Enough of that nonsense, unless you have a 10,000 line display, you don't see ALL the options on one screen editing a text file. Nevermind how easy it is to have an error by typo.
You exaggerate to the detriment of your case. My web server's entire configuration file is exactly 125 lines long – less than three screenfuls in my text editor. And with Apache, for example, you can check your configuration file's syntax without actually running the server with apachectl configtest.
On the contrary, I find that plain text configuration files make administration much simpler. If I want to copy parts of a configuration from one server to another, it's as easy as yanking a bit of text. Documenting my settings involves merely dumping the contents of my configuration file to my manual, rather than expounding on my navigations through a GUI menu system.
I don't know, I'm hesitant to believe that the decision to default to non-SSL connections in GMail resulted from some sort of ethical deliberation. It was probably just a matter of "we'd need to buy $X worth of hardware to support all our users connecting over SSL, so we don't see the benefit in providing this unless the customers really begin to demand it". In other words, just business as usual.
But there absolutely should not be any such law to begin with. What happened to property rights? He purchased the DS, so he should have the right to take it apart and hack at it however he sees fit. If the people making the device haven't taken this into account, then they need to design, finance, and make their products with the customer's rights in mind. Make a profit through a solid understanding of the market and respect for your customers, not through the ham-handed enforcement of bad laws.
Copyright infringement was already illegal. We didn't need to come up with another law to try to tack one more offense onto the real software pirates' records, while trampling over thousands of legitimate users in the process.
Ah well never mind, I've chosen not to read or watch anything related to potter because it just doesn't interest me, give me something which makes me think and I'm there.
Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?
since IE7 was released Ive had no reason to use firefox unless some old website was not designed properly
That's more likely to go the other way around: With few exceptions, a properly designed site should render just fine in Firefox. On the other hand, IE 7 is still quite buggy, therefore any quirkiness you happen across is likely to be for the benefit of IE and not other browsers.
Sorry, you're right of course. I blame my lack of reading comprehension on the beer.
But even so, according to my understanding of the (L)GPL, they are required to offer the source code to any binary LGPL-licensed code that they ship. So it's basically a moot point.
Does Parallels really have to release their source code if no one can conclusively know if or how they have modified Wine source?
According to this parallels.com forums post, the version of Wine used in Parallels is, in fact, modified. So they are absolutely obligated to hand over the source code.
In fact, even if their version of Wine were not modified, they would still be required to deliver its source code on demand since they are delivering it in binary form to customers.
Exactly. There seems to be some bizarre prejudice in this industry that if you aren't making any money off of it, then you don't have a right to defend your copyrights and software licenses.
I'm not saying that we should make an example out of Parallels in particular, but an example might just be what's needed to help reverse this attitude.
Not that I really think it will make much of a difference on its own, but here's the email that I sent to info@parallels.com when I first read about this earlier today:
According to the information on the Wine wiki page
there is a potential license violation of Wine intellectual
property in your Parallels Desktop for Mac product. Is this
true? If so, I will be forced to switch to VMware Fusion as I
refuse to support a company involved in the piracy of open
source software.
Please respond so that I can decide whether it will be necessary
for me to abandon your line of software.
Hopefully, if enough people complain to Parallels – and once they start to realize that they will lose customers over behavior like this – they will decide to do the right thing.
But what would you have the standard changed to? If we redefine the standard to follow IE's behavior, then you still have the problem of Firefox, Opera, Safari, and OmniWeb behaving in a non-standard manner. Likewise, if you redefine the standard with Firefox as its reference implementation, then Opera, Safari, OmniWeb, and IE are non-standard.
Using a specific program's behavior as the standards "documents" for HTML rendering wouldn't reduce web developers' occupational hazards. In fact, it would probably just make it more difficult to write new standards-compliant browsers. Just ask Larry Wall.
Good point. But the keynote seemed to give the impression that Apple would try to leverage its iTunes distribution to get Safari out to Windows users. I'm not generally in favor of excessive "bundling", but this could mean that Safari will end up in the hands of a lot of people who wouldn't have considered downloading a third-party web browser on their own.
Safari renders just fine –it's certainly more in line with the official specs than any other browser out there, with the possible exception of Opera. The problem is simply that Safari doesn't have Firefox's market share yet, so web developers who code all their sites with Firefox and IE in mind don't necessarily check to make sure they work well in Safari too.
