If you are submitting code to the main PHP authors then you wouldn't be doing it under GPL (or more to the point the PHP authors wouldn't accept it if you were, you'd have to submit it to them under a non GPL licence and they'll release it to the world under both licences). Whether this is explicitly stated somewhere I do not know. But impliciitly if you are submitting code to the PHP authors for inclusion with PHP then you must be.
On the other hand you could presumably fork off your own version from PHP3 released only under GPL but: a) You'd have to work pretty hard to keep/catch up with PHP4 b) Unless you are providing some serious improvements your version would offer nothing over the official version. c) People are likely to think you are a bit of a pillock.
Apache still picked up around 250000 new hostnames. Microsoft picked up around 400000, though:
"Much of this came at hosting company Webjump, which offers free web hosting on a system made up of NT machines fronted by a Resonate switch. This is one of the first deployements of NT in a large scale hosting environment, and it will be interesting to see if other providers follow Webjump's lead. Traditionally, hosting companies [who control the great majority of internet web sites] have almost always chosen to run Apache based servers, often on Pentium based systems running Linux, FreeBSD, or BSDI."
While it is an interesting development, there's probably little cause for worry unless it becomes a trend.
I love this. You understand of course that not all traffic has to go to external sites, right? At my company, the most efficient way of recieving information from another group is typically the web. I can get information from employees in India, England, France, or down the hall by hitting their websites.
This is irrelevant to the point the article is making. In the closed environment of your company it is possible that Netscape is being used enough it makes sense that people ensure their pages are viewable by it.
So what? The www is no such closed environment and the stats seem to be heading ie's way, which one way or another disenfranchises Linux users.
Linux/Open software are fighting many battles. Linux is continuing to kick some arse in the server battle. Gnome/KDE & some pretty cool window managers are making interesting inroads into desktop space. But until Mozilla crystallises into something useful the proprietary OS-specific internet explorer is going to make life more and more difficult on the world wide web.
I'd like it if people could optionally make their slashboxes publicly viewable. Then they could be made available through a "Random users Slashbox" slashbox or by specifically entering their username. I believe you'd stumble accross some interesting links that way, a sort of anarchic memepool (perhaps basing the chance of a users slashbox being chosen as the random one on their karma, to prevent slashbox spamming.)
Brings me such delightful links as "START HERE: Barely Legal Teens".
After reloading several times my favourite was: "START HERE: for the best free ass pics".
I hope there aren't any kiddies with fragile little minds using Lycos to find pictures of our four legged friends!
Searching for "pussy cat" brings me a picture of "Spice Girls Kneeling in front of Planet Hollywood" (ahem). I'm not entirely sure the people at Lycos are entirely qualified to be performing word association for the world at large. It is good for a laugh though!
Under GPL there is no compulsion to 'give changes back' to the community. I can take a GPL program, make whatever changes I like to it, and not have to give anyone a single thing. If I then distribute my program then I am compelled to offer the source to the people I distribute the program to. There is no compulsion for me to give the modified source to the community (though anyone I had distributed to would be free to do so, which I believe includes employees if 'I' were a company, but IANAL).
It obviously makes sense to pass any useful additions back to the community, for all the reasons that make Open Source a good idea, but there is no compulsion about it. The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
I guess the (or at least one) 'problem' they face is that Gnome is made up of loads of different bits with different (yet often similar) version numbers and that adding a version number to the whole package may confuse/mislead (ie people expecting Gnome 1.0.50 to contain 1.0.50 versions of gnome-core, gnome-libs etc etc).
Righto 2.0.7 it is. The question now is can I safely upgrade (using an RPM or by spending a day downloading and compiling all the bits and pieces) without breaking other things?
Seeing as most of the on topic stuff would have already been said a day or so ago I thought I'd ask how do I detect which glibc I have?
My system is RedHat 5.2 based so I'm guessing that it isn't 2.1
I've got RH 6, Caldera 2.2-N and Suse 6.2 CDs lurking about, I wonder if I can pull it off one of them without completely screwing my system? Any suggestions (or more importantly warnings) before I give it a go?
And I'm big enough to admit I'm probably wrong. ("eventually"-all). I was thinking in terms of cpu clock cycles (in a similar sense to man hours), not clock cycles. I guess there's no intrinsically correct way of looking at it (as the numbers themselves mean nothing on their own in real terms without a whole host of extra info). Thus it's best to go with the generally accepted way I guess It was still a very good and informative article though, with the exception of the 'misleading' title. The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Well, if you're more intelligent than I and mature enough to be out of high school then perhaps you'd care to educate rather than denigrate?
