In '99 I started using the procedure below. This works really well if you need to support hardware that might vary from box to box. If you know you will be using the exact same hardware for every box, you might as well use dd or some drive imaging package.
1) Figure out what you want your final image to look like, set up a test system, and configure it fully. Make note of all config files that you changed and all packages you have installed.
2) Create an RPM containing all the config files you modified.
3) copy RedHat CD 1 to the hard drive of an FTP server
4) copy all CD 2 RPMS to the RPMS directory that was created when you copied the first CD
5) replace all outdated RPMS with the update versions, and put the RPM you created in step 2 into this directory.
6) install anaconda on the FTP server & run the genhdlist script.
7) create a kickstart config file listing all the packages you want to install, including the RPM you created in step 2, and specifying the address of the FTP server.
8) make as many boot disks with the above kickstart config file as machines you want to install at once.
9) plug in as many machines at once as your network can handle, put a copy of the floppy in each, turn them on.
10) go get some coffee while the install completes.
11) yank the floppies and reboot the boxes. Your drives are partitioned, all packages installed, and all software configured. Proceed to the next batch of machines.
I'm pretty sure there's a way to do this from a network-boot setup and just put the kickstart file on the FTP server, but it seemed to me like more hassle than it was worth given how easy it is to use floppies.
The problem with this is that anyone with the motivation, a disassembler, a good eye for assembly language, and access to the product can figure out the function.
The "average non-geek user" will be using Netscape Communicator anyway. Netscape will make sure all that plugin crap is user-friendly, at the same time as they install all their AOL ads, links, and default settings throughout the product.
A truck driver sees a priest hitch-hiking and pulls over. The priest says, "Thank you, my son, the road has been long today.". The truck driver gets back on the road and a little while later, sees a lawyer hitch-hiking. Instinctively, he swerves to hit the lawyer, but then remembers that he has a priest in the cab. He tries to swerve back onto the road, but it looks like he might hit the lawyer anyway, and at the last second he shuts his eyes and hears a loud thump. Trying to play innocent, he says to the priest, "Oh Father, did I hit that man?" "No, my son, you missed. I got him with the door."
So, back on-topic... your lawyer says, "'incidental resources' do not a work derive." However, this does not apply in the situation you have described. In the example you gave, you used someone else's IDE to write the code. Your lawyer is correct in saying that does not make your code derived from the IDE. The exact same code could have been produced with another IDE or a text editor. But your company's project is definitely a derived work, unless you can find a way to get it to work without linking to the GPL'd code. That doesn't sound like what you're doing. Linking against code makes that code no longer an 'incidental resource'. In your company's project, the only way you could prevent your "lucrative" code from being subject to the GPL's requirements is to re-write the GPL'd code yourselves without plagiarizing any of it.
I assume that your company is planning on maintaining this codebase over time; if so, they will need to keep a human-readable copy around. This is the copy that the GPL requires you to make available to the public: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
I suggest you find a way to keep your code from linking against the GPL'd code. You can still distribute them together, but your proprietary code can't be a derivative of the GPL'd code without making available (at no cost) the entire "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
Without knowing more about your project, I don't know what the best solution would be. Perhaps you could write a socket interface for the GPL'd code, which would have to be GPL'd. If you're lucky, maybe the original developers of the GPL'd code would accept that as a contribution and incorporate it into their project. Otherwise, you could fork the GPL'd project and make the human-readable source available for download from your company's systems. Then your product could use the socket interface and your company can use whatever license it likes for the 'much more lucrative' code.
The day before yesterday Hemos posted a link to Piro's insightful analysis of why the #1 dot-com strategy didn't work. Diluted to it's essence, "There's an inherent part of human nature that just makes you bristle at having to suddenly pay for something that you didn't have to pay for before." I would like you to know that this new policy does makes me bristle a bit. I won't pay for Slashdot; I feel that I have given nearly as much as I have received.