It's the same problem that we used to have with the old Mozilla Suite. Gecko has, for the most part, always been great; but it wasn't until more developers got on board that using Mozilla or Firefox as a daily web browser became a pleasant experience. If anything, the problem that Safari currently faces in this regard is much less significant than the hurdle Mozilla originally had to jump.
I wouldn't necessarily call it "hacking" for Safari, considering that Safari's KHTML-based rendering engine is more standards compliant than either Firefox or IE.
I've come to the opinion that modern vinyl records often sound in some respects better than their digital versions - even though vinyl is an inferior medium, today's records presumably aren't "engineered to death" like the CDs and MP3s that are the subject of this article; radio stations don't play records any more, so the same pressures that factor into the digital masters don't apply.
Of course, this could be entirely in my head. I don't really know anything about the mastering process. Can any audio engineers out there confirm or deny this?
Also, while Apple folks and other tech-savvy folks may know the Intel-based Macs run Windows, why does the news article not even mention that? For many people even considering buying a Mac, the fact that a laptop like this can easily run Windows natively or seamlessly alongside Mac OS X with packages like Parallels Desktop at least bears repeating.
And why doesn't every article about a new Sony or Lenovo machine mention that it is not only capable of running Windows, but Linux and OpenBSD as well?
I get what you're saying, but it strikes me that this article does well to concisely detail the hardware and software features of the new machines which are most relevant to the current Macintosh crowd. It is not TechNewsWorld's duty to try to sell more Macs by expounding on each facet of their feature sets to every type of potential customer: that's Apple's job.
Good GUIs are a wonderful thing, but I want to emphasize that SELinux isn't really all that difficult to begin with. High quality SELinux rules shipped with solid distributions such as RHEL 5 eliminate many of the problems that early adopters faced; indeed, that's more or less the subject of this article.
Many people (such as myself) consider SELinux much less of a "patch job" than AppArmor. For instance, with AppArmor security attributes are not stored with the filesystem inodes, but are specified according to path name. That might simplify AppArmor's implementation a bit, but consider what happens to the security policy when you have two different path names hard linked to the same inode...
Those of us who are partial to SELinux's implementation of mandatory access controls are thrilled to see the strides that Red Hat has made in their latest enterprise release.
Oh, come on. Everybody knows that Knuth's abandonment of his email account was just a clever ploy to increase TeX market share, by forcing everyone to use it to write physical mail to him.
What are you talking about? You have to "slap down" your address to receive content with IPv4, too - otherwise, how would a server know where to send its response? And if you're paranoid to the point that you want to break your Internet connection for the sake of not divulging internal IP addresses, then yes, you can masquerade behind a single IP address on IPv6 just as easily as you can on IPv4.
Or you could perform more complex 1:1 address masquerading, the likes of which aren't possible on consumer IPv4 connections due to said address space crisis. This could be performed at the router to obscure any autoconfigured internal addresses which might have been generated from machines' MAC addresses; or you could take Microsoft's approach, and implement such features at the operating system level.
IPv6 offers more features and a much greater address space, with no built-in cost to privacy. Fearmongering by those who are unfamiliar with the new protocol will only hurt its adoption rate, to the detriment of the entire Internet community.
Don't take it the wrong way, but you remind me of all those people who complained when they found out that Ronald D. Moore was going to make Starbuck a girl. So Bumblebee is a Camaro and not a VW... the movie as a whole isn't going to be any worse (or better) for it.
No, he isn't saying that we should allow applications to control our firewall settings (as is already done by default in many consumer NAT routers, incidentally, with UPnP). What he's saying is that modern firewalls, as a result of the complexities introduced by NAT and other technologies, need to think on the application level (OSI layer 7) rather than network and transport levels (OSI layers 3 and 4).
This is already achievable using, e.g., Linux's L7-filter module in iptables (and is part of the reason that I use a Debian box for my firewall/router), but is rarely seen on any but the most expensive of consumer-oriented NAT routers.
Well, they have FTP bandwidth bills to pay: I can't imagine that the effect of replacing the bandwidth used to get a minimal boot image and whichever installation sets you select for your specific architecture, with three full-sized CD images, would be negligible.
