Well, it's not an indivisual's web site. It's a company web site. I'd be careful with the truth in that case.
Note that it doesn't mean that patches were compromised, only that the front end web site was. Much the same way as Debian's site being comprised but the archive unaffected.
The web front-end was (someone posted this link), but you are right, it doesn't mean that comprised software could have been installed. Presumably their downloads are singed.
I wonder if someone really believes that Debian make the stable releases for stability and security rather than incapacity of releasing and supporting an up to date system.
First, I don't think anyone in Debian is saying that. We'd be happy to release more often. Note that people running Debian on servers would then complain that we wouldn't support releases for three years if we did that. There's no way we'd have the resources to do that.
Even the so-called "unstable" distro that you are supposed to run to get "up to date" software is always 3 months to a year behind depending on the package.
I'd believe you if you said from 0 days old to a year. I release a lot of packages on the same day as upstream.
The packages that are very old are usually much more complicated, like X. Debian packages must compile and run on around 10 different architectures, so it's not uncommon for pristine upstream packages designed on i386 hardware to fail to build correctly on all Debian-supported arches. Did you know that the Debian team that handles X must do a lot of patching to get X to work on all these arches?
Technically, no. Some major ones were created by the FSF (e.g. gcc). A lot were simply offered to them after being written. And pretty much all are written by the GNU community and not by the FSF.
The FSF may hold the copyright, but that doesn't mean they wrote the code.
I would not donate my voucher to the FSF, because the GPL, which the FSF promotes, helps Microsoft. It does this by making it impossible for small companies to reuse code to build commerical products that compete with Microsoft's. It thus kills Microsoft's competition in the cradle.
Why would I, as a free software developer, be in the business of making you money. Do you think we are in this to kill Microsoft?
Using emacs, if I did not manually insert carriage returns, editing the middle of a "line" (which is all the editor treated each paragraph as), required scrolling through the entire line. Up/Down took me to the beginning or end of the paragraph. At least with Notepad, when I press up, it takes the cursor through the middle of the paragraph, for easy editing.
In Emacs:
M-x customze-variable [RET] text-mode-hook [RET]
Click on `turb-on-auto-fill' to enable it, then on `State' and select `Save For Future Sessions'.
> I wonder why CVS, and not something more > advanced, like Arch or Subversion?
Joey uses subversion now. Scroll down to a post from him. He wrote the article in 2001, it was published in LJ last year and is/. news today. He has since switched to using subversion.
I'm not the one making wild accusations about Debian developers.
I even contribute code to Emacs. Do you?
no. do you have a point?
Sure. You do a whole lot of complaining for someone who doesn't contribute.
it will happen because the people leading this circus don't care if anyone besides themselves uses debian. they care only about being "pure."
Not only, but yes, it's the most important bit to begin as a base to build on.
I'll skip over most of your rants because they are not worth arguing over.
the sad fact is, the debian group had the opportunity to "spread the gospel" of free software by making a distribution which would highlight its advantages. instead, it chose to concentrate its energies on divisive and largely irrelevant political and religious issues like the GNU documentation license.
First, I didn't know we lost our chances by spending some hours discussing the GFDL and how it applies to our distribution. If you really think the time we spent on that issue has prevented us from releasing sarge, you are really off-base.
You are free to call the discussion irrelevant, but it's not to us.
it seems apparent that you, at least, have not considered the outcome, should the FSF refuse to change the license to meet your demands.
No, I have. It might get to that and I'm all for moving those docs to non-free if it does. I just don't think it will.
my own belief is that you are not the FSF
We're not. It's not something that you have to believe or not.
and that you have an agenda which is not necessarily compatible with the agenda of the FSF.
Apparently that's true. The FSF currently cares about free software and somewhat-free documentation. They are willing to sacrifice freedom in documentation to promote free software. We're not. We put them both on equal footing. I'm hoping we can convince them to also put them on an equal footing before it's too late.
i would prefer that outside organizations, like debian, not dictate the agenda of the FSF
We don't. They are free to license their stuff as they want. We are free to distribute or not.
I won't be responding to you again in this subject. You have used up your allowance of unfounded attacks.
why don't you ask them? they've answered the question, you just stopped up your ears.
I have asked. The answer is that even the previous documentation was incompatible with teh GPL. That doesn't mean it's not a problem.
you read a bunch of propaganda by some debianites & accepted it uncritically
No, I've participated in it.
perhaps, you should consider asking yourself, what is the agenda of those complainers?
Freeness in documentation on equal footing to software. Nothing short of it.
some of them, i believe, from having read their posts to debian mail lists, are motivated by personal dislike of rms. if he said the sun was yellow, they'd immediately get up a vote to declare it blue.
You are free to believe that but it doesn't make it true.
worst of all, you propagate a probably widely spread misconception. you can cut & paste all you want
No you can't! The licenses are not compatible. I have already stated that.
if you're offended by the fact that you can't remove the manifesto from the emacs documentation, don't use emacs. i think you're silly.
