And both the ABC and CBS nightly news (sorry can't watch NBC's nightly news due to scheduling conflict). I believe it also got some blurbs in the local news too (must have been a slow crime day in the neighborhood).
Seriously, this news was very very hard to miss...
Latest press release from SCO does an amazing job at spinning this HP announcement their way. Unbelieveable how fast they can produce this crap.
HP's actions this morning reaffirm the fact that enterprise end users running Linux are exposed to legal risks. Rather than deny the existence of substantial structural problems with Linux as many Open Source leaders have done, HP is acknowledging that issues exist and is attempting to be responsive to its customers' request for relief. HP's actions are driving the Linux industry towards a licensing program. In other words, Linux is not free.
We are gratified that, alone among the major Linux vendors, HP has taken a strong stand to protect their customers by indemnifying them against possible legal difficulties stemming from their use of Linux. We believe that this action signals that HP recognizes their Linux users could, in fact, face litigation because of copyright violations and intellectual property problems within Linux. As a company that strongly supports its customers, HP has done something about this.
Now that HP has stepped up for its customers, SCO once again encourages Red Hat, IBM and other major Linux vendors to do the same. We think their customers will demand it.
Oh yes, I can completely see the benefits of storing SQL statement in text files (XML or otherwise) - no question about it. Although I do most of my web programming in scripting languages that don't require compiling, so the benefits are somewhat mitigated. Although typing make is not that hard anyway.
The original poster I responded to seemed to be horrified at hard coding SQL statement since doing so may reveal the db schema to a user. Well, whatever. I don't see the point of hiding a db schema from anyone (is there anything particularly innovative about a db layout? I could probably come up with my own faster than decompiling anything). I would be more concerned about keeping intruders out of my database than hiding it's schema.
hmm... allright... I guess you've defined how to do this for a web application where both the XML file and the application itself would be on the same server. I can think of only one possible use for this scenario - perhaps if you're a web hosting company and trying to hide the SQL from your customers. Anybody else would have to be an admin on the server to reconfigure apache, and therefore would have access to the xml file no matter what.
I really didn't have that scenario in mind , but good effort! If I ever get into that business (web hosting) I'll have to remember that trick..
Yes, I get the idea that decompiling the code would not yield SQL statements, but all you've done is shifting the problem from one file to another. It's probably harder to decompile an exe that it would be to read and retreive an XML file. If you're talking about encrypting that XML file then how do you hide the encryption keys? Even if you successfully hide the encryption keys it will be TRIVIAL to read the SQL statements read out of the xml file using a debugger.
All this to hide some SQL statements... Jeez... Sounds like a heck of a lot more work than neccessary. I doubt that knowing a SQL statement will yield any great secrets. SQL statements are data. They are not any more secret than the decompiled code itself.
interesting... But it doesn't addresses the original poster that a user could see the SQL and therefore guess the db design/structure since presumably you'd have to distribute that external file with the application.
(Ps: not that I really think it's a valid concern, I just think people misunderstood my question. An external file for the SQL is something I do too, I just don't see it as a solution is his problem/statement).
The original poster suggested not hardcoding SQL because of the all the security issue it might cause (a user might see what the db structure is, etc). I don't see how keeping the SQLs in an XML file would change anything there...
OK, I guess I need a programming lesson then. For a database driven application, how do you propose not to have hardcoded SQL statements? Have the SQL statements looked up in the database or something? And how would you do that without hardcoding statements?
You're right, I am not a lawyer, but it sounds that I would have to be one (or hire one) to enforce the views of this somewhat biased website (the bias being clearly against numbering).
My research on this subject is a bit more "first hand" than a reference to an obscure website. As a foreigner that was not given a SS# at birth (yes, they do that now I understand) I can tell you that unless you're ready to sue a potential employer about this, you will be required to get a SS#. The only way you don't need a SS# is if you have an ITIN# (issued by the IRS for tax purposes). The only way you can get an ITIN# is if you're not eligible for a SS#.
Then I got married to another foreigner and we went through the same loop just to get a driver's license in Pennsylvania. Sorry, we did not have the time to sue the state to see if the website above is correct.
Yes, I am sure the IRS will be very happy to hear when your employer says to them "sorry, he refused to give the number to us". I have news for you, your employer must get your SS#. That's the law.
Of course, at least where I work, they use the SS# for more than just payroll purposes. I.e. it's my ID to get in the place in the morning (it's on my swipe card, or I can type it in). THAT is wrong.
hehe... yes, it does look like i should re-read before posting.
I find your answer amazing (and not in a good way). I can only hope (and expect you will) change your mind if/when you do have kids. I I don't have kids, but I have one on the way. I can already see how my opinion on things (like this topic) is changing.