If it's that much of a concern for you that you can't get the official installation CD images without buying a physical copy, maybe you could just make a $50 donation to the project and then copy the CDs from a friend (the pre-orders were actually shipped about two weeks ago, so chances are that someone near you already has his or hers). Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
You exaggerate to the detriment of your case. My web server's entire configuration file is exactly 125 lines long – less than three screenfuls in my text editor. And with Apache, for example, you can check your configuration file's syntax without actually running the server with apachectl configtest.
On the contrary, I find that plain text configuration files make administration much simpler. If I want to copy parts of a configuration from one server to another, it's as easy as yanking a bit of text. Documenting my settings involves merely dumping the contents of my configuration file to my manual, rather than expounding on my navigations through a GUI menu system.
It seems that Microsoft itself has come to recognize the weaknesses of GUI configuration, as one of IIS 7's most notable new features is that it is configured using plain text configuration files.
I don't know, I'm hesitant to believe that the decision to default to non-SSL connections in GMail resulted from some sort of ethical deliberation. It was probably just a matter of "we'd need to buy $X worth of hardware to support all our users connecting over SSL, so we don't see the benefit in providing this unless the customers really begin to demand it". In other words, just business as usual.
I object to the notion that owning any amount of modchips, whether for personal use or to sell to others, should be illegal.
But there absolutely should not be any such law to begin with. What happened to property rights? He purchased the DS, so he should have the right to take it apart and hack at it however he sees fit. If the people making the device haven't taken this into account, then they need to design, finance, and make their products with the customer's rights in mind. Make a profit through a solid understanding of the market and respect for your customers, not through the ham-handed enforcement of bad laws.
Copyright infringement was already illegal. We didn't need to come up with another law to try to tack one more offense onto the real software pirates' records, while trampling over thousands of legitimate users in the process.
Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?
That's more likely to go the other way around: With few exceptions, a properly designed site should render just fine in Firefox. On the other hand, IE 7 is still quite buggy, therefore any quirkiness you happen across is likely to be for the benefit of IE and not other browsers.
Sorry, you're right of course. I blame my lack of reading comprehension on the beer.
But even so, according to my understanding of the (L)GPL, they are required to offer the source code to any binary LGPL-licensed code that they ship. So it's basically a moot point.
According to this parallels.com forums post, the version of Wine used in Parallels is, in fact, modified. So they are absolutely obligated to hand over the source code.
In fact, even if their version of Wine were not modified, they would still be required to deliver its source code on demand since they are delivering it in binary form to customers.
Exactly. There seems to be some bizarre prejudice in this industry that if you aren't making any money off of it, then you don't have a right to defend your copyrights and software licenses.
I'm not saying that we should make an example out of Parallels in particular, but an example might just be what's needed to help reverse this attitude.
Not that I really think it will make much of a difference on its own, but here's the email that I sent to info@parallels.com when I first read about this earlier today:
Hopefully, if enough people complain to Parallels – and once they start to realize that they will lose customers over behavior like this – they will decide to do the right thing.
But what would you have the standard changed to? If we redefine the standard to follow IE's behavior, then you still have the problem of Firefox, Opera, Safari, and OmniWeb behaving in a non-standard manner. Likewise, if you redefine the standard with Firefox as its reference implementation, then Opera, Safari, OmniWeb, and IE are non-standard.
Using a specific program's behavior as the standards "documents" for HTML rendering wouldn't reduce web developers' occupational hazards. In fact, it would probably just make it more difficult to write new standards-compliant browsers. Just ask Larry Wall.
Good point. But the keynote seemed to give the impression that Apple would try to leverage its iTunes distribution to get Safari out to Windows users. I'm not generally in favor of excessive "bundling", but this could mean that Safari will end up in the hands of a lot of people who wouldn't have considered downloading a third-party web browser on their own.
Safari renders just fine –it's certainly more in line with the official specs than any other browser out there, with the possible exception of Opera. The problem is simply that Safari doesn't have Firefox's market share yet, so web developers who code all their sites with Firefox and IE in mind don't necessarily check to make sure they work well in Safari too.