Of course I am offended by that. As much as I wouldn't call software with invariant parts free.
i intend to keep using emacs
Me too. I even contribute code to Emacs. Do you?
keep supporting the FSF and keep installing software that has the documentation included with it.
And I'll keep pushing them to make their documentation free software, which is currently isn't.
the latter item, apparently, precludes anything from debian.
they are going to remove "non-free" documentation from debian... so, you can install debian but you won't have documentation for gcc, textutils, fileutils &c. good idea.
It probably won't happen because the FSF will hopefully change the GFDL to make it a free software license. And you'd have Debian to thank for that for being the only guys to care about the issue.
If the FSF don't, then someone will package the docs outside of Debian and you'll get them via apt-get like you did before. Since you don't care about freedom why would you care where you get the package from?
Ask yourself why the FSF is documenting GPL'ed applications under a license that is non GPL compatible? That makes it impossible for anyone but them to cut & paste doc strings between an application and it's documentation, inhibiting forks.
You suggest this research would be more accurate if the people assumed that one response ('fuck off') correlated to an 'I don't respond to spam' reply? You utterly discount the notion that people feel that SPAM is less of an intrusion than being interrupted by a phone call?
Not completely. There probably is a correlation between refusing to respond to a phone survey and never replying to SPAM. It's not 100% but it's likely correlated enough to increase the accuracy of the survey.
I can't believe the number of replies that think you are trolling and have never heard of SE-Linux. Yes, that is a National Security Agency link I just put there.
Slashdot Mirror
I may wait until spring to see what this SLR Nikon D70 is all about. It'll use my F-mount lenses.
According to this they are simply adding a README file but not removing SCO support. Has anything new happened since?
Or are you simply saying they aren't likely to actively maintain that part of the SCO against changes made elsewhere?
Well, it's not an indivisual's web site. It's a company web site. I'd be careful with the truth in that case.
Note that it doesn't mean that patches were compromised, only that the front end web site was.
Much the same way as Debian's site being comprised but the archive unaffected.
During the original Code Red incident, for a short time, the Windows Update webpage was showing "Hacked by Chinese Worm".
(There was concrete evidence of this but unfortunately I don't have it.)
Here it is.
Their update server wasn't compromised
The web front-end was (someone posted this link), but you are right, it doesn't mean that
comprised software could have been installed.
Presumably their downloads are singed.
I wonder if someone really believes that Debian make the stable releases for stability and security rather than incapacity of releasing and supporting an up to date system.
First, I don't think anyone in Debian is saying that. We'd be happy to release more often. Note that people running Debian on servers would then complain that we wouldn't support releases for three years if we did that. There's no way we'd have the resources to do that.
Even the so-called "unstable" distro that you are supposed to run to get "up to date" software is always 3 months to a year behind depending on the package.
I'd believe you if you said from 0 days old to a year. I release a lot of packages on the same day as upstream.
The packages that are very old are usually much more complicated, like X. Debian packages must compile and run on around 10 different architectures, so it's not uncommon for pristine upstream packages designed on i386 hardware to fail to build correctly on all Debian-supported arches. Did you know that the Debian team that handles X must do a lot of patching to get X to work on all these arches?
Martin Schulze is also in the Debian security team. He prepares a lot (most?) of the security fixes for stable.
These are all GNU packages created by the FSF.
Technically, no. Some major ones were created by the FSF (e.g. gcc). A lot were simply offered to them after being written. And pretty much all are written by the GNU community and not by the FSF.
The FSF may hold the copyright, but that doesn't mean they wrote the code.
I would not donate my voucher to the FSF, because the GPL, which the FSF promotes, helps Microsoft. It does this by making it impossible for small companies to reuse code to build commerical products that compete with Microsoft's. It thus kills Microsoft's competition in the cradle.
Why would I, as a free software developer, be in the business of making you money. Do you think we are in this to kill Microsoft?
If you get Linux legally on cd in a format that a normal person can install, it costs more than Windows.
Picking the first one on CheapBytes.com:
Fedora Linux 1 3 CD Installation Set $6.99
Do you think it's an illegal CD?
BTW the invariant sections only concern the non technical parts of course, so it isnt all gloom and doom.
As the post you replied to said, that makes it impossible to merge it into free software.
enabling this functionality is a simple toggle in Edit
:-)
Actually, now that you emntion it. Toggle Word Wrap in Text Modes in the Options menu.
Using emacs, if I did not manually insert carriage returns, editing the middle of a "line" (which is all the editor treated each paragraph as), required scrolling through the entire line. Up/Down took me to the beginning or end of the paragraph. At least with Notepad, when I press up, it takes the cursor through the middle of the paragraph, for easy editing.
In Emacs:
M-x customze-variable [RET] text-mode-hook [RET]
Click on `turb-on-auto-fill' to enable it, then on `State' and select `Save For Future Sessions'.
Granted this stuff could be easier.
> I wonder why CVS, and not something more
/. news today. He has since switched to using subversion.
> advanced, like Arch or Subversion?
Joey uses subversion now. Scroll down to a post from him. He wrote the article in 2001, it was published in LJ last year and is
that applies to you, too.