I understand there are things you can't compromise on. Things like genocide is in that category. Nothing even remotely like software or computers is in that category. I would work for both SCO and Microsoft at the same time if I had to.
Did you live on the street with your kids as well? Just checking. Would you have been more willing to compromise a bit if you had kids to support? IF you can honestly say 'yes' to that question, then I can honestly call you a moron. And I doubt your kids would have 'cherished' that memory of living on the street as much as you did. That's the kind of thing people would go to see shrinks for.
On your resume, next to each job listed there is a timeline. If there is a big gap in the timeline (i.e. the last 5 years are missing) it's likely to come up in the interview. I suppose you can choose not to answer. And they can choose not to hire you as a result.
Right, and the question being raised here essentially is: "Is this DRM implementation legal?". We have certain rights, which, arguably, shouldn't be limited by technology such as DRM.
of course you can sue in civil court for this (at least in the US). You can't get someone in jail, but you most definetely sue for money. There are been hundreds (thousands?) of shareholder civil lawsuits (class action usually) in the last few years.
The whole point of.Net on Linux (in my opinion) is interoperability. However, at least two of the key technologies (Windows Forms and Web Forms) are not part of the ECMA standard. They are owned (patented? copyrighted? not sure which) by Microsoft.
The "underlying Mono infrastructure" in itself is of little interest, other than possibly as some sort of "neat" technology.
This is like saying that Java runs on every platform except for swing only works on Solaris.
Microsoft may not have sued Wine (who should they sue?) but now that Mono is owned/developed by Novell (a big target) things may change. I think that's what the Novell guy is implying.
You definition of theft (which I guess involves physical goods - you haven't really explained either) is a bit outdated in this day and age. Most people would define theft as "taking something without paying or without the owner's consent" - downloading "pirated" copyrighted music would qualify. The fact that no disk is being stolen from a record store is not that relevant.
But anyway, thanks for pointing out the possible technicality.
Companies that sell a product based on the GPL code might shy from using the GPL code. Yes, maybe.
But companies (like the one I work for) that use GPL code extensively to support their internal operations (manufacturing) and don't have to release one line of that code to anyone have no problems with the GPL.
Encrypts a file which then mounts as a drive letter when decrypted. Pretty handy! All my sensitive files goes in there (mounts as drive s:\ ) and it stays mounted until I unmounted.
Slashdot Mirror
And both the ABC and CBS nightly news (sorry can't watch NBC's nightly news due to scheduling conflict). I believe it also got some blurbs in the local news too (must have been a slow crime day in the neighborhood).
Seriously, this news was very very hard to miss...
OK, so you can't decompile Beans?
Oh yes, I can completely see the benefits of storing SQL statement in text files (XML or otherwise) - no question about it. Although I do most of my web programming in scripting languages that don't require compiling, so the benefits are somewhat mitigated. Although typing make is not that hard anyway.
The original poster I responded to seemed to be horrified at hard coding SQL statement since doing so may reveal the db schema to a user. Well, whatever. I don't see the point of hiding a db schema from anyone (is there anything particularly innovative about a db layout? I could probably come up with my own faster than decompiling anything). I would be more concerned about keeping intruders out of my database than hiding it's schema.
hmm... allright... I guess you've defined how to do this for a web application where both the XML file and the application itself would be on the same server. I can think of only one possible use for this scenario - perhaps if you're a web hosting company and trying to hide the SQL from your customers. Anybody else would have to be an admin on the server to reconfigure apache, and therefore would have access to the xml file no matter what.
I really didn't have that scenario in mind , but good effort! If I ever get into that business (web hosting) I'll have to remember that trick..
Yes, I get the idea that decompiling the code would not yield SQL statements, but all you've done is shifting the problem from one file to another. It's probably harder to decompile an exe that it would be to read and retreive an XML file. If you're talking about encrypting that XML file then how do you hide the encryption keys? Even if you successfully hide the encryption keys it will be TRIVIAL to read the SQL statements read out of the xml file using a debugger.
All this to hide some SQL statements... Jeez... Sounds like a heck of a lot more work than neccessary. I doubt that knowing a SQL statement will yield any great secrets. SQL statements are data. They are not any more secret than the decompiled code itself.
interesting... But it doesn't addresses the original poster that a user could see the SQL and therefore guess the db design/structure since presumably you'd have to distribute that external file with the application.
(Ps: not that I really think it's a valid concern, I just think people misunderstood my question. An external file for the SQL is something I do too, I just don't see it as a solution is his problem/statement).