It's the same problem that we used to have with the old Mozilla Suite. Gecko has, for the most part, always been great; but it wasn't until more developers got on board that using Mozilla or Firefox as a daily web browser became a pleasant experience. If anything, the problem that Safari currently faces in this regard is much less significant than the hurdle Mozilla originally had to jump.
I wouldn't necessarily call it "hacking" for Safari, considering that Safari's KHTML-based rendering engine is more standards compliant than either Firefox or IE.
I've come to the opinion that modern vinyl records often sound in some respects better than their digital versions - even though vinyl is an inferior medium, today's records presumably aren't "engineered to death" like the CDs and MP3s that are the subject of this article; radio stations don't play records any more, so the same pressures that factor into the digital masters don't apply.
Of course, this could be entirely in my head. I don't really know anything about the mastering process. Can any audio engineers out there confirm or deny this?
Yes, Santa Rosa is just the codename for Intel's next-generation Centrino platform: Wikipedia
For a moment, you made me think I was having a really good dream...
And why doesn't every article about a new Sony or Lenovo machine mention that it is not only capable of running Windows, but Linux and OpenBSD as well?
I get what you're saying, but it strikes me that this article does well to concisely detail the hardware and software features of the new machines which are most relevant to the current Macintosh crowd. It is not TechNewsWorld's duty to try to sell more Macs by expounding on each facet of their feature sets to every type of potential customer: that's Apple's job.
Good GUIs are a wonderful thing, but I want to emphasize that SELinux isn't really all that difficult to begin with. High quality SELinux rules shipped with solid distributions such as RHEL 5 eliminate many of the problems that early adopters faced; indeed, that's more or less the subject of this article.
Many people (such as myself) consider SELinux much less of a "patch job" than AppArmor. For instance, with AppArmor security attributes are not stored with the filesystem inodes, but are specified according to path name. That might simplify AppArmor's implementation a bit, but consider what happens to the security policy when you have two different path names hard linked to the same inode...
Those of us who are partial to SELinux's implementation of mandatory access controls are thrilled to see the strides that Red Hat has made in their latest enterprise release.
Oh, come on. Everybody knows that Knuth's abandonment of his email account was just a clever ploy to increase TeX market share, by forcing everyone to use it to write physical mail to him.
What are you talking about? You have to "slap down" your address to receive content with IPv4, too - otherwise, how would a server know where to send its response? And if you're paranoid to the point that you want to break your Internet connection for the sake of not divulging internal IP addresses, then yes, you can masquerade behind a single IP address on IPv6 just as easily as you can on IPv4.
Or you could perform more complex 1:1 address masquerading, the likes of which aren't possible on consumer IPv4 connections due to said address space crisis. This could be performed at the router to obscure any autoconfigured internal addresses which might have been generated from machines' MAC addresses; or you could take Microsoft's approach, and implement such features at the operating system level.
IPv6 offers more features and a much greater address space, with no built-in cost to privacy. Fearmongering by those who are unfamiliar with the new protocol will only hurt its adoption rate, to the detriment of the entire Internet community.
Don't take it the wrong way, but you remind me of all those people who complained when they found out that Ronald D. Moore was going to make Starbuck a girl. So Bumblebee is a Camaro and not a VW... the movie as a whole isn't going to be any worse (or better) for it.
Could you talk... kinda... forward?
No, he isn't saying that we should allow applications to control our firewall settings (as is already done by default in many consumer NAT routers, incidentally, with UPnP). What he's saying is that modern firewalls, as a result of the complexities introduced by NAT and other technologies, need to think on the application level (OSI layer 7) rather than network and transport levels (OSI layers 3 and 4).
This is already achievable using, e.g., Linux's L7-filter module in iptables (and is part of the reason that I use a Debian box for my firewall/router), but is rarely seen on any but the most expensive of consumer-oriented NAT routers.
Well, they have FTP bandwidth bills to pay: I can't imagine that the effect of replacing the bandwidth used to get a minimal boot image and whichever installation sets you select for your specific architecture, with three full-sized CD images, would be negligible.
If it's that much of a concern for you that you can't get the official installation CD images without buying a physical copy, maybe you could just make a $50 donation to the project and then copy the CDs from a friend (the pre-orders were actually shipped about two weeks ago, so chances are that someone near you already has his or hers). Just a thought.