I'm not big into comics, but I just can't see how this is a legitimate fight.. Superman would kick Batman's ass. Up. Down. Around the block. Back around the block.
First, he can fly. That's a HUGE advantage. Second, he's really strong. Really REALLY strong. It's just not really that legit a fight. Even with kryptonite.. Superman can just stand a few miles away and evaporate Batman with his heat vision..
If BitchX was some sort of closed-source product, how long might this have taken to show up? Many eyes lock down all backdoors.
Anti-GPL people (read Microsoft and their lackies) may try and take this as a weakness in OSS, but I look at it as a strength. If one of their developers gets something like this into one of their products (either on his/her own or with the blessing of the company, the world may never know). With OSS, it's out in the open for everyone to see/fix.
The open source debate is about keeping secrets. Completed (written) software is often locked by its programmer, hiding the underlying code from its user. Software can only be modified in its "unlocked" state when source code is viewable.
This is the assumption that is the flaw in the entire argument. While having the source code makes it easier in some ways to find exploits, it of course makes it easier to find them earlier and fix them. Whereas in a closed source implementation it's more likely that there are unidentified flaws in the software because there are fewer eyes willing to parse through assembly listings. But if a 'terrorist' is dedicated enough to do that, they're more likely to find such flaws.
The GPL is one of the most uniquely restrictive product agreements in the technology industry.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way when I can use a program for whatever purpose I want, make modifications to that program, and distribute either the original or my modified version of that program. Maybe I'm just weird like that...
By the early 90's, open source enthusiasts began to view Stallman as an extremist and fanatic. The rise in the popularity of Linus Torvalds and the Linux open source operating system began to create new supporters. Ironically, Linux supporters became the biggest proponents of the GPL. Although Stallman is a fallen hero in the open source world, most open source products today are distributed under the GPL license.
While I'm not the biggest RMS fan, uhh, I can't just let that statement go. For once, I agree that not calling it GNU/Linux really misleads readers in this case. Without the GNU tools, Linux wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's tough to dismiss RMS's importance here (but the author manages somehow..)
The article goes on (and on and on), but I think it's fair to say that this is a fairly one-sided view of the GPL that looks like it was written by MS and Kenneth Brown just signed his name to it. Nothing here, just the usual FUD.
probably because they needed *large* hardware to do what they needed. AFAIK, SuSE doesn't make hardware. Not all applications should run on single processor, non-redundant PC systems comprised of random parts purchased off pricewatch..
Linux is a variant on the 30-year-old open source Unix operating system, which is generally held to be almost indestructible and by far the most reliable core for computer systems for whom crashing is not an option.
Unix? Open source? I don't think so.
While the software itself is free to download from the internet, companies - such as SuSE, the German distributor whose version of Linux IBM is using - can still charge for technical support and other services.
They can, of course, charge any amount for any part they want. They just can't restrict your rights to sell it again (at least on the GPL'd portions)
In proprietary software such as Microsoft's Windows, on the other hand, a single company controls the code, setting licensing terms for users but blocking outsiders from accessing the code.
They'll let some select few view the source code... but it's a look, don't touch sort of relationship. "Shared Source" and all that crap.
I really wish people that wrote about this stuff had more of a clue about what they were writing..:(
I've posted a few replies, hoping that some people would catch on to what the article was actually saying, but these comments I'm reading are VERY disheartening.
We all know that RMS doesn't like non-Free software, where Free means you can modify it, you can use it for any purpose, and you can give original or modified copies to anyone else.
This new UnitedLinux distribution has a per-seat license. This license can only apply to non-GPL (or similar licenses) components. The people who buy UnitedLinux for their commercial needs can still take the GPL components and do whatever they want with them. The non-GPL components, however, cannot be redistributed. This is what RMS doesn't like.
What he's saying is that if everyone would distribute their software under the GPL, this type of (partially) non-free distribution wouldn't be possible.
He is in no way saying that he doesn't like the way his GPL software is being used. He is also not trying to stop other people from distributing GPL software. He's just saying what he's always said: that software should be Free and that non-Free software is bad. Since all the parts of UnitedLinux aren't Free, UnitedLinux is bad.