I still think the article was pretty clear and informative in it's claims and never mentioned a clock speed (bus speed*clock multiplier) above 550MHz. I suppose you can interpret the 1100MHz figure however you please. I chose to interpret it in a way that made sense. If you choose to interpret it another way then perhaps you should consider how it was intended before slagging the writer of the article off as an idiot. The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
I can't see how you can argue that there aren't 1100 * 10^6 potentially useable cpu cycles per second going on inside that box.
Nobody is suggesting that it is equivalent to a single cpu, not me, not the author of the original article, not by a long shot
I don't think your analogy fits the situation. A closer analogy would be two people working on a job. You've still got two man-hours per hour, regardless of whether one of them is sitting twiddling his thumbs (performing fast-fourier transforms for Seti@Home in his head) or how much time they spend talking to organise sharing of the workload. Equally you have 1100 * 10^6 cpu cycles per second in that box.
It continues to amaze me that people insist on commenting on articles they clearly haven't read.
This demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on how to avoid making yourself look like a total fool.
The article is very clear on what an SMP system does and does not do. If you'd read it you'd know that.
The 1100Mhz figure is correct, it is simply a measure of the number of CPU cycles per second going on under the hood. It is not a measure of overall speed, nor did anyone say it was.
Some of the 'experts' on Slashdot are clearly so 'knowledgable' that they don't need to read an article to comment on it. Slashdot should do something about this (see my post above).
It is 1100Mhz. All that means is that you have 1100M cpu cycles a second which is undeniably true as far as I can see.
I didn't see anyone claiming that it was equivalent to a single chip running at 1100Mhz, in fact if you actually read the article the guy explains what SMP is useful for and what limitations it has in his "Theory" section on the first and second page.
Slashdot should implement a system which gives people -1 on a comment unless they've actually visited the article being discussed (logged by having an internal link which redirects to the target article). There are clearly far too many people commenting on something they haven't read (often in an attempt be first post?).
Oh yeah, I'm sure that now crackers are 'armed' with the knowledge that there are more than two firewalls they'll be into the thing in minutes. I mean, multiple firewalls on something pretty important to the economy, who'd a thunk it?
Information is a tool. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the ASX generates a hell of a lot of information and that there are many people tapping into it (or perhaps you think someone is typing in all those stock tickers).
An ASX separated from the outside world would be much less useful.
Oh, and what part of the article mentioned 'the ASX database' (whatever that means!) and what bad security practices does it reveal?
Surely you aren't suggesting that using multiple firewalls is a bad idea? The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
It's funny how an AAP story on a story on an Australian TV program suddenly becomes international news on Slashdot.
From what I recall of the original story on TV (I was half asleep at the time).
1. The ASX gets loads of people trying to get into it. 2. Almost all of these people are idiots who have seen "Wargames" and think they'll give it a try. 3. There have been a few serious (ie more than clueless) attempts, he mentioned two, one from Victoria (the state, not a person), and another which was traced back to a military installation in the US (via a hacked site in New Zealand IIRC). 4. The ASX has pretty good security, using multiple firewalls through which noone has got further than the first. The guy was also very careful not to boast about how good it was or to go into any great detail. He merely stated a few facts.
A lot of you seem to be saying 'well obviously the military box was compromised' as if such a point had never crossed the guys mind.
It seems to me that they simply went to the right source to stop their problem (unless you expect them to hack back in to the US military box to trace the hacker, news at 10, Australian Stock Exchange hacks into US Military site).
That and the fact that they want local laws changed to make prosecuting local hackers easier (as the person from Victoria was traced but could not be prosecuted because he was not caught 'in the act').
Hardly Earth shattering stuff Slashdot. The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Do *you* know the requirements for a dufus?
on
Corel Clears the Air
·
· Score: 1
Firstly copyright and licensing are two separate issues.
The statement re unauthorised use at the bottom of my pages has everything to do with licensing.
People have sent me pictures for my page under the strict conditions that I take them down if they later request and do not allow distribution elsewhere.
The easiest way I have of fulfilling my multiple obligations to different people is to get people to ask me if they can use a photo.
When I have no such restrictions I generally have no problems allowing use: See here for an example
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Do *you* know the requirements for GPL packages?
on
Corel Clears the Air
·
· Score: 2
It has nothing to do with public/private distribution, any distribution requires the GPL to be transfered.
Internal use may even count as distribution, however GPL only forces you to give source code and confer the license to those internal people, and it's likely they'll agree not to distribute further. You probably can't 'enforce' that as a company, but you can probably 'suggest' it, as Corel could have simply indicated to their new beta testers that they'd prefer it wasn't passed around.
The fact that Corel themselves released a license for the beta indicates that it is not an _internal_ beta.....if it were then confidentiality etc etc would be covered by existing contracts would they not?
