Why the hostility? Asobalas post didnt include a replacement icon, plus when I posted his comment didnt exist yet (look at the timestamps, we both posted at pretty much the exact same time).
The GNOME section icon is out of date: GNOME changed their logo about a year ago. I've done a new topic icon with the new logo if one of the slashdot editors is interested in putting it in.
You could encrypt the passwords in the gaim registry, but you'd have to be able to decrypt them again. So any encryption you added would add no security to the storage at all. This is a concept known as "security through obscurity". In the end its simply easier to store them as plain text, as encrypting the passwords adds the fake impression of security and would mislead the users into thinking their passwords were actually secure.
the fact that you are working to prevent a certain group of people from using your software is morally wrong from a Free Software point of view.
Free Software is about software without restrictions on its use. The FSF wouldnt be imposing any new restrictions on its use by removing support for SCO Unix. Removing support doesnt prevent anyone from creating a patch to add that support back.
Being Free doesnt mean they are obliged to support every platform, especially ones that are hostile toward the Free Software community.
gcc is still Open Source. They would not be placing any additional restrictions on the use of gcc, so anybody could create a patch for gcc to make it work again. They would simply be choosing to remove support for SCO Unix from the mainline gcc source, so it would no longer work "out of the box". Besides, they havent actually removed support yet, though they have hinted they may do in the future if SCO continues its behaviour.
There are no GNU/Linux systems running without GNU software.
Thats circular reasoning, a GNU/Linux system is one that uses GNU software by definition:)
I've pointed this out before, but I have a distribution for the Psion Revo which I maintain, which is linux based but contains no GNU software. Hence it is a non-GNU linux system and calling it GNU/Linux system would be technically wrong.
In general you're mostly right, though. There are very few real systems that do not use GNU software.
They basically do this already, though - IE uses the MSN search engine if you enter search terms into the address bar.
One thing I suppose they could do is add some kind of totally open API for searches - google has a SOAP API but you're restricted on the number of searches you can do per day. Suppose MS offer the same thing, but with no restrictions, they could undercut google and attract web developers. Kind of like what they did to netscape by making IE available to all users for free.
At the end of the day, its the number of users that matters, and with the users its the search results that matter. Google is lightyears ahead, so MS would definitely have to work hard to catch up.
I dont mind them dropping support; infact I think its a good thing. I was referring to the suggestion that licenses should be changed to prevent software being used on SCO UNIX.
Presumably nmap previously had code in to support running under SCO UNIX. They've basically just removed it. They wont be supporting nmap running under SCO in future.
Of course, theres nothing to stop anybody from maintaining a patch to keep it running under SCO UNIX, but I guess they still lose some support. I suppose in a way its a form of passive resistance - kind of like the FSF boycott of Apple, where they wouldnt port anything to MacOS after their "look and feel" lawsuit..
is it possible to release something under a GPL license that states:
everything the GPL currently states PLUS "except SCO, which has no right to even breath on said bits"
A program with this restriction would not be Open Source - read The Open Source Definition, specifically section 5, "No discrimination against persons or groups".
Personally I think such suggestions are childish and stupid. The entire point of the GPL is that the software does not have owners who can control and restrict how it is used.
Yes, and these are points I've thought about. You'd definitely need some kind of secure interface to check the validity of the filesystem calls (to stop rogue processes from confusing the VFS), but thats pretty much true of all existing calls anyway.
You'd have to have rules on how the mounting would be done: only mounting on directories owned by the user for example (to stop people doing things like mounting over/lib). And you'd have to place restrictions on the permissions in the mounted FS - like no SUID root binaries (or anyone could mount their own filesystem with an SUID root shell). Linux already does something like this when mounting floppy disks - theres a "nosuid" option.
These are really implementation details though. They exist because they rely on the idea that "only root can mount filesystems". But I think that the ability for ordinary users to mount filesystems would be really useful. And thinking of it as a concept, I cant really see any logical reason why ordinary users shouldnt be allowed to do it.
While I'm not a huge fan of microkernels, this is one area where a system like the Hurd has advantages over Linux.
In the Hurd all the filesystems are done by userspace programs called "translators". So to access your local filesystem you have an ext2 translator which accesses it. You can write your own translators - I believe they have a system to access remote systems via FTP.
Both fish/gnome-vfs and the kernel module system seem wrong to me. With kernel modules you have to be root to load them, but on the other hand its bad to be remaking the wheel by rewriting the filesystem in user space (plus, it only works with programs that are designed to use it).
It would be nice if the kernel module was added to the main kernel and offered as a "standard" system where nonprivileged users can mount their own filesystems from userspace daemons - Linux is kind of paranoid about non-root users mounting FSes. It would appear to provide the advantages that the Hurd approach brings, while keeping the higher performance of a monolithic kernel (having all FSes in user space like Hurd does seems like a bad idea performance wise)
"We have to remember that Linux is a follow-on to UNIX. It's not just a UNIX clone. It's actually a UNIX successor."