This isn't necessarily my opinion, I'm just trying to help get across what RMS is trying to say.
no. no. no. RMS is *not* trying to kill a derivative work being distributed under the GPL. You can't put per-seat restrictions on GPL software. The 'problem', in RMS's eyes, is with the non-GPL software that is also being packaged in UnitedLinux. Those pieces CAN be licensed in a per-seat manner. RMS is saying that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then distributions wouldn't be able to have restrictive licenses like this.
One of the things that's nice about the GPL, and that I've just come to understand recently, is that it doesn't really matter if you 'accept' it, in the sense that you accept a EULA from MS. Since accepting the GPL actually gives you MORE freedoms than the normal copyright laws, if you don't accept the GPL on a program you get, you are actually more limited in what you can do with it. You can't distribute it, and surely can't distribute a modified version.. Whereas the other EULAs restrict you in addition to copyright restrictions, the GPL actually reduces the restrictions put upon you by copyright law.
Computer security expert Chad Harrington regularly surfs Internet Relay Chat (IRC)
Just showing that to 'prove' he's an 'expert'
"Once the hacker or someone in the underworld has personal information, credit card numbers, social security numbers, address, whatever it may be," says Harrington, once the hacker "has that information and wants to sell it, often they'll go to a hacker chat room, a place on the Web using an Internet Relay Chat (emphasis mine) which provides them some anonymity and allows them to mention that they have this personal information and they want to trade."
Does this remind anyone of the warez article that was out a while ago? I'm embarassed that people like this are considered experts.
When you digitally rip a CD, you *ARE* making an exact copy. This is exactly the same process as if you were to copy software from a CD. You aren't going to tell me that the binary on the CD and the binary on my hard drive are different are you? If they were, CD's wouldn't work for software.
What you're talking about is analog playback. This allows for interpolation, concealment, and muting. Digital does not.
When I digitally rip a CD, it is an *exact* copy of what's on the CD. If a section of the disc cannot be read properly, you get skips and such in the resulting sound file, but no loss in quality elsewhere.
They were all aliased to their abbreviations, as well, so you didn't have to type the whole name. which got kind of old on some of them.
Element names work well for a small low-order net
on
Server Naming Conventions?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
At my last job, we had ~40 machines in the low order of a class C. We named them after the elements in the periodic table. This gave us an easy naming scheme, and also served as a last-resort DNS system, as the last digit in the machine's IP number was the atomic weight of the element. It was pretty clever.
Do you guys plan on offering any payment types other than slashdot?
And what about a flat payment rate?
I wish you guys had addressed these important issues in your IRC forum. Also, I can't be bothered to read FAQ's, the original article, the entire web log, or anything else pertaining to the questions I'm asking. Please send me a uu-encoded, ROT13'd, PGP'd, and backwards response to all my questions or I'll keep asking them over and over and over...
This article is misrepresented as bashing Linux. It doesn't say that Linux isn't up to the job of running on a mainframe as much as it says that many of the benefits Linux offers are lost when running it on such a system -- basically bashing IBM's solution, not Linux.
Finding mainframe staffing is an obstacle in many organizations(6); combining mainframe and Linux staffing further complicates the matter. Running multiple Linux images still requires administration that needs to grow with the number of images being run.
This statement applies no matter what operating system you choose, you still have to find people who know the hardware. And as with all VM systems, you have to actively administrate each image. This statement is Linux agnostic.
Although z/VM can start and stop Linux images, it cannot dynamically add resources to match demand. As a result, a mainframe would need to size for peak demand just as the Linux farm would; high utilization is a myth.
Again.. Linux isn't repsonsible for the machine not being able to dynamically allocate resources to over-utilized images, it's a hardware/underlying OS issue.
Applications that run on Linux for Intel need to be recompiled and recertified for each new platform; thus the application portfolio to run Linux on a mainframe is small
Duh. It's a different architecture.
So, SUN isn't really bashing Linux, they're bashing their competitor, IBM. No real news here. SUN is very careful not to say "Linux sucks", because they have Linux offerings, they're just saying that customers should buy the SUN/Solaris solution for their high-end systems, not the IBM/Linux solution. I'm sure we'll see something from IBM soon.
With what we've been reading about research into ScramJet vehicles, recently, it seems like this may be a good way to launch them. Taking off is a challenge, as you need significant airspeed to use the engine, but if you could start at 40K feet, you could trade some altitude for airspeed and possibly start the engine that way, instead of having to have a secondary form of propulsion to get started...
