There's controversy about Rails? Since when? I've never heard anyone say anything bad about it -- but maybe I'm too skewed in what I read. Maybe I'm listening to the programming equivalent of Fox News. =:-O
IT IS OFFICIAL; WIRED NEWS CONFIRMS: LINUX IS SUPERIOR TO *BSD *BSD is Dying, Says Respected Journal
Linux advocates have long insisted that open-source development results in better and more secure software. Now they have statistics to back up their claims.
According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers, the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the programming code of FreeBSD.
The report, set to be released on Tuesday, states that the 2.6 Linux production kernel, shipped with software from Red Hat, Novell and other major Linux software vendors, contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the average for FreeBSD software. FreeBSD, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis.
FreeBSD software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This would be equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code.
The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel. Of the 985 bugs identified, 627 were in critical parts of the kernel. Another 569 could cause a system crash, 100 were security holes, and 33 of the bugs could result in less-than-optimal system performance.
Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity, a provider of source-code analysis, noted that the majority of the bugs documented in the study have already been fixed by members of the Linux development community.
"Our findings show that Linux contains an extremely low defect rate and is evidence of the strong security of Linux," said Hallem. "Many security holes in software are the result of software bugs that can be eliminated with good programming processes."
The Linux source-code analysis project started in 2000 at the Stanford University Computer Science Research Center as part of a large research initiative to improve core software engineering processes in the software industry.
The initiative now continues at Coverity, a software engineering startup that now employs the five researchers who conducted the study. Coverity said it intends to start providing Linux bug analysis reports on a regular basis and will make a summary of the results freely available to the Linux development community.
"This is a benefit to the Linux development community, and we appreciate Coverity's efforts to help us improve the security and stability of Linux," said Andrew Morton, lead Linux kernel maintainer. Morton said developers have already addressed the top-priority bugs uncovered in the study.
more and more bands leave major (and minor) labels and start promoting themselves
the bands give their music away in exchange for patronage (you donate to artists and get special privileges depending on how much you pay, up to parties with the band, backstage access, etc.)
the major labels begin to be closed down by their corporate parents
There is no US Constitutional basis for the concept of "pirating." The Constitution says that artists (not companies, only artists) can have a limited monopoly because this encourages the creation of more art. The copying of music would otherwise fall under the first amendment, i.e. freedom of expression.
Since technological advancement is now pressing the issue, the fight will continue until the business paradigm changes for good. Unfortunately, there is no longer a need for a middleman like a major label; recorded music is no longer tied to a tangible good. (Perhaps that's not so unfortunate.) Therefore, the music can no longer be treated as a physical piece of property, and is no longer scarce; it has no inherent monetary value (despite how much you might like a song).
Public display has nothing to do with optional communication. Your child does not need to surf the internet, and if for some reason he does, he shouldn't be able to do it without your guidance. If you are not willing to provide this guidance, you have no reason to complain.
Only if you are running Cosmos. I heard that's bannz0rd. Also, hunters are losing aim-shoot, and the rogue class is getting canceled altogether (all rogues will automatically become warrior class). And all Alliance races will be getting a new racial ability: Detect Horde.
RMS seems to want everything to be free (as in freedom -- which is a great idea) *and* beer (which is unrealistic). Maybe I misunderstand him, but that can be his only actual problem with CC. And what I don't understand is: if you have a problem with the CC, and you are a well-known person who has some influence, why not work *with* the CC people and at least try to address the perceived problems -- rather than just dismiss the whole thing wholesale?
Offtopic:
You should never neeed to use a firewall on a computer with only one network interface!
Sure you should. You may believe that only the services you want to be running on the box are actually the only ones, but the extra protection of a firewall will help ensure that.
The RIAA's point of view seems to be: we don't want you putting those files on those blastard computers in the first place. Just pretend it's 1985, and listen to your expensive CDs on your expensive tradition CD players. And don't go lending your CDs to your friends -- that's illegal sharing. We're coming after you.
iTMS is a runaway success. Awesome. That helps the cause.
