If you know that somebody committed a murder, you could fail to report it. But the police would try to find the murderer just the same if they suspect that the the crime has bin commited.
So wouldn't the police investigate DMCA violations regardless what MS chose to do, or not to do? The only thing they could do would be to fail to report the crime. Or am I wrong?
There are still lots, and lots of libraries for numerical analasys written in Fortran. So if you intend to use it for somthing like that it's a good idea to learn it.
The only thing that can stop this contributions pouring in is if there is no profit in it.
So stop buying DVD, stop going to the movies and stop pirating them. That is make film not part of your life for a couple of years.
Follow good old American traditions from the Boston tea party as soon as you see CDs/DVDs for sale.
Those RIAA, MPAA people pose serious threats to US democracy. This hacking issue is only one aspect of it. The DRM stuff is far more serious as it will build an infrastructure for information control.
Perhaps it's not possible to delete or disable nonapproved mp3 players on your current computer, but it will be no problem to do that once you have a Palladium enabled CPU.
And even if they didn't remove it, it wouldn't run anyway as it's digital signature wouldn't be approved by your CPU.
So watch out when you buy a computer next time. Make sure that it does not contain any DRM circuits, in the CPU or elsewhere.
The salesperson will tell you that it protects you from viruses, but the real purpose is to make it impossible for you to excerise your fair use rights. And if you tamper with it, there is always DCMA.
As long as MPAA supports DRM like MS-Palladium I'm not going to buy DVDs or go to the movies. I urge others to do the same. It's easier for most people to live without film, than it is for movie studios to live without customers.
Digital Rights Management software is a threat to democracy. Not because they prevent you from pirate DVDs but because it builds an infrastructure to control information. And free flow of information is the air democracy breathes
Yes they are. Here a short snippet from the Agnula web site:
"One distribution will be Debian-based (DeMuDi) and the other will be Red Hat-based (ReHMuDi). Both will be available on the network for download and on CD."
Even better, as you could have two way communication and each car could tell it's destination. This means that traffic jams could be predicted even before they happen. But an audio interface is probably a good idea.
You mean just like real programmers don't use, editors but write the code directly to the compiler input stream. They don't need debugging tools either.
No, it's not probable that Orcale or DB2 should be opensourced in the near future. But there are open source enterprice leves database software available. E.g. SAPdb see http://www.sapdb.org.
Actually there are people doing this. I read about it a couple of years ago. It was a university that provided a rescue diskette that booted Linux. The Linux installation then automagically made downloaded and installed windows on the hard drive.
Sorry I can't remember what university it was but I think it was somewhere in South America.
I don't get it. Why all those demands for opensorce java? There are no masses of Linux users that demand Intel to opensource the microcode for their processors.
And in spite of this most openssorce software is developed and runs on closed source intel processors.
Intel make their stuff out of silicon and the java processor is in most cases made in software. Why should the material of the processor make such a difference?
After all nobody would be served by thousands of different Intel processors, all with small improvements of their own. E.g. if you write a compiler you would like to write it for a well defined target to make sure that code compiled with that compiler did run flawlessly on those target processors.
So there has to be somebody to set the java standard. Today this is Sun and not ECMA as it would have bin if MS hadn't tried to add stuff to the standard that would have bin detrimental to java security. Or in other words turn the java standard in spee into C#
There is absolutely nothing to prevent people from writing opensource software for java. If Sun should decide not to provide a free as in bear JVM, there is lots and lots of documentation on how it works, and it would be no problem writing an open source implementation. At least as long as you avoid the Java trade mark that needs Suns blessing to be used
Right now most distros view Linux as a OS for one PC, the one in front of the user, or the one hidden away in the server room. This is probably the wrong approach if we want Linux desktops
To get successful on the we need Linux distros that makes it simple to install net booted disk less workstations with centralized user and program management. This kind of setups could easily be ten times less expensive than the average windows system to maintain.
So far there is the K12 LTSP modified redhat distribution for schools. It's beyond me why this isn't in the standard install in most Linux distributions.
