles differ.. that could just be me.
The one comment I really dig was the one regarding translucent filesystems... I could actually see that working.
Well...looking at my Debian system...
,say, systems where many things are mounted over nfs.. /usr/bin is one of these. /usr/local/bin is for things local to your machine.
/sbin contains stuff that requires superuser priveleges. Stuff specific to maintaining the hardware, etc.
/bin contains solid, standard system binaries need to work (bash, grep, chmod, z-tools, gzip, etc). Stuff that you basically need.
/usr/bin/ contains... userland stuff. software installed/removed for general use.. I don't know the right way to describe it.
/usr/local/bin.. contains nothing. This is where, generally, I choose to put things I compile myself, so as not to confuse the package management system.
If we look at
No.. subdirectories are NOT included.
The searchapth ($PATH) are just explicit directories.
I don't see what all the fuss is about though...
I refuse to waste even MORE of my bandwidth on this 'bandwidth hogging garbage' by responding to it.. so it all goes to /dev/null. The only time I will respond to something is if it is actually having a quantifiable detremental effect on my systems, and I think contacting anyone will resolve it.
Yes.. if we are talking about separate vlans, (conceptually, different networks separated by a router) then the switch IS misbehaving. But that also depends on exactly how the switch is configured.
As for having a switch do arp requests in proxy-like fashion.. that's not the purpose of the switch. As for why it's 'not too wise' I don't understand.. ti's *exactly* what switches were designed to do... the purpose of a switch is to increase network performance (compared to a hub) by a best-effort attempt to put traffic only where it needs to be, without actually changing the behavior of the network itself.
As for a switch sending out an arp request... that in and of itself would be a broadcast packet to everywhere.... besides, as soon as the switch sees traffic from the 'unknown' host it'll populate it's switch table and start working 'normally' again.
That the US Govt saying they want to do this is akin to a company saying they want to build a large, private WAN, because they don't like working on the internet for sharing info between offices. Fair enough.
Apples and Oranges.
First fact: Switches are NOT security devices. They are designed to boost network performance, not to provide security from sniffers. There are ways to make most switches broadcast traffic like a hub.
Second.. we're talking about the switching tables on the switch, not the arp cache (arp cache is the wrong word probably in this case). A switch keeps track of which mac address is on which port. These things time out after a while. So when a switch gets a packet with a destination mac address it doesn't recognize.. it HAS to broadcast it to all ports.
BTW, standard learning bridges work the same way.
He was asked to remove it in a letter, in accordance with the DMCA.
THe DMCA lets a copyright holder do this, to protect their work. They can write a letter, and have material taken down.
However... the counter to this is that the person with the site merely has to send a letter back declaring that the information does NOT infringe on their copyrights. They then have a certain number of days to file suit or drop it.
Providing 'fair-use' was never something these companies were requried to do. Fair use is not something they give you or permit you to do..
it's something copyright law says you are allowed to do, period.
Except.. the DMCA conflicts with that.
They are rowing, as the article says, from tenerife, spain, to barbados.
That's a near tropical origin (30 degrees N, I think) and a very tropical destination.
What *I* wanna know is, how do they shit?
yes.. and there are a few other, very minor differences, well documented in the bash documentation, which any devleoper could very easily account for.
You are looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.
bash is backward compatable to sh. Period.
Yes, you can do things in bash you can't do in sh, but not vice-versa.
If you write your scripts for stock Bourne, they will run fine under bash.
Yeah. Because, although I didn't buy into it during all the hype.. I really enjoyed reading these books recently. Not in any kind of cult-worship way.. but I definately enjoyed reading them.
KDE was usable and functional long before GNOME was of any use whatsoever. IT's been ahead of the curve the whole time.
GNOME is great... but I find KDE more polished.
is how they manage to squeeze 54Mbps out of it while still staying within the 2.4GHz ISM regulations?
It was to regulate the sale of these items to minors.. not to regulate minors from using them.
A parent is still legally free to purchase a game for their child, and let them play it. Just as a parent is still free to take their child to an R rated movie. (Funny, though, I've seen a movie theater manager actually arguing with a lady that she shouldn't be taking her child to Terminator-2)
Regulating smoking *DOES* work. there are less teenage smokers now than there used to be.
No matter how you slice it, though, excessive regulation is a waste of money, and they are bang on. If parents can't control the video games their children play, they aren't spending enough time with their children (or their children are smart enough to do it anyway).
The original intent of the law was to prevent kids from buying the games, ie: to force the decision on the parents.
Those duck-humping wankers that were in power in BC for so long are gone. I'm not one for politics.. but those jerks screwed up *so much* in the last few years.
Now, maybe they can turn my beloved province back into somewhere I can actually work for actual reasonable money and I can move back home.