To the decision-makers behind this advertising move, I respectfully recommend you read this article, toward the bottom left of the page.
Depending on how annoying those ads are, I may go elsewhere. I'll probably check back now and then, to see if the new ads have gotten any less annoying. I like Slashdot quite a bit, in spite of the fist prosts and the "dude, what if we made a beowulf of these" comments. It's all part of the fun, part of the culture. I like interacting with other people that have similar interests. Honestly, though, I'm not going to pay for something that I can get for free somewhere else./. has been successful because it's free entertainment. I honestly hope the increase in income from each page view outweighs the drop in the number of page views/. will receive.
My "karma" rating has stayed right at 50 for a long time. As a contributor of content which is apparently valued by your other readers, I hope you will at least consider my opinion.
I wonder what life on Europa might have in common with the creatures that live near thermal vents in the ocean floor. The root of the ecosystem there is a type of bacteria that gets energy by breaking down hydrogen sulfide coming out of the vents.
Microsoft defended its decision to disclose to the trial judge only its antitrust discussions with officials in the executive branch, but not with those in Congress. Records of such contacts are required under the 1974 Tunney Act, passed to guarantee that a company settling antitrust charges doesn't improperly lobby the government. Critics of Microsoft's disclosures -- including former Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., who wrote the law -- accused the company of failing to disclose all its conversations with U.S. government officials.
Microsoft called those "meritless complaints," and said Tunney's opinion, "coming over 25 years after enactment of the statute, is irrelevant as a legal matter."
I am just astonished at the arrogance of the Microsoft legal team. I hope it bites them on the ass the way it did with Judge Jackson. Sure, Judge Kollar-Kotelly doesn't technically have to consider Tunney's opinion, but I think it will pretty well rule out any argument about the intent of the statute as it is written, so it's not exactly irrelevant.
Microsoft tried (apparently successfully, so far) to win the case through lobbying rather than in the courts, which is exactly what the Tunney act was designed to prevent. The New York Times said as much in the statement they sent to the DOJ in the Tunney Act public comment period. It's a long way from being a "meritless complaint."
I am so disgusted with the political interference in this case. The settlement would be considered weak even if Microsoft hadn't already been convicted of wrongdoing.
The fact that the Justice Department backed down to this slap-on-the-wrist after winning the case and convicting Microsoft of illegal activities smacks heavily of back-room deals and under-the-table politics. Microsoft obviously has the resources to engineer a political victory. Why didn't they disclose their meetings with members of Congress? A cursory reading of the Tunney act makes it clear as day that they should have done so.
Well, you have to be careful about what you mean by high and low pressure systems, though.
Hurricanes are generally referred to as low-pressure systems. The link you referred to defines hurricanes as follows:
The terms "hurricane" and "typhoon" are regionally specific names for a strong "tropical cyclone". A tropical cyclone is the generic term for a non-frontal synoptic scale low-pressure system over tropical or sub-tropical waters with organized convection (i.e. thunderstorm activity) and definite cyclonic surface wind circulation (Holland 1993).
Whether you incorporate or not is a complex decision that requires a back-and-forth conversation with someone knowledgable about accounting principles and tax laws in your area. It's not something you'll get a lot of good information about on Slashdot.
Whether you incorporate and what type of corporation you use will depend mainly on your planned expenses, how much work you are planning to do under the corp in a given period, and laws in your area relating to taxes and liability.
Both are said to operate similarly to hurricanes on Earth, except that they rotate in the opposite direction compared with terrestrial storms.
Winds in terrestrial hurricanes normally rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere because of the Coriolis effect.
So... in an attempt to translate the above quoted statement into something with a hint of precision, I'm going to guess that the Jovian storms are probably anticyclonic (high pressure systems, unlike terrestrial hurricanes), which would reverse the rotational direction of the storm.
When light enters a plasma, such as the ionosphere, the free electrons can cause little ripples to travel along the light wave at significant FTL. However, while you can send information on these waves, the information itself does not move FTL, but at c.