They are however doing the right thing now but it is understandable that people get angry. When it comes down to it without the GPL we have 'nothing'. If they'd tried to violate another companies license they'd probably get something far nastier than a tongue lashing on Slashdot
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't claiming that Corel owns the rights to the bulk of it, everyone else is merely covered by the "and others" bit.
Basically it's saying that the people who own the various bits of software have their rights and interests protected by laws.
Who'd a thunk it?
If you are submitting code to the main PHP authors then you wouldn't be doing it under GPL (or more to the point the PHP authors wouldn't accept it if you were, you'd have to submit it to them under a non GPL licence and they'll release it to the world under both licences). Whether this is explicitly stated somewhere I do not know. But impliciitly if you are submitting code to the PHP authors for inclusion with PHP then you must be.
On the other hand you could presumably fork off your own version from PHP3 released only under GPL but:
a) You'd have to work pretty hard to keep/catch up with PHP4
b) Unless you are providing some serious improvements your version would offer nothing over the official version.
c) People are likely to think you are a bit of a pillock.
So what? The www is no such closed environment and the stats seem to be heading ie's way, which one way or another disenfranchises Linux users.
Linux/Open software are fighting many battles. Linux is continuing to kick some arse in the server battle. Gnome/KDE & some pretty cool window managers are making interesting inroads into desktop space. But until Mozilla crystallises into something useful the proprietary OS-specific internet explorer is going to make life more and more difficult on the world wide web.
I'd like it if people could optionally make their slashboxes publicly viewable.
Then they could be made available through a "Random users Slashbox" slashbox or by specifically entering their username.
I believe you'd stumble accross some interesting links that way, a sort of anarchic memepool (perhaps basing the chance of a users slashbox being chosen as the random one on their karma, to prevent slashbox spamming.)
Brings me such delightful links as "START HERE: Barely Legal Teens".
After reloading several times my favourite was: "START HERE: for the best free ass pics".
I hope there aren't any kiddies with fragile little minds using Lycos to find pictures of our four legged friends!
Searching for "pussy cat" brings me a picture of "Spice Girls Kneeling in front of Planet Hollywood" (ahem). I'm not entirely sure the people at Lycos are entirely qualified to be performing word association for the world at large.
It is good for a laugh though!
And the banks will presumably check that.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
I wonder how difficult this woman will find obtaining credit cards in future? I can't imagine Visa and Mastercard rushing to give her a new card!
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Under GPL there is no compulsion to 'give changes back' to the community.
I can take a GPL program, make whatever changes I like to it, and not have to give anyone a single thing.
If I then distribute my program then I am compelled to offer the source to the people I distribute the program to.
There is no compulsion for me to give the modified source to the community (though anyone I had distributed to would be free to do so, which I believe includes employees if 'I' were a company, but IANAL).
It obviously makes sense to pass any useful additions back to the community, for all the reasons that make Open Source a good idea, but there is no compulsion about it.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
I guess the (or at least one) 'problem' they face is that Gnome is made up of loads of different bits with different (yet often similar) version numbers and that adding a version number to the whole package may confuse/mislead (ie people expecting Gnome 1.0.50 to contain 1.0.50 versions of gnome-core, gnome-libs etc etc).
I think a named release isn't a bad idea.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Righto 2.0.7 it is.
The question now is can I safely upgrade (using an RPM or by spending a day downloading and compiling all the bits and pieces) without breaking other things?
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Seeing as most of the on topic stuff would have already been said a day or so ago I thought I'd ask how do I detect which glibc I have?
My system is RedHat 5.2 based so I'm guessing that it isn't 2.1
I've got RH 6, Caldera 2.2-N and Suse 6.2 CDs lurking about, I wonder if I can pull it off one of them without completely screwing my system? Any suggestions (or more importantly warnings) before I give it a go?
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
>And yes, I do have a sense of humor
And I'm big enough to admit I'm probably wrong. ("eventually"-all).
I was thinking in terms of cpu clock cycles (in a similar sense to man hours), not clock cycles. I guess there's no intrinsically correct way of looking at it (as the numbers themselves mean nothing on their own in real terms without a whole host of extra info).
Thus it's best to go with the generally accepted way I guess
It was still a very good and informative article though, with the exception of the 'misleading' title.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
MHz != Clockspeed, MHz == 10*6 cycles per second. I never mentioned operations once.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Well, if you're more intelligent than I and mature enough to be out of high school then perhaps you'd care to educate rather than denigrate?
I still think the article was pretty clear and informative in it's claims and never mentioned a clock speed (bus speed*clock multiplier) above 550MHz. I suppose you can interpret the 1100MHz figure however you please. I chose to interpret it in a way that made sense. If you choose to interpret it another way then perhaps you should consider how it was intended before slagging the writer of the article off as an idiot.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
I can't see how you can argue that there aren't 1100 * 10^6 potentially useable cpu cycles per second going on inside that box.