I'm not the one making wild accusations about Debian developers.
I even contribute code to Emacs. Do you?
no. do you have a point?
Sure. You do a whole lot of complaining for someone who doesn't contribute.
it will happen because the people leading this circus don't care if anyone besides themselves uses debian. they care only about being "pure."
Not only, but yes, it's the most important bit to begin as a base to build on.
I'll skip over most of your rants because they are not worth arguing over.
the sad fact is, the debian group had the opportunity to "spread the gospel" of free software by making a distribution which would highlight its advantages. instead, it chose to concentrate its energies on divisive and largely irrelevant political and religious issues like the GNU documentation license.
First, I didn't know we lost our chances by spending some hours discussing the GFDL and how it applies to our distribution. If you really think the time we spent on that issue has prevented us from releasing sarge, you are really off-base.
You are free to call the discussion irrelevant, but it's not to us.
it seems apparent that you, at least, have not considered the outcome, should the FSF refuse to change the license to meet your demands.
No, I have. It might get to that and I'm all for moving those docs to non-free if it does. I just don't think it will.
my own belief is that you are not the FSF
We're not. It's not something that you have to believe or not.
and that you have an agenda which is not necessarily compatible with the agenda of the FSF.
Apparently that's true. The FSF currently cares about free software and somewhat-free documentation. They are willing to sacrifice freedom in documentation to promote free software. We're not. We put them both on equal footing.
I'm hoping we can convince them to also put them on an equal footing before it's too late.
i would prefer that outside organizations, like debian, not dictate the agenda of the FSF
We don't. They are free to license their stuff as they want. We are free to distribute or not.
I won't be responding to you again in this subject. You have used up your allowance of unfounded attacks.
why don't you ask them? they've answered the question, you just stopped up your ears.
I have asked. The answer is that even the previous documentation was incompatible with teh GPL. That doesn't mean it's not a problem.
you read a bunch of propaganda by some debianites & accepted it uncritically
No, I've participated in it.
perhaps, you should consider asking yourself, what is the agenda of those complainers?
Freeness in documentation on equal footing to software. Nothing short of it.
some of them, i believe, from having read their posts to debian mail lists, are motivated by personal dislike of rms. if he said the sun was yellow, they'd immediately get up a vote to declare it blue.
You are free to believe that but it doesn't make it true.
worst of all, you propagate a probably widely spread misconception. you can cut & paste all you want
No you can't! The licenses are not compatible. I have already stated that.
if you're offended by the fact that you can't remove the manifesto from the emacs documentation, don't use emacs. i think you're silly.
Of course I am offended by that. As much as I wouldn't call software with invariant parts free.
i intend to keep using emacs
Me too. I even contribute code to Emacs. Do you?
keep supporting the FSF and keep installing software that has the documentation included with it.
And I'll keep pushing them to make their documentation free software, which is currently isn't.
the latter item, apparently, precludes anything from debian.
As I said earlier, I doubt that will happen.
they are going to remove "non-free" documentation from debian ... so, you can install debian but you won't have documentation for gcc, textutils, fileutils &c. good idea.
It probably won't happen because the FSF will hopefully change the GFDL to make it a free software license. And you'd have Debian to thank for that for being the only guys to care about the issue.
If the FSF don't, then someone will package the docs outside of Debian and you'll get them via apt-get like you did before. Since you don't care about freedom why would you care where you get the package from?
Ask yourself why the FSF is documenting GPL'ed applications under a license that is non GPL compatible? That makes it impossible for anyone but them to cut & paste doc strings between an application and it's documentation, inhibiting forks.
Make that Neptune Canada.
I have a tinfoil helmet too! Can I play?
Sure. Start by getting acquainted with SUN's FUD campaign about SCO's claim.
You suggest this research would be more accurate if the people assumed that one response ('fuck off') correlated to an 'I don't respond to spam' reply? You utterly discount the notion that people feel that SPAM is less of an intrusion than being interrupted by a phone call?
Not completely. There probably is a correlation between refusing to respond to a phone survey and never replying to SPAM. It's not 100% but it's likely correlated enough to increase the accuracy of the survey.
I was thinking the same thing. I got mine in 1982 and it's on my desk next to me right now.
I can't believe the number of replies that think you are trolling and have never heard of SE-Linux.
Yes, that is a National Security Agency link I just put there.
'nuff said.
Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems.
So WinXP is the same as DOS? Both can do the same thing and are as easy to use?
Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge.
Linux is not free, it's $4.99 at cheapbytes.com.
Because what one does verify, is that Linux is a hard-to-use operating system, at least in the install phase.
Step 1 - Buy Knoppix CD.
Step 2 - Insert on computer CDROM bay.
Step 3 - Turn on computer.
Step 4 - There is no step 4.
It doesn't matter what ISP you're connecting to on the road -- you should still be able to use your home ISP's SMTP server.
How so? Are they running an open relay?
Surely they only accept to handle mail from within their IP block.
I also often set a From: field in my email, but that mail always has a correct "Sender:" field. So maybe that will be okay?