Please forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but what you said just doesn't make sense to me. If you can send waves FTL, and send information on those waves, then it logically follows that you can send information FTL... What am I missing?
For example, Bob wants to tell Mary whether he got a research grant today. He has arranged to send her FTL waves at amplitude A if he got it, or at amplitude B if he didn't. If those waves are travelling FTL, so is the information.
I was kind of the guy responsible for the original Emacs, 23 years ago.
I think his brain is starting to go. If I remember correctly, he wrote a version of it in C, using a bastardized LISP for extensions, in the early eighties. Stallman wrote the original in... umm... 1976?
Right you are, Captain. Have you noticed how many ask slashdot's there are lately? And, as you imply, most of them could be answered with a quick Google search. My theory is that these ask slashdot's are less work for Taco and his gang. See, with a regular story submission, they have to follow the link and make sure it's not a goatse. With the ask slashdot, they just have to post the stupid question.
Actually, I think it's just Cliff. All these recent lame stories have been posted by him. I was starting to think that he was just posting anything even slightly relevant that gets submitted to Ask Slashdot. So, last night I submitted a troll. I'm very sad that it was rejected, but at least it proves that they actually LOOK at the question before they post it. My question was as follows:
Ask Slashdot: HOWTO for Search Engine Skills?
I keep getting questions from clueless friends about how to find specific information on the Net. I'm starting to get annoyed, and sending them a link to Google explaining what I did hasn't helped them clue in. Does anyone know where to find a good HOWTO for using Google effectively?
If he had posted THAT, I would have died laughing.
While the current story could very quickly be resolved by a Google search, at least it's an interesting topic. I really got pissed when Cliff posted the one a couple days ago, something like, "Ask Slashdot: Don't you just HATE it when people don't QUOTE properly in E-MAIL?" When I saw that, I thought they should change the tag line to "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, and Geeks' Petty Annoyances."'
"Ask Slashdot: What's This 'Search Engine' Thing I Keep Hearing So Much About?"
Stay tuned for a preview of tomorrow on Ask Slashdot:
"Ask Slashdot: Anybody Want to Do My Math Homework for Me?"
Hey, this is right in line with yesterday's episode:
Ask Slashdot: Don't you just HATE it when people don't quote properly in e-mail?
I have a hard time fitting all this into "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Cliff is getting ever closer to joining Jamie and Katz in my blocking preferences.
A haiku, "Dredging the Bottom"... I'm thinking of adding it to my/. sig.
Nothing but whining
Slashdot stretching for content
Why is this headlined?
Why should Jamie get to post moderation free, Katzian garbage like this? Put it in a comment like everyone else.
I agree. This kind of lame paranoid rant gives the Slashdot community a bad name. It's bad enough in the comments, but there at least moderators can control the quality to some extent. I already have Katz on the block-list. I'm putting Jamie there too, but even that wouldn't have blocked this crap since it was posted by Cliff and just *adulterated* by Jamie.
For all you paranoids, I would like you to introduce something known as the FREE MARKET.
The day that every motherboard's BIOS uses strong crypto to demand the master boot record be signed with a secret key known only to Microsoft
Come ON. Microsoft will not start artificially limiting what hardware it's product will run on. Why would they? That would be like throwing away customers!
And why would hardware manufacturers start doing this otherwise? Customer pressure? If anything, limiting their BIOS in this way would dramatically LOWER the value of their BIOS! Think about it, if 75% of motherboards had this restriction, would you pay extra for one of the 25% that didn't? Sure! Would my company's CIO pay a little extra for the hundreds of machines she buys? Yes, she wouldn't buy machines that are limited to only running Windows. Would Joe blow care? Probably not, but it would matter to enough people to drive the value of these crypto-limited BIOSes down, and hardware companies wouldn't risk that.