This is a tad off topic, but I didn't know that the HP series of calculators had been scrapped:( I love my 48GX, though I have never used it for anything more than a bit of addition/subtraction (and surely never used that $100 expansion bay.. but I have it if I wanted it, and it sure impresses the geeks:) Anyone else know who else makes RPN calculators? I don't think I could ever use a 'standard' calculator again.. so I hope I don't lose my HP..man.. that pretty much just ruined my day:(
The article talks about how google could make $350,000,000 / year with this penny per page thing, but those numbers are based on their current impression levels. But it's a huge step going from 'free' to 'not free'. As soon the web is 'not free', impression numbers will drop off dramatically for a number of reasons. First, people will go elsewhere. Other services (usenet/gopher/other search engines if the payment isn't web-wide) that are free. Also, when people do use the web, they will be much more selective in what they do. Even if it doesn't seem like much money, as soon as it's 'not free', people will be far more selective on what they go to the web for. So, I don't think it's fair to use current numbers to predict earnings on such a system.
The reason 3D web interfaces haven't taken off is because web content isn't suited for a 3D presentation.
Consider Slashdot as an example. The content here is text. Adding 3D support to Slashdot wouldn't add anything except complexity. Going beyond Slashdot, as I think about the web pages I frequent, I don't think a 3D experience would make my browsing any more satisfactory.. in fact, I'd be more worried about more sites turning into 3D versions of a bad flash-enabled site. (We've all been there.. do you click the spinning circle or the pulsating triangle to get to the next page? -- the link was down when I checked, but I assume it will be back up soon.. )
So, while I agree with everyone else about it being harder to make 3D sites, and that there's no good, modern language standard for doing 3D web work, I think the real reason is simply that the content on the web (most, not all) just isn't suited for 3D.
--XaXXon
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not big into comics, but I just can't see how this is a legitimate fight.. Superman would kick Batman's ass. Up. Down. Around the block. Back around the block.
First, he can fly. That's a HUGE advantage. Second, he's really strong. Really REALLY strong. It's just not really that legit a fight. Even with kryptonite.. Superman can just stand a few miles away and evaporate Batman with his heat vision..
I just can't see it...
If BitchX was some sort of closed-source product, how long might this have taken to show up? Many eyes lock down all backdoors.
Anti-GPL people (read Microsoft and their lackies) may try and take this as a weakness in OSS, but I look at it as a strength. If one of their developers gets something like this into one of their products (either on his/her own or with the blessing of the company, the world may never know). With OSS, it's out in the open for everyone to see/fix.
by its programmer, hiding the underlying code from its user. Software can only be modified in
its "unlocked" state when source code is viewable.
This is the assumption that is the flaw in the entire argument. While having the source code makes it easier in some ways to find exploits, it of course makes it easier to find them earlier and fix them. Whereas in a closed source implementation it's more likely that there are unidentified flaws in the software because there are fewer eyes willing to parse through assembly listings. But if a 'terrorist' is dedicated enough to do that, they're more likely to find such flaws.
The GPL is one of the most uniquely restrictive product
agreements in the technology industry.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way when I can use a program for whatever purpose I want, make modifications to that program, and distribute either the original or my modified version of that program. Maybe I'm just weird like that...
By the early 90's, open source enthusiasts began to view Stallman as an extremist and fanatic. The rise in the popularity of Linus Torvalds and the Linux
open source operating system began to create new supporters. Ironically, Linux supporters
became the biggest proponents of the GPL. Although Stallman is a fallen hero in the open
source world, most open source products today are distributed under the GPL license.
While I'm not the biggest RMS fan, uhh, I can't just let that statement go. For once, I agree that not calling it GNU/Linux really misleads readers in this case. Without the GNU tools, Linux wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's tough to dismiss RMS's importance here (but the author manages somehow..)
The article goes on (and on and on), but I think it's fair to say that this is a fairly one-sided view of the GPL that looks like it was written by MS and Kenneth Brown just signed his name to it. Nothing here, just the usual FUD.
probably because they needed *large* hardware to do what they needed. AFAIK, SuSE doesn't make hardware. Not all applications should run on single processor, non-redundant PC systems comprised of random parts purchased off pricewatch..
Unix? Open source? I don't think so.