It sort of look like that Linux vendors don't want to sell Linux for the corporate desktop, but focus on the server rooms and amateur home users.
As long as we talk about office use, the applications are already there. When managers realize how much cheaper administration could be, they will have a very close look at what Linux can do for them.
Regarding Linux on the home desktop I'm a bit more pessimistic. The idea of Unix/Linux is that you have a skilled sysadmin that makes life extremely simple for the user. At home every user is his own sysadmin. The market of game and entertainment progarms is also very small. I see very few benefits from using Linux at home, unless you find pleasure in being a sysadmin.
Linux on the corporate desktop though, is far from dead. It have just not bin discovered yet
The lower viri count on Linux does probably have little to do with the smaller user base, but more with its more educated user base. When Linux becomes appealing to less educated users it will have a virus problem too.
Even if Linux is more modularized, with smaller chunks of code that is easier to audit for security problems, this in no way protects Linux from virus infectiosns. Mandatory access control and signed binaries would be an excelent way of protect Linux systems.
But if you trust the owner of the system, there is no need too involve hardware, this is only needed for DRM. So I think somebody in the Linux community need to set up a CA that could issue certificatess for code signing purposes. Maybe it could work somthing like Thawte web of trust for E-mail certificats. In that system your identity is verified once. Then you can request as many certificats as you need. That way you could trust code signed by certain persons or organizations.
By combining security by good design and by chryptography we would get very hight security and it would work not only on special hardware, but any hardware from the smallest handheld to the largest mainfraime.
With such competiton MS and their Palladium wouldn't stand a chance, Especially if we manage to find a widly trusted and accepted CA. EFF comes to mind.
-Seamless integration into heterogenous environments:
Linux: Supports PAM makes single sign on possible on possible. The PAM system is used in most modern Unix systems, and makes it possible to get fine grained control of authentication, account permissions, session related tasks and password management. CIFS support built into samba not the OS. This makes uppgrades possible without upgrading the whole system
Windows: No integrated support for secure file transfer protocol SFTP Propriatory protocols and API ties OEMs to one vendor
-Proven reliability with enhanced recovery and data protection:
Linux: The vast variaty of systems available makes it easy to integrate Linux with larger systems. Among them XFS contributed by SGI, and JFS contributed by IBM. But also linux solutions like ext3 that easily upgrades older systems to have journalling capabilities. Ext3 is based on the traditional Linux file system well known for it's reliability.
Windows: Only journalling of file system meta data possible.
-Ease of integration, deployment and administration in a more secure environment.
Linux: Native support for NIS makes Linux easy to integrate into NIS/NIS+ networks. Apart from NIS, LDAP catalog services could also be used. Support for IPSEC through loadable kernel modules, this makes it possible to secure the network layer, or build VPNs. Linux also supports a variety of other security solutions Kerberos 5, SASL, SSL, ssh,...
Windows: Network services is defined in Activeö Directory (a subset of LDAP)
-Better business alignment with straighforward licensing and clarity of IP ownership
Linux: You have access to the source code and may modify it freely for inhouse work. If you sell binary software solutions, you will in some cases have to supply source code as well. You may license code written buy you with Linux software development tools any way you want.
Microsoft: The available licencing for code written with Microsoft tools are limited by Microsoft license agreements.
---- This was just a few examples, showing that their new page is still misleading. And this even if we let MS chose the items of comparison. Surely if windows was so much better they could have chosen to discuss items where they didn't have to lie about Linux to look superiour.
Anti unix ad or not, by comparing to other unixes they legitimize them as somthing that is good. You have to say they are good we are better otherwise the ad is pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
If you know that somebody committed a murder,
you could fail to report it. But the police would try
to find the murderer just the same if they suspect
that the the crime has bin commited.
So wouldn't the police investigate DMCA violations
regardless what MS chose to do, or not to do?
The only thing they could do would be to fail
to report the crime. Or am I wrong?
There are still lots, and lots of libraries for
numerical analasys written in Fortran.