So what other possible paranoid ranting could one come up with that could make this scenario possible... Hmm... How about if Microsoft bought themselves the US Congress and made it a law? That's it! The government that sued them for antitrust violations is going to turn around and heavy-handedly enforce a complete, 100% monopoly! Yeah!
Jeez, where do people get the idea that Slashdot is a haven for unthinking anti-microsoft zealots?
Who ever said they were going to give the schools boxes, or even manuals for that matter? I never saw any of the details, but I bet MS could have gotten away with just CDs in envelopes. They'd probably make an "educational" distribution with all the software on one or two CDs and just send those CDs out with the hardware.
I work at a fairly large manufacturing company. We have 17 plants across the US and Canada, some of them over 200,000 square feet. A little over two years ago we needed a system to distribute print jobs from our corporate office to all of our plants. Our (fairly new) ERP system generates reports, pick sheets, order specifications, shipping labels, bar code labels, and so on, and it is CRITICAL that we have a reliable system to print these jobs at our plants. Product doesn't get shipped if there's a failure in this system.
We have a 56K or 128K frame relay connection to each plant, and a Linux print server in each plant. At the time, CUPS was still brand-new, and plain lpr pretty much sucks, so we used LPRng. It's quite a bit more complex, but is rock-solid. Because the stability of Frame connections doesn't meet our uptime requirements, we had to come up with something to get the print jobs done if there was a failure. We generally have a failure or two per year per circuit that lasts longer than a couple minutes.
We have an internal modem in each print server, plus one in a print server at the corporate office. The ERP system prints everything to our corporate LPRng server. That system pipes the print job into its UUCP spool. UUCP is configured to try the frame connection first, and then use the modems if that doesn't work. It has proven VERY reliable. It took a while to figure out how to set it all up, but it has been mostly an install-and-forget experience. I highly recommend LPRng for its stability and flexibility. You just can't set up a system with these reliability requirements on a Microsoft platform.
Slashdot Mirror
In '99 I started using the procedure below. This works really well if you need to support hardware that might vary from box to box. If you know you will be using the exact same hardware for every box, you might as well use dd or some drive imaging package.
1) Figure out what you want your final image to look like, set up a test system, and configure it fully. Make note of all config files that you changed and all packages you have installed.
2) Create an RPM containing all the config files you modified.
3) copy RedHat CD 1 to the hard drive of an FTP server
4) copy all CD 2 RPMS to the RPMS directory that was created when you copied the first CD
5) replace all outdated RPMS with the update versions, and put the RPM you created in step 2 into this directory.
6) install anaconda on the FTP server & run the genhdlist script.
7) create a kickstart config file listing all the packages you want to install, including the RPM you created in step 2, and specifying the address of the FTP server.
8) make as many boot disks with the above kickstart config file as machines you want to install at once.
9) plug in as many machines at once as your network can handle, put a copy of the floppy in each, turn them on.
10) go get some coffee while the install completes.
11) yank the floppies and reboot the boxes. Your drives are partitioned, all packages installed, and all software configured. Proceed to the next batch of machines. I'm pretty sure there's a way to do this from a network-boot setup and just put the kickstart file on the FTP server, but it seemed to me like more hassle than it was worth given how easy it is to use floppies.
Actually, that's why the religious right have been pushing to remove LISP from the CS curriculum of public universities.
The problem with this is that anyone with the motivation, a disassembler, a good eye for assembly language, and access to the product can figure out the function.
The "average non-geek user" will be using Netscape Communicator anyway. Netscape will make sure all that plugin crap is user-friendly, at the same time as they install all their AOL ads, links, and default settings throughout the product.