Nobody is suggesting that it is equivalent to a single cpu, not me, not the author of the original article, not by a long shot
I don't think your analogy fits the situation. A closer analogy would be two people working on a job. You've still got two man-hours per hour, regardless of whether one of them is sitting twiddling his thumbs (performing fast-fourier transforms for Seti@Home in his head) or how much time they spend talking to organise sharing of the workload. Equally you have 1100 * 10^6 cpu cycles per second in that box.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
It continues to amaze me that people insist on commenting on articles they clearly haven't read.
This demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on how to avoid making yourself look like a total fool.
The article is very clear on what an SMP system does and does not do. If you'd read it you'd know that.
The 1100Mhz figure is correct, it is simply a measure of the number of CPU cycles per second going on under the hood. It is not a measure of overall speed, nor did anyone say it was.
Some of the 'experts' on Slashdot are clearly so 'knowledgable' that they don't need to read an article to comment on it. Slashdot should do something about this (see my post above).
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
It is 1100Mhz. All that means is that you have 1100M cpu cycles a second which is undeniably true as far as I can see.
I didn't see anyone claiming that it was equivalent to a single chip running at 1100Mhz, in fact if you actually read the article the guy explains what SMP is useful for and what limitations it has in his "Theory" section on the first and second page.
Slashdot should implement a system which gives people -1 on a comment unless they've actually visited the article being discussed (logged by having an internal link which redirects to the target article). There are clearly far too many people commenting on something they haven't read (often in an attempt be first post?).
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
How about that?
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Oh yeah, I'm sure that now crackers are 'armed' with the knowledge that there are more than two firewalls they'll be into the thing in minutes.
I mean, multiple firewalls on something pretty important to the economy, who'd a thunk it?
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Information is a tool. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the ASX generates a hell of a lot of information and that there are many people tapping into it (or perhaps you think someone is typing in all those stock tickers).
An ASX separated from the outside world would be much less useful.
Oh, and what part of the article mentioned 'the ASX database' (whatever that means!) and what bad security practices does it reveal?
Surely you aren't suggesting that using multiple firewalls is a bad idea?
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
It's funny how an AAP story on a story on an Australian TV program suddenly becomes international news on Slashdot.
From what I recall of the original story on TV (I was half asleep at the time).
1. The ASX gets loads of people trying to get into it.
2. Almost all of these people are idiots who have seen "Wargames" and think they'll give it a try.
3. There have been a few serious (ie more than clueless) attempts, he mentioned two, one from Victoria (the state, not a person), and another which was traced back to a military installation in the US (via a hacked site in New Zealand IIRC).
4. The ASX has pretty good security, using multiple firewalls through which noone has got further than the first. The guy was also very careful not to boast about how good it was or to go into any great detail. He merely stated a few facts.
A lot of you seem to be saying 'well obviously the military box was compromised' as if such a point had never crossed the guys mind.
It seems to me that they simply went to the right source to stop their problem (unless you expect them to hack back in to the US military box to trace the hacker, news at 10, Australian Stock Exchange hacks into US Military site).
That and the fact that they want local laws changed to make prosecuting local hackers easier (as the person from Victoria was traced but could not be prosecuted because he was not caught 'in the act').
Hardly Earth shattering stuff Slashdot.
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Firstly copyright and licensing are two separate issues.
The statement re unauthorised use at the bottom of my pages has everything to do with licensing.
People have sent me pictures for my page under the strict conditions that I take them down if they later request and do not allow distribution elsewhere.
The easiest way I have of fulfilling my multiple obligations to different people is to get people to ask me if they can use a photo.
When I have no such restrictions I generally have no problems allowing use:
See here for an example
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
It has nothing to do with public/private distribution, any distribution requires the GPL to be transfered.
Internal use may even count as distribution, however GPL only forces you to give source code and confer the license to those internal people, and it's likely they'll agree not to distribute further. You probably can't 'enforce' that as a company, but you can probably 'suggest' it, as Corel could have simply indicated to their new beta testers that they'd prefer it wasn't passed around.
The fact that Corel themselves released a license for the beta indicates that it is not an _internal_ beta.....if it were then confidentiality etc etc would be covered by existing contracts would they not?
They are however doing the right thing now but it is understandable that people get angry. When it comes down to it without the GPL we have 'nothing'. If they'd tried to violate another companies license they'd probably get something far nastier than a tongue lashing on Slashdot
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
"The FIN is a non-partisan, grassroots network of citizens and businesses who have a stake in the success of Microsoft and the high-tech industry.
Microsoft have somehow manage to 'embrace and extend' the definition of non-partisan to include people that 'have a stake in the success of microsoft'
How can anyone have a problem with innovation like that!
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!