So if you intend to use it for somthing like that
it's a good idea to learn it.
The only thing that can stop this contributions
pouring in is if there is no profit in it.
So stop buying DVD, stop going to the movies
and stop pirating them. That is make film not
part of your life for a couple of years.
Follow good old American traditions from the Boston tea party as soon as you see CDs/DVDs for sale.
Those RIAA, MPAA people pose serious threats to US
democracy. This hacking issue is only one aspect of
it. The DRM stuff is far more serious as it will
build an infrastructure for information control.
I hope not. That would mean that if you set up
a service that is illeagal some where in the world
you could be extradited to that country.
Those execs will probably have to stay in the
US, hacking is illegal in most countries,
not just in Australia.
Perhaps it's not possible to delete or disable
nonapproved mp3 players on your current computer,
but it will be no problem to do that once
you have a Palladium enabled CPU.
And even if they didn't remove it, it wouldn't
run anyway as it's digital signature wouldn't be
approved by your CPU.
So watch out when you buy a computer next time.
Make sure that it does not contain any DRM
circuits, in the CPU or elsewhere.
The salesperson will tell you that it protects you
from viruses, but the real purpose is to make it
impossible for you to excerise your fair use rights.
And if you tamper with it, there is always DCMA.
As long as MPAA supports DRM like MS-Palladium
I'm not going to buy DVDs or go to the movies.
I urge others to do the same. It's easier for
most people to live without film, than it is
for movie studios to live without customers.
Digital Rights Management software is a threat
to democracy. Not because they prevent you from
pirate DVDs but because it builds an infrastructure
to control information. And free flow of information
is the air democracy breathes
Yes they are. Here a short snippet from the Agnula web site:
"One distribution will be Debian-based (DeMuDi) and the other will be Red Hat-based (ReHMuDi). Both will be available on the network for download and on CD."
Even better, as you could have two way communication
and each car could tell it's destination. This means
that traffic jams could be predicted even before they
happen.
But an audio interface is probably a good idea.
Such system could also be used to resolve traffic jams and advice drivers to take alternate routes in case of accidents.
You mean just like real programmers don't use, editors
but write the code directly to the compiler input stream. They don't need debugging tools either.
No, it's not probable that Orcale or DB2 should be
opensourced in the near future. But there are
open source enterprice leves database software available. E.g. SAPdb see http://www.sapdb.org.
Actually there are people doing this.
I read about it a couple of years ago.
It was a university that provided a rescue
diskette that booted Linux. The Linux installation
then automagically made downloaded and installed
windows on the hard drive.
Sorry I can't remember what university it was
but I think it was somewhere in South America.
I don't get it. Why all those demands for opensorce java? There are no masses of Linux users that demand
Intel to opensource the microcode for their processors.
And in spite of this most openssorce software is developed and runs on closed source intel
processors.
Intel make their stuff out of silicon and the java
processor is in most cases made in software.
Why should the material of the processor make
such a difference?
After all nobody would be served by thousands
of different Intel processors, all with small
improvements of their own. E.g. if you write
a compiler you would like to write it for
a well defined target to make sure that code
compiled with that compiler did run flawlessly
on those target processors.
So there has to be somebody to set the java
standard. Today this is Sun and not ECMA as
it would have bin if MS hadn't tried to add
stuff to the standard that would have bin
detrimental to java security. Or in other words
turn the java standard in spee into C#
There is absolutely nothing to prevent people from
writing opensource software for java. If Sun should
decide not to provide a free as in bear JVM, there
is lots and lots of documentation on how it works,
and it would be no problem writing an open source
implementation. At least as long as you avoid the
Java trade mark that needs Suns blessing to be
used
Right now most distros view Linux as a OS for one
PC, the one in front of the user, or the one hidden
away in the server room. This is probably the wrong
approach if we want Linux desktops
To get successful on the we need Linux distros
that makes it simple to install net booted disk less
workstations with centralized user and program
management. This kind of setups could easily be
ten times less expensive than the average windows
system to maintain.