I assume that your company is planning on maintaining this codebase over time; if so, they will need to keep a human-readable copy around. This is the copy that the GPL requires you to make available to the public: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
I suggest you find a way to keep your code from linking against the GPL'd code. You can still distribute them together, but your proprietary code can't be a derivative of the GPL'd code without making available (at no cost) the entire "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
Without knowing more about your project, I don't know what the best solution would be. Perhaps you could write a socket interface for the GPL'd code, which would have to be GPL'd. If you're lucky, maybe the original developers of the GPL'd code would accept that as a contribution and incorporate it into their project. Otherwise, you could fork the GPL'd project and make the human-readable source available for download from your company's systems. Then your product could use the socket interface and your company can use whatever license it likes for the 'much more lucrative' code.
The day before yesterday Hemos posted a link to Piro's insightful analysis of why the #1 dot-com strategy didn't work. Diluted to it's essence, "There's an inherent part of human nature that just makes you bristle at having to suddenly pay for something that you didn't have to pay for before." I would like you to know that this new policy does makes me bristle a bit. I won't pay for Slashdot; I feel that I have given nearly as much as I have received. To the decision-makers behind this advertising move, I respectfully recommend you read this article, toward the bottom left of the page.
/. has been successful because it's free entertainment. I honestly hope the increase in income from each page view outweighs the drop in the number of page views /. will receive.
Depending on how annoying those ads are, I may go elsewhere. I'll probably check back now and then, to see if the new ads have gotten any less annoying. I like Slashdot quite a bit, in spite of the fist prosts and the "dude, what if we made a beowulf of these" comments. It's all part of the fun, part of the culture. I like interacting with other people that have similar interests. Honestly, though, I'm not going to pay for something that I can get for free somewhere else.
My "karma" rating has stayed right at 50 for a long time. As a contributor of content which is apparently valued by your other readers, I hope you will at least consider my opinion.
I wonder what life on Europa might have in common with the creatures that live near thermal vents in the ocean floor. The root of the ecosystem there is a type of bacteria that gets energy by breaking down hydrogen sulfide coming out of the vents.
Microsoft defended its decision to disclose to the trial judge only its antitrust discussions with officials in the executive branch, but not with those in Congress. Records of such contacts are required under the 1974 Tunney Act, passed to guarantee that a company settling antitrust charges doesn't improperly lobby the government. Critics of Microsoft's disclosures -- including former Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., who wrote the law -- accused the company of failing to disclose all its conversations with U.S. government officials.
Microsoft called those "meritless complaints," and said Tunney's opinion, "coming over 25 years after enactment of the statute, is irrelevant as a legal matter."
I am just astonished at the arrogance of the Microsoft legal team. I hope it bites them on the ass the way it did with Judge Jackson. Sure, Judge Kollar-Kotelly doesn't technically have to consider Tunney's opinion, but I think it will pretty well rule out any argument about the intent of the statute as it is written, so it's not exactly irrelevant.
Microsoft tried (apparently successfully, so far) to win the case through lobbying rather than in the courts, which is exactly what the Tunney act was designed to prevent. The New York Times said as much in the statement they sent to the DOJ in the Tunney Act public comment period. It's a long way from being a "meritless complaint."
I am so disgusted with the political interference in this case. The settlement would be considered weak even if Microsoft hadn't already been convicted of wrongdoing.
The fact that the Justice Department backed down to this slap-on-the-wrist after winning the case and convicting Microsoft of illegal activities smacks heavily of back-room deals and under-the-table politics. Microsoft obviously has the resources to engineer a political victory. Why didn't they disclose their meetings with members of Congress? A cursory reading of the Tunney act makes it clear as day that they should have done so.
I couldn't help but wonder whether the name of the "Mad Katz Control Pad Pro" was a nod to the Slashdot community...
Whether you incorporate or not is a complex decision that requires a back-and-forth conversation with someone knowledgable about accounting principles and tax laws in your area. It's not something you'll get a lot of good information about on Slashdot.
Whether you incorporate and what type of corporation you use will depend mainly on your planned expenses, how much work you are planning to do under the corp in a given period, and laws in your area relating to taxes and liability.
Go find an accountant.