Bruce Perens, mpulse magazine, December 2001.
IKVM uses the.net (or mono in this case) VM to run Java programs - it converts JVM bytecode to.net CLR bytecode. Telling miguel to "cut the crap" is self defeating - IKVM needs Mono to run under Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the hostility? Asobalas post didnt include a replacement icon, plus when I posted his comment didnt exist yet (look at the timestamps, we both posted at pretty much the exact same time).
The GNOME section icon is out of date: GNOME changed their logo about a year ago. I've done a new topic icon with the new logo if one of the slashdot editors is interested in putting it in.
You know you're a geek when you name your daughter after a programming language..
Man, I cant drink that mozilla coffee. It bloats me up.
You could encrypt the passwords in the gaim registry, but you'd have to be able to decrypt them again. So any encryption you added would add no security to the storage at all. This is a concept known as "security through obscurity". In the end its simply easier to store them as plain text, as encrypting the passwords adds the fake impression of security and would mislead the users into thinking their passwords were actually secure.
Being Free doesnt mean they are obliged to support every platform, especially ones that are hostile toward the Free Software community.
Saying they're not removing support for the time being is "childish"?
gcc is still Open Source. They would not be placing any additional restrictions on the use of gcc, so anybody could create a patch for gcc to make it work again. They would simply be choosing to remove support for SCO Unix from the mainline gcc source, so it would no longer work "out of the box". Besides, they havent actually removed support yet, though they have hinted they may do in the future if SCO continues its behaviour.
X cut and paste can be confusing, mainly because there are two ways of doing it. Jamie Zawinski wrote a good article which explains how it works.
Yeah, I seriously thought about registering the domain but when I last looked the .cx domains were fairly expensive. Also, I'm a cheap bastard :)
I've pointed this out before, but I have a distribution for the Psion Revo which I maintain, which is linux based but contains no GNU software. Hence it is a non-GNU linux system and calling it GNU/Linux system would be technically wrong.
In general you're mostly right, though. There are very few real systems that do not use GNU software.
One thing I suppose they could do is add some kind of totally open API for searches - google has a SOAP API but you're restricted on the number of searches you can do per day. Suppose MS offer the same thing, but with no restrictions, they could undercut google and attract web developers. Kind of like what they did to netscape by making IE available to all users for free.
At the end of the day, its the number of users that matters, and with the users its the search results that matter. Google is lightyears ahead, so MS would definitely have to work hard to catch up.
I dont mind them dropping support; infact I think its a good thing. I was referring to the suggestion that licenses should be changed to prevent software being used on SCO UNIX.
Presumably nmap previously had code in to support running under SCO UNIX. They've basically just removed it. They wont be supporting nmap running under SCO in future.
Of course, theres nothing to stop anybody from maintaining a patch to keep it running under SCO UNIX, but I guess they still lose some support. I suppose in a way its a form of passive resistance - kind of like the FSF boycott of Apple, where they wouldnt port anything to MacOS after their "look and feel" lawsuit..
Personally I think such suggestions are childish and stupid. The entire point of the GPL is that the software does not have owners who can control and restrict how it is used.
You'd have to have rules on how the mounting would be done: only mounting on directories owned by the user for example (to stop people doing things like mounting over
These are really implementation details though. They exist because they rely on the idea that "only root can mount filesystems". But I think that the ability for ordinary users to mount filesystems would be really useful. And thinking of it as a concept, I cant really see any logical reason why ordinary users shouldnt be allowed to do it.
In the Hurd all the filesystems are done by userspace programs called "translators". So to access your local filesystem you have an ext2 translator which accesses it. You can write your own translators - I believe they have a system to access remote systems via FTP.
Both fish/gnome-vfs and the kernel module system seem wrong to me. With kernel modules you have to be root to load them, but on the other hand its bad to be remaking the wheel by rewriting the filesystem in user space (plus, it only works with programs that are designed to use it).
It would be nice if the kernel module was added to the main kernel and offered as a "standard" system where nonprivileged users can mount their own filesystems from userspace daemons - Linux is kind of paranoid about non-root users mounting FSes. It would appear to provide the advantages that the Hurd approach brings, while keeping the higher performance of a monolithic kernel (having all FSes in user space like Hurd does seems like a bad idea performance wise)
Do SCO plan on attending?
"SAP and MySQL announced that they would call the new database 'MySQL Firebird'.."
Are they implying their own product is obsolete?
Why doesnt nmap use libnet?
IKVM uses the .net (or mono in this case) VM to run Java programs - it converts JVM bytecode to .net CLR bytecode. Telling miguel to "cut the crap" is self defeating - IKVM needs Mono to run under Linux.