The original poster suggested not hardcoding SQL because of the all the security issue it might cause (a user might see what the db structure is, etc). I don't see how keeping the SQLs in an XML file would change anything there...
OK, I guess I need a programming lesson then. For a database driven application, how do you propose not to have hardcoded SQL statements? Have the SQL statements looked up in the database or something? And how would you do that without hardcoding statements?
I am genuinely interested by the way...
You're right, I am not a lawyer, but it sounds that I would have to be one (or hire one) to enforce the views of this somewhat biased website (the bias being clearly against numbering).
My research on this subject is a bit more "first hand" than a reference to an obscure website. As a foreigner that was not given a SS# at birth (yes, they do that now I understand) I can tell you that unless you're ready to sue a potential employer about this, you will be required to get a SS#. The only way you don't need a SS# is if you have an ITIN# (issued by the IRS for tax purposes). The only way you can get an ITIN# is if you're not eligible for a SS#.
Then I got married to another foreigner and we went through the same loop just to get a driver's license in Pennsylvania. Sorry, we did not have the time to sue the state to see if the website above is correct.
Yes, I am sure the IRS will be very happy to hear when your employer says to them "sorry, he refused to give the number to us". I have news for you, your employer must get your SS#. That's the law.
Of course, at least where I work, they use the SS# for more than just payroll purposes. I.e. it's my ID to get in the place in the morning (it's on my swipe card, or I can type it in). THAT is wrong.
Only if the whole CD is GPLed. It usually isn't (i.e. SuSe's installed is not GPLed). Otherwhise all you can do is copy the GPLed packages.
I bet she can tell she worked for the NSA (after all, you just did). Just not what she was doing there.
hehe... yes, it does look like i should re-read before posting.
I find your answer amazing (and not in a good way). I can only hope (and expect you will) change your mind if/when you do have kids. I I don't have kids, but I have one on the way. I can already see how my opinion on things (like this topic) is changing.
I understand there are things you can't compromise on. Things like genocide is in that category. Nothing even remotely like software or computers is in that category. I would work for both SCO and Microsoft at the same time if I had to.
Did you live on the street with your kids as well? Just checking. Would you have been more willing to compromise a bit if you had kids to support? IF you can honestly say 'yes' to that question, then I can honestly call you a moron. And I doubt your kids would have 'cherished' that memory of living on the street as much as you did. That's the kind of thing people would go to see shrinks for.
On your resume, next to each job listed there is a timeline. If there is a big gap in the timeline (i.e. the last 5 years are missing) it's likely to come up in the interview. I suppose you can choose not to answer. And they can choose not to hire you as a result.
Right, and the question being raised here essentially is: "Is this DRM implementation legal?". We have certain rights, which, arguably, shouldn't be limited by technology such as DRM.
I think that's what is being tested here.
of course you can sue in civil court for this (at least in the US). You can't get someone in jail, but you most definetely sue for money. There are been hundreds (thousands?) of shareholder civil lawsuits (class action usually) in the last few years.
I think he's refering to every voting location would have its own lan (with a server tallying the votes), not the whole state.
The whole point of .Net on Linux (in my opinion) is interoperability. However, at least two of the key technologies (Windows Forms and Web Forms) are not part of the ECMA standard. They are owned (patented? copyrighted? not sure which) by Microsoft.
The "underlying Mono infrastructure" in itself is of little interest, other than possibly as some sort of "neat" technology.
This is like saying that Java runs on every platform except for swing only works on Solaris.
Microsoft may not have sued Wine (who should they sue?) but now that Mono is owned/developed by Novell (a big target) things may change. I think that's what the Novell guy is implying.
You definition of theft (which I guess involves physical goods - you haven't really explained either) is a bit outdated in this day and age. Most people would define theft as "taking something without paying or without the owner's consent" - downloading "pirated" copyrighted music would qualify. The fact that no disk is being stolen from a record store is not that relevant.
But anyway, thanks for pointing out the possible technicality.
How is it "clearly" not theft? You can't make statements like that without explaining a bit. It's hardly an acknowledged fact, even on slashdot.
Companies that sell a product based on the GPL code might shy from using the GPL code. Yes, maybe.
But companies (like the one I work for) that use GPL code extensively to support their internal operations (manufacturing) and don't have to release one line of that code to anyone have no problems with the GPL.
Ever heard of PGPDisk (part of the PGP suite)?
Encrypts a file which then mounts as a drive letter when decrypted. Pretty handy! All my sensitive files goes in there (mounts as drive s:\ ) and it stays mounted until I unmounted.
I believe there is a kernel module as well that's part of the Nvidia setup.