While the software itself is free to download from the internet, companies - such as SuSE, the German distributor whose version of Linux IBM is using - can still charge for technical support and other services.
They can, of course, charge any amount for any part they want. They just can't restrict your rights to sell it again (at least on the GPL'd portions)
In proprietary software such as Microsoft's Windows, on the other hand, a single company controls the code, setting licensing terms for users but blocking outsiders from accessing the code.
They'll let some select few view the source code... but it's a look, don't touch sort of relationship. "Shared Source" and all that crap.
I really wish people that wrote about this stuff had more of a clue about what they were writing..
I've posted a few replies, hoping that some people would catch on to what the article was actually saying, but these comments I'm reading are VERY disheartening.
We all know that RMS doesn't like non-Free software, where Free means you can modify it, you can use it for any purpose, and you can give original or modified copies to anyone else.
This new UnitedLinux distribution has a per-seat license. This license can only apply to non-GPL (or similar licenses) components. The people who buy UnitedLinux for their commercial needs can still take the GPL components and do whatever they want with them. The non-GPL components, however, cannot be redistributed. This is what RMS doesn't like.
What he's saying is that if everyone would distribute their software under the GPL, this type of (partially) non-free distribution wouldn't be possible.
He is in no way saying that he doesn't like the way his GPL software is being used. He is also not trying to stop other people from distributing GPL software. He's just saying what he's always said: that software should be Free and that non-Free software is bad. Since all the parts of UnitedLinux aren't Free, UnitedLinux is bad.
This isn't necessarily my opinion, I'm just trying to help get across what RMS is trying to say.
no. no. no. RMS is *not* trying to kill a derivative work being distributed under the GPL. You can't put per-seat restrictions on GPL software. The 'problem', in RMS's eyes, is with the non-GPL software that is also being packaged in UnitedLinux. Those pieces CAN be licensed in a per-seat manner. RMS is saying that if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, then distributions wouldn't be able to have restrictive licenses like this.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/04/220237 &mode=thread
One of the things that's nice about the GPL, and that I've just come to understand recently, is that it doesn't really matter if you 'accept' it, in the sense that you accept a EULA from MS. Since accepting the GPL actually gives you MORE freedoms than the normal copyright laws, if you don't accept the GPL on a program you get, you are actually more limited in what you can do with it. You can't distribute it, and surely can't distribute a modified version.. Whereas the other EULAs restrict you in addition to copyright restrictions, the GPL actually reduces the restrictions put upon you by copyright law.
Just showing that to 'prove' he's an 'expert'
"Once the hacker or someone in the underworld has personal information, credit card numbers, social security numbers, address, whatever it may be," says Harrington, once the hacker "has that information and wants to sell it, often they'll go to a hacker chat room, a place on the Web using an Internet Relay Chat (emphasis mine) which provides them some anonymity and allows them to mention that they have this personal information and they want to trade."
Does this remind anyone of the warez article that was out a while ago? I'm embarassed that people like this are considered experts.
When you digitally rip a CD, you *ARE* making an exact copy. This is exactly the same process as if you were to copy software from a CD. You aren't going to tell me that the binary on the CD and the binary on my hard drive are different are you? If they were, CD's wouldn't work for software.
o m/95x8.htm. This is the behaviour of a digital rip.
What you're talking about is analog playback. This allows for interpolation, concealment, and muting. Digital does not.
When I digitally rip a CD, it is an *exact* copy of what's on the CD. If a section of the disc cannot be read properly, you get skips and such in the resulting sound file, but no loss in quality elsewhere.
The link you *should* have posted was
http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/cdr
They were all aliased to their abbreviations, as well, so you didn't have to type the whole name. which got kind of old on some of them.
At my last job, we had ~40 machines in the low order of a class C. We named them after the elements in the periodic table. This gave us an easy naming scheme, and also served as a last-resort DNS system, as the last digit in the machine's IP number was the atomic weight of the element. It was pretty clever.
And what about a flat payment rate?
I wish you guys had addressed these important issues in your IRC forum. Also, I can't be bothered to read FAQ's, the original article, the entire web log, or anything else pertaining to the questions I'm asking. Please send me a uu-encoded, ROT13'd, PGP'd, and backwards response to all my questions or I'll keep asking them over and over and over...