My point is that a band doesn't need Sony or Warner anymore. You can get your songs on iTMS via CDBaby for a very low rate. Publicity -- I can see paying something for that.
But what would a record company do for me as a musician? (Besides take the vast majority of profits from sales away from me?) I don't need them for distribution. And if someone handled the publicity part (non-internet), well, then the RIAA is just a group of dinosaurs. Its propaganda will hold it up for a few years, but ultimately it has no viable business model.
It's one thing to set your own prices. This works in an open market because other people can come along and offer a better price (if your price is too high).
But when there are limited players (a small handful of sellers, like in the record industry) and they collude to set their prices higher, that's illegal -- and it breaks the marketplace.
Of course, what ultimately fixes the whole situation is better competition, and that's coming. Musicians don't really need traditional publishing and distribution anymore. Once the practice of developing a fanbase and breaking bigtime really takes off, the dinosaurs will die. And they know it, btw.
It's not thievery, by definition. To steal means that someone loses something to someone else. That does not happen here.
This is merely a paradigm shift. As with all paradigm shifts, some people understand, and many others don't -- and the ones that don't usually start screaming "foul!"
Theft is not unbeatable in the long run. But new business models are. We don't need publishers anymore. A lot of people just aren't used to that idea yet.
Their business model is outdated. Consumers dictate business models. The industry is trying to hold on to an archaic model and attempting to use government to prop it up.
You are incorrect, sir. "I don't waaaanaa" = consumer demand = what makes the market work.
Look, Mike: we've covered this subject countless times on Slashdot. To summarize for you: there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows intangible items from being treated as physical property. Copyright law is allowed based on an amendment that says
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Authors and Inventors can have exclusive *rights* for *limited times*. Read that again. Now again. That's not property, and companies are not allowed to own anything. The author or inventor can have exclusive rights for a limited time. Read it again.
You cannot own the contents of a book. And by putting a book out into the world, you have intruded into my space -- so I naturally have some claim over it. You really need to think about this one, too.
Google Print threatens you? It probably does. This isn't Google's fault; your business model is slowly failing. Find another one.
Slashdot Mirror
There's controversy about Rails? Since when? I've never heard anyone say anything bad about it -- but maybe I'm too skewed in what I read. Maybe I'm listening to the programming equivalent of Fox News. =:-O
IT IS OFFICIAL; WIRED NEWS CONFIRMS: LINUX IS SUPERIOR TO *BSD
*BSD is Dying, Says Respected Journal
Linux advocates have long insisted that open-source development results in better and more secure software. Now they have statistics to back up their claims.
According to a four-year analysis of the 5.7 million lines of Linux source code conducted by five Stanford University computer science researchers, the Linux kernel programming code is better and more secure than the programming code of FreeBSD.
The report, set to be released on Tuesday, states that the 2.6 Linux production kernel, shipped with software from Red Hat, Novell and other major Linux software vendors, contains 985 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code, well below the average for FreeBSD software. FreeBSD, by comparison, contains about 40 million lines of code, with new bugs found on a frequent basis.
FreeBSD software typically has 20 to 30 bugs for every 1,000 lines of code, according to Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Sustainable Computing Consortium. This would be equivalent to 114,000 to 171,000 bugs in 5.7 million lines of code.
The study identified 0.17 bugs per 1,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel. Of the 985 bugs identified, 627 were in critical parts of the kernel. Another 569 could cause a system crash, 100 were security holes, and 33 of the bugs could result in less-than-optimal system performance.
Seth Hallem, CEO of Coverity, a provider of source-code analysis, noted that the majority of the bugs documented in the study have already been fixed by members of the Linux development community.
"Our findings show that Linux contains an extremely low defect rate and is evidence of the strong security of Linux," said Hallem. "Many security holes in software are the result of software bugs that can be eliminated with good programming processes."
The Linux source-code analysis project started in 2000 at the Stanford University Computer Science Research Center as part of a large research initiative to improve core software engineering processes in the software industry.
The initiative now continues at Coverity, a software engineering startup that now employs the five researchers who conducted the study. Coverity said it intends to start providing Linux bug analysis reports on a regular