So... in an attempt to translate the above quoted statement into something with a hint of precision, I'm going to guess that the Jovian storms are probably anticyclonic (high pressure systems, unlike terrestrial hurricanes), which would reverse the rotational direction of the storm.
Yup. Here's a link:
http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
While the current story could very quickly be resolved by a Google search, at least it's an interesting topic. I really got pissed when Cliff posted the one a couple days ago, something like, "Ask Slashdot: Don't you just HATE it when people don't QUOTE properly in E-MAIL?" When I saw that, I thought they should change the tag line to "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, and Geeks' Petty Annoyances."'
InterMezzo shold be able to do this.
Hey, this is right in line with yesterday's episode: I have a hard time fitting all this into "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Cliff is getting ever closer to joining Jamie and Katz in my blocking preferences.
A haiku, "Dredging the Bottom"... I'm thinking of adding it to my
Nothing but whining
Slashdot stretching for content
Why is this headlined?
Nothing but a whine
Slashdot stretching for content
Why is this headlined?
...for those Argentinians who have computers and/or nearby merchants capable of electronic funds transfers.
Why should Jamie get to post moderation free, Katzian garbage like this? Put it in a comment like everyone else.
I agree. This kind of lame paranoid rant gives the Slashdot community a bad name. It's bad enough in the comments, but there at least moderators can control the quality to some extent. I already have Katz on the block-list. I'm putting Jamie there too, but even that wouldn't have blocked this crap since it was posted by Cliff and just *adulterated* by Jamie.
And why would hardware manufacturers start doing this otherwise? Customer pressure? If anything, limiting their BIOS in this way would dramatically LOWER the value of their BIOS! Think about it, if 75% of motherboards had this restriction, would you pay extra for one of the 25% that didn't? Sure! Would my company's CIO pay a little extra for the hundreds of machines she buys? Yes, she wouldn't buy machines that are limited to only running Windows. Would Joe blow care? Probably not, but it would matter to enough people to drive the value of these crypto-limited BIOSes down, and hardware companies wouldn't risk that.
So what other possible paranoid ranting could one come up with that could make this scenario possible... Hmm... How about if Microsoft bought themselves the US Congress and made it a law? That's it! The government that sued them for antitrust violations is going to turn around and heavy-handedly enforce a complete, 100% monopoly! Yeah!
Jeez, where do people get the idea that Slashdot is a haven for unthinking anti-microsoft zealots?
Who ever said they were going to give the schools boxes, or even manuals for that matter? I never saw any of the details, but I bet MS could have gotten away with just CDs in envelopes. They'd probably make an "educational" distribution with all the software on one or two CDs and just send those CDs out with the hardware.
No accounting for the tastes of extraterrestrials.
I work at a fairly large manufacturing company. We have 17 plants across the US and Canada, some of them over 200,000 square feet. A little over two years ago we needed a system to distribute print jobs from our corporate office to all of our plants. Our (fairly new) ERP system generates reports, pick sheets, order specifications, shipping labels, bar code labels, and so on, and it is CRITICAL that we have a reliable system to print these jobs at our plants. Product doesn't get shipped if there's a failure in this system.
We have a 56K or 128K frame relay connection to each plant, and a Linux print server in each plant. At the time, CUPS was still brand-new, and plain lpr pretty much sucks, so we used LPRng. It's quite a bit more complex, but is rock-solid. Because the stability of Frame connections doesn't meet our uptime requirements, we had to come up with something to get the print jobs done if there was a failure. We generally have a failure or two per year per circuit that lasts longer than a couple minutes.
We have an internal modem in each print server, plus one in a print server at the corporate office. The ERP system prints everything to our corporate LPRng server. That system pipes the print job into its UUCP spool. UUCP is configured to try the frame connection first, and then use the modems if that doesn't work. It has proven VERY reliable. It took a while to figure out how to set it all up, but it has been mostly an install-and-forget experience. I highly recommend LPRng for its stability and flexibility. You just can't set up a system with these reliability requirements on a Microsoft platform.