'We're collecting lifestyle information, and the possibilities of that are, over time, enormous.'
Technology isn't evil, but people are. We all know exactly where this is going..
Web Pages That Suck
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
So the article said that NuSphere registered MySQL.org, and AFAIK the real MySQL web page is at MySQL.com.. but --
[xaxxon@chopper log]$ nslookup www.mysql.com
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.mysql.com
Address: 64.28.67.70
[xaxxon@chopper log]$ nslookup www.mysql.org
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.mysql.org
Address: 64.28.67.70
Did I mis-read?
This article is misrepresented as bashing Linux. It doesn't say that Linux isn't up to the job of running on a mainframe as much as it says that many of the benefits Linux offers are lost when running it on such a system -- basically bashing IBM's solution, not Linux.
Finding mainframe staffing is an obstacle in many organizations(6); combining mainframe and Linux staffing further complicates the matter. Running multiple Linux images still requires administration that needs to grow with the number of images being run.
This statement applies no matter what operating system you choose, you still have to find people who know the hardware. And as with all VM systems, you have to actively administrate each image. This statement is Linux agnostic.
Although z/VM can start and stop Linux images, it cannot dynamically add resources to match demand. As a result, a mainframe would need to size for peak demand just as the Linux farm would; high utilization is a myth.
Again.. Linux isn't repsonsible for the machine not being able to dynamically allocate resources to over-utilized images, it's a hardware/underlying OS issue.
Applications that run on Linux for Intel need to be recompiled and recertified for each new platform; thus the application portfolio to run Linux on a mainframe is small
Duh. It's a different architecture.
So, SUN isn't really bashing Linux, they're bashing their competitor, IBM. No real news here. SUN is very careful not to say "Linux sucks", because they have Linux offerings, they're just saying that customers should buy the SUN/Solaris solution for their high-end systems, not the IBM/Linux solution. I'm sure we'll see something from IBM soon.
--XaXXon
But why doesn't he just 'fix' the licensing on his code? It seems silly that the whole thing has gone this far in the first place.
With what we've been reading about research into ScramJet vehicles, recently, it seems like this may be a good way to launch them. Taking off is a challenge, as you need significant airspeed to use the engine, but if you could start at 40K feet, you could trade some altitude for airspeed and possibly start the engine that way, instead of having to have a secondary form of propulsion to get started...
Too bad he didn't miss being elected by one vote..
---Oh.. oops.. Well, it looks like he did get his vote in later on. But it's still kind of funny that that's the first line.
This is a tad off topic, but I didn't know that the HP series of calculators had been scrapped :( I love my 48GX, though I have never used it for anything more than a bit of addition/subtraction (and surely never used that $100 expansion bay.. but I have it if I wanted it, and it sure impresses the geeks :) Anyone else know who else makes RPN calculators? I don't think I could ever use a 'standard' calculator again.. so I hope I don't lose my HP..man.. that pretty much just ruined my day :(
The article talks about how google could make $350,000,000 / year with this penny per page thing, but those numbers are based on their current impression levels. But it's a huge step going from 'free' to 'not free'. As soon the web is 'not free', impression numbers will drop off dramatically for a number of reasons. First, people will go elsewhere. Other services (usenet/gopher/other search engines if the payment isn't web-wide) that are free. Also, when people do use the web, they will be much more selective in what they do. Even if it doesn't seem like much money, as soon as it's 'not free', people will be far more selective on what they go to the web for. So, I don't think it's fair to use current numbers to predict earnings on such a system.
©2001 Google - Searching 1,610,476,000 web pages .01 = $16,104,760 .. for EACH refresh of their current database.
*
Consider Slashdot as an example. The content here is text. Adding 3D support to Slashdot wouldn't add anything except complexity. Going beyond Slashdot, as I think about the web pages I frequent, I don't think a 3D experience would make my browsing any more satisfactory.. in fact, I'd be more worried about more sites turning into 3D versions of a bad flash-enabled site. (We've all been there.. do you click the spinning circle or the pulsating triangle to get to the next page? -- the link was down when I checked, but I assume it will be back up soon.. )
So, while I agree with everyone else about it being harder to make 3D sites, and that there's no good, modern language standard for doing 3D web work, I think the real reason is simply that the content on the web (most, not all) just isn't suited for 3D. --XaXXon