Meanwhile we have at least some comments from MS saying that the important core parts are licenced RAND and royalty free and Novell are apparently working to get that stated more unequivocably.
At the end of the day Novell/SUSE's interest in being safe here lines up with the communities. They don't want their asses sued either (and as principal developers on it at the moment their ass is first in line).
really doubt that. Although old music may not appeal to you
You aren't listening. I didn't say I didn't like old music. I said that a lot of old music, lets say from 20+ years ago, was also crap. It was. You won't find much of the crap in stores today because history has consigned it to the rubbish bin but it was definately there at the time.
Old music looks good because time has filtered away the crap, not because it was better at the time.
really doubt that. Although old music may not appeal to you.
You aren't listening. I didn't say I didn't like old music. I said that a lot of old music, lets say from 20+ years ago, was also crap. It was. You won't find much of the crap in stores today because history has consigned it to the rubbish bin but it was definately there at the time.
Old music looks good because time has filtered away the crap, not because it was better at the time.
If it seems that way to you it's simply because crap music tends to be forgotten with time so you don't remember the older crap. Stumble accross someones old record collection in a loft sometime and it will no doubt be quite craptacular.
One of these conditions is that they contribute back to the community and changes they have made.
No it isn't. There is no obligation to "the community". Their only obligation relating to distribution of source code is that they have to give it to people they give the binary to. There is no obligation to give anything back to the people they got the source from.
If you are going to get on your high horse about GPL licensing you could at least make an effort to understand the GPL.
My mail client (mutt) does not run under an account that has full access to the entire system. Instead, it runs as me, and cannot replace parts of the OS even if it wants to. So it can't do things like replace part of the TCP/IP stack
While that might be true I wonder how many people are still running versions of Linux that still exhibit the reasonably recently discovered priviledge escalation bugs?
Certainly the sort of people who are unlikely to have updated their Outlook are unlikely to have updated their OS kernel (especially as, at least in every automated package updater I've used, kernel upgrades don't happen as easily as userspace apps).
Islamic terrorism is a threat to life and limb but it is in no way capable of removing freedoms from those of us that have them, only our governments can do that.
Even if the ultimate aim of terrorists was to overthrow the west and establish islamic states they simply do not have anywhere near that capability.
All they can do is kill us, in relatively small numbers and infrequently.
Certainly they should be hunted down but we aren't doing ourselves any favours by overstating their importance and capabilities. It merely gives them more of the currency they trade in, fear.
If this were additional and everyone "designated green and allowed through routine screening" were still subject to the same level of random screening then security would only be increased.
Also using "hijackers who aren't on the watch list" presumably isn't quite that simple as you make it sound. Presumably it's a bit more difficult to recruit a hijacker than that.
Certainly it's not perfect, but nothing is. There is no way to simply "stop" all terrorists but we can give them more hoops to jump through and make it more difficult for them.
I'm certain his company doesn't want him using his personal devices to monitor company processes. If he left the company or the department, the monitoring infrastructure would go with him. And what's he gonna do, leave his cell phone behind with the intern who takes his place while he's on vacation?
I don't see why he should have to carry around an additional device on his personal time if he already has one that will do the job just fine. I know that between my phone, house keys, office keys and wallet I don't want anything else in my pockets, nor do I particularly want a bat belt.
If he needs to be paged at all hours and they won't allow him to use a personal phone they should make his phone a business. Chances are if he's being paged at all hours he might need to be calling people too.
That's the deal here. My phone is a company phone and the company has will take over the payments for anyone who already has their own mobiles and needs to be contactable for work purposes (it's still their phone and number if they leave). Getting to make personal calls on company money is just an upside to the downside of being woken up at 4am when a router farts and your server isn't contactable for a minute.
It shouldn't be a major issue to point the paging system at a different number if the guy leaves or is on holiday.
A box is not going to be good for heat dissipation or size constraints.
Water cooling is certainly not going to be cheaper or less complex.
If an active sound nullifier that will automatically adapt to the changing noisyness of a fan as it ages can be made for as little as $20 it is surely a more credible solution than your suggestions...
Surprise, Microsoft releases.Net for Unix, and the entire effort is null and void. Your pride and joy is now a footnote, and a deprecated one at that.
Sun produces Java for a whole bunch of platforms. So does IBM. Intel have a C compilers on a bunch of platforms. So does GNU (and Sun, and Microsoft).
Software doesn't suddenly become useless simply because another vendor releases a competing implentation on the same platform. If MS do release a.NET implementation for Linux then mono will still be valuable. Licencing terms will obviously be one area they compete on. No doubt there will be others.
I'm not sure he's ever claimed that the desktop is equivalent to the operating system.
It seems to me that he simply talking about the section of software that he works on and interests him most, the desktop.
While I don't follow it closely I haven't noticed any posts from Miguel on LKML advocating they switch to C#.
I think it should be fairly simple to update the browsers so they require some
encryption by default
The issue here isn't really encryption, it's trust.
SSL (in terms of how it is useful to someone browsing the web) has two roles. One is to "ensure" that data is securely transmitted between two endpoints. The other is to "ensure" that the endpoint(s) is trustworthy.
Encryption really only relates to the former. The latter relys on certificates being signed by someone trustworthy who has taken due care in verifying the identity of the certificate holder before signing.
