Perl is open source right?
You can use it most likely.
In fact, the question already came up
regarding Berkeley DB using the
open source sleepy cat license.
That was deemed acceptable.
The key is for it to be open source.
Electrons may be free, but actually moving
electrons (or equivalent) takes energy.
One other item to mention, an ISPs cost
of bandwidth from a core provider can
also be variable. That is, the ISP can
be charged $X for A Mb/sec, $X+Y for (A+B) Mb/sec,
and $X+Z for (A+C) Mb/sec. So, the ISP wants
to keep their end-users from (on average)
using too much bandwidth as that can prevent
the kick-in of incremental charges.
So, if you are a heavy user, which contributes
to the variable charges, then as an ISP, I
want to charge you in a variable manner also.
They are just doing the same billing to
their users as is done to them. Logical, eh?
You're not completely wrong. Real old copper
was not twisted by design. There is a bunch
of it out there still being used today.
Think trunks. Bundles of 'pairs' but each
pair was not twisted. You could have cables
with hundreds of 'pairs', but all of the wires
inside would be parallel to each other.
Fine. Great. Only in XP, right?
So, they have a moratorium on new development,
big deal. What were they coding that
was new anyway, XP2?
MSFT is at the point that there
really is not much else to do BUT fix bugs.
Why is bandwith at the backbone level so expensive when so many research papers prove it can be
done for cheaper? Who is pricing that stuff?
My theory is that it is a conspiracy,
driven by the gubmint, in particular NSA.
The unlit fibre out there should (in theory)
lead to lower prices for bandwidth.
But, if more bandwidth was available,
more would be utilized, and NSA cannot
keep up as it is now.
I understand your logic, yes, there
*could* be an open source and/or free software
solution to the problem.
But why should there have to be such a
solution? That would be solving a problem
that should not exist in the first place!
More importantly, that could lead to slippery slope
thinking with regards to MSFTs dominate position.
Once done, MSFT can continue to embrace, extend,
break, and *THEN* argue that the OS/FS crowd
has *fixed* the problem before, and therefore
can continue to jump through hoops again.
Once that starts occurring, MSFT would be
in a dominate position to attempt to set all
standards, and all freedoms would be lost.
No, MSFT *MUST* follow known standards properly.
If they want to create a new standard, they
can follow the RFC process just like anyone else.
It is simply a case of auditing code and saying "hey look here I do an
strcpy(dest,source) and I don't make sure the source is smaller than the desk...".
At first I thought that was a typo,
but then I realized you were referring to CodeRed.
Beware a
programmer who ever claims that they need to rewrite something: 9 times out of 10 it's because they
are lazy, or they're just not smart enough to figure it out.
Apparently you've encountered quite alot
of clean, well documented code. Lucky you.
It's really nothing new.
Generally, the 'harder' the logic medium, the
fewer bugs. Bugs in firmware are more
plentiful than in hardware, but less so than
pure software.
As Intel and AMD race to produce faster
processors, expect more hardware bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's 'closest competitor'?
It does not exist by any definition of 'close'.
Perl is open source right? You can use it most likely. In fact, the question already came up regarding Berkeley DB using the open source sleepy cat license. That was deemed acceptable. The key is for it to be open source.
No wonder it didn't work. I was using 0xdeadbeef.
That said, your suggestion of using hooks will also require patches 'all over the kernel'.
One other item to mention, an ISPs cost of bandwidth from a core provider can also be variable. That is, the ISP can be charged $X for A Mb/sec, $X+Y for (A+B) Mb/sec, and $X+Z for (A+C) Mb/sec. So, the ISP wants to keep their end-users from (on average) using too much bandwidth as that can prevent the kick-in of incremental charges.
So, if you are a heavy user, which contributes to the variable charges, then as an ISP, I want to charge you in a variable manner also. They are just doing the same billing to their users as is done to them. Logical, eh?
More than MSFT will find this February.
Agreed. It would have made some sense if they had some ads next to it.
You're not completely wrong. Real old copper was not twisted by design. There is a bunch of it out there still being used today. Think trunks. Bundles of 'pairs' but each pair was not twisted. You could have cables with hundreds of 'pairs', but all of the wires inside would be parallel to each other.
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03104.html
Fine. Great. Only in XP, right?
So, they have a moratorium on new development, big deal.
What were they coding that was new anyway, XP2?
MSFT is at the point that there really is not much else to do BUT fix bugs.
My theory is that it is a conspiracy, driven by the gubmint, in particular NSA. The unlit fibre out there should (in theory) lead to lower prices for bandwidth. But, if more bandwidth was available, more would be utilized, and NSA cannot keep up as it is now.
Carnegie Mellon University
High-tech debugging so to speak.
Perhaps planning upon (and starting in parallel) a 3.x series with major changes is the way to go.
I would try a 400W PSU.
But why should there have to be such a solution? That would be solving a problem that should not exist in the first place!
More importantly, that could lead to slippery slope thinking with regards to MSFTs dominate position. Once done, MSFT can continue to embrace, extend, break, and *THEN* argue that the OS/FS crowd has *fixed* the problem before, and therefore can continue to jump through hoops again. Once that starts occurring, MSFT would be in a dominate position to attempt to set all standards, and all freedoms would be lost.
No, MSFT *MUST* follow known standards properly. If they want to create a new standard, they can follow the RFC process just like anyone else.
Seconded. Do NOT post any hints here.
BTW, the problem that he is demonstrating has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Linux.
Mr. Zero, your brain has been embraced, but not extended.
Buy a vowel.
At first I thought that was a typo, but then I realized you were referring to CodeRed.
Apparently you've encountered quite alot of clean, well documented code. Lucky you.
Possible if you are using the latest m$ spyware.
Charter provides the bandwidth.
Earthlink provides e-mail and Usenet.
Point your browser to http://192.168.1.100/
BTW I agree with your other points.
It's really nothing new. Generally, the 'harder' the logic medium, the fewer bugs.
Bugs in firmware are more plentiful than in hardware, but less so than pure software.
As Intel and AMD race to produce faster processors, expect more hardware bugs.