So far there is the K12 LTSP modified redhat
distribution for schools. It's beyond me why
this isn't in the standard install in most Linux
distributions.
It sort of look like that Linux vendors don't
want to sell Linux for the corporate desktop,
but focus on the server rooms and amateur home users.
As long as we talk about office use, the applications
are already there. When managers realize how much
cheaper administration could be, they will have
a very close look at what Linux can do for them.
Regarding Linux on the home desktop I'm a bit more
pessimistic. The idea of Unix/Linux is that you have
a skilled sysadmin that makes life extremely simple for the user. At home every user is his own sysadmin.
The market of game and entertainment progarms is
also very small. I see very few benefits from using
Linux at home, unless you find pleasure in being
a sysadmin.
Linux on the corporate desktop though, is far from
dead. It have just not bin discovered yet
The lower viri count on Linux does probably have
little to do with the smaller user base, but more
with its more educated user base. When Linux becomes
appealing to less educated users it will have a virus
problem too.
Even if Linux is more modularized, with smaller chunks
of code that is easier to audit for security problems,
this in no way protects Linux from virus infectiosns.
Mandatory access control and signed binaries would be
an excelent way of protect Linux systems.
But if you trust the owner of the system, there
is no need too involve hardware, this is only needed
for DRM. So I think somebody in the Linux community
need to set up a CA that could issue certificatess
for code signing purposes. Maybe it could work somthing
like Thawte web of trust for E-mail certificats.
In that system your identity is verified once.
Then you can request as many certificats as you
need. That way you could trust code signed by certain
persons or organizations.
By combining security by good design and by
chryptography we would get very hight security and
it would work not only on special hardware, but any
hardware from the smallest handheld to the largest
mainfraime.
With such competiton MS and their Palladium wouldn't
stand a chance, Especially if we manage to find a
widly trusted and accepted CA. EFF comes to mind.
Actually, it takes none.
If light goes out,
Microsoft will just announce darkness as a industry
standard
Hmm...
Let's see
-Seamless integration into heterogenous environments:
Linux:
Supports PAM makes single sign on possible on possible. The PAM system is used in most modern
Unix systems, and makes it possible to get fine
grained control of authentication, account permissions, session related tasks and password
management.
CIFS support built into samba not the OS. This makes uppgrades possible without upgrading the whole system
Windows:
No integrated support for secure file transfer protocol SFTP
Propriatory protocols and API ties OEMs to one
vendor
-Proven reliability with enhanced recovery and data protection:
Linux:
The vast variaty of systems available makes it
easy to integrate Linux with larger systems.
Among them XFS contributed by SGI, and JFS
contributed by IBM. But also linux solutions
like ext3 that easily upgrades older systems
to have journalling capabilities. Ext3 is based
on the traditional Linux file system well known
for it's reliability.
Windows:
Only journalling of file system meta data possible.
-Ease of integration, deployment and administration
in a more secure environment.
Linux:
Native support for NIS makes Linux easy to integrate
into NIS/NIS+ networks. Apart from NIS, LDAP catalog
services could also be used.
Support for IPSEC through loadable kernel modules, this makes it possible to secure the network layer, or build VPNs. Linux also supports a variety of other security solutions Kerberos 5, SASL, SSL, ssh,...
Windows:
Network services is defined in Activeö Directory
(a subset of LDAP)
-Better business alignment with straighforward licensing and clarity of IP ownership
Linux:
You have access to the source code and may modify it
freely for inhouse work. If you sell binary software solutions, you will in some cases have to supply
source code as well. You may license code written
buy you with Linux software development tools
any way you want.
Microsoft:
The available licencing for code written with
Microsoft tools are limited by Microsoft license
agreements.
----
This was just a few examples, showing that their new
page is still misleading. And this even if we let
MS chose the items of comparison. Surely if windows
was so much better they could have chosen to discuss
items where they didn't have to lie about Linux to
look superiour.
Anti unix ad or not, by comparing to other unixes they
legitimize them as somthing that is good.
You have to say they are good we are better
otherwise the ad is pointless.