According to the article there is a form of certificate which does not need to be signed by a trustworthy party to be accepted by user-agents without question.
So the problem here isn't really that user agents should require some encryption by default, but that they should require some indicator of trustworthyness. (That's not to say they shouldn't require a particular level of encryption. And requiring encryption may have the knock on effect of requiring a signature. I think you understand that. I just wanted anyone else reading to be clear that "encryption" and "trust" are two different roles and that the core issue when talking about "phishing" is trust.)
Similar to what grand prix drivers have on their visors? If an existing appendage on the rover could hook up with a tag and pull such a layer of film off a panel then that could double the solar panels lifetime with little extra weight or complexity?
Slashdot Mirror
You can certainly cop a lot of flak in the FOSS world for having a design focus and trying to stick to it.
There's no end of people, not least on Slashdot, who seem more than willing to chuck a tantrum if their pet quirk isn't looked after.
Well done to the GNOME folks for their latest step down the road to nice software.
Same old FUD.
Meanwhile we have at least some comments from MS saying that the important core parts are licenced RAND and royalty free and Novell are apparently working to get that stated more unequivocably.
At the end of the day Novell/SUSE's interest in being safe here lines up with the communities. They don't want their asses sued either (and as principal developers on it at the moment their ass is first in line).
Old music looks good because time has filtered away the crap, not because it was better at the time.
If it seems that way to you it's simply because crap music tends to be forgotten with time so you don't remember the older crap.
Stumble accross someones old record collection in a loft sometime and it will no doubt be quite craptacular.
If you are going to get on your high horse about GPL licensing you could at least make an effort to understand the GPL.
"Can you turn the laptop on for me sir?" Er.....
Certainly the sort of people who are unlikely to have updated their Outlook are unlikely to have updated their OS kernel (especially as, at least in every automated package updater I've used, kernel upgrades don't happen as easily as userspace apps).
We aren't immune just because we use Free Software. Our software can be equally vulnerable to similar exploits.
there's a shortage of admins in the bad to mediocre range though.
Islamic terrorism is a threat to life and limb but it is in no way capable of removing freedoms from those of us that have them, only our governments can do that.
Even if the ultimate aim of terrorists was to overthrow the west and establish islamic states they simply do not have anywhere near that capability.
All they can do is kill us, in relatively small numbers and infrequently.
Certainly they should be hunted down but we aren't doing ourselves any favours by overstating their importance and capabilities. It merely gives them more of the currency they trade in, fear.
If this were additional and everyone "designated green and allowed through routine screening" were still subject to the same level of random screening then security would only be increased.
Also using "hijackers who aren't on the watch list" presumably isn't quite that simple as you make it sound. Presumably it's a bit more difficult to recruit a hijacker than that.
Certainly it's not perfect, but nothing is. There is no way to simply "stop" all terrorists but we can give them more hoops to jump through and make it more difficult for them.
If he needs to be paged at all hours and they won't allow him to use a personal phone they should make his phone a business. Chances are if he's being paged at all hours he might need to be calling people too.
That's the deal here. My phone is a company phone and the company has will take over the payments for anyone who already has their own mobiles and needs to be contactable for work purposes (it's still their phone and number if they leave). Getting to make personal calls on company money is just an upside to the downside of being woken up at 4am when a router farts and your server isn't contactable for a minute.
It shouldn't be a major issue to point the paging system at a different number if the guy leaves or is on holiday.
That said I think some of them will still preallocate as an option.
Quiet fans tend to get noiser with age.
A box is not going to be good for heat dissipation or size constraints.
Water cooling is certainly not going to be cheaper or less complex.
If an active sound nullifier that will automatically adapt to the changing noisyness of a fan as it ages can be made for as little as $20 it is surely a more credible solution than your suggestions...
Intel have a C compilers on a bunch of platforms. So does GNU (and Sun, and Microsoft).
Software doesn't suddenly become useless simply because another vendor releases a competing implentation on the same platform. If MS do release a
You seem all worked up over nothing. The article is specifically talking about desktop applications.
In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia happens to you!
I'm not sure he's ever claimed that the desktop is equivalent to the operating system.
It seems to me that he simply talking about the section of software that he works on and interests him most, the desktop.
While I don't follow it closely I haven't noticed any posts from Miguel on LKML advocating they switch to C#.
SSL (in terms of how it is useful to someone browsing the web) has two roles. One is to "ensure" that data is securely transmitted between two endpoints. The other is to "ensure" that the endpoint(s) is trustworthy.
Encryption really only relates to the former. The latter relys on certificates being signed by someone trustworthy who has taken due care in verifying the identity of the certificate holder before signing.
According to the article there is a form of certificate which does not need to be signed by a trustworthy party to be accepted by user-agents without question.
So the problem here isn't really that user agents should require some encryption by default, but that they should require some indicator of trustworthyness.
(That's not to say they shouldn't require a particular level of encryption. And requiring encryption may have the knock on effect of requiring a signature. I think you understand that. I just wanted anyone else reading to be clear that "encryption" and "trust" are two different roles and that the core issue when talking about "phishing" is trust.)
for various definitions of "gave"
Similar to what grand prix drivers have on their visors? If an existing appendage on the rover could hook up with a tag and pull such a layer of film off a panel then that could double the solar panels lifetime with little extra weight or complexity?
I find the "Upgrade to pro?" each time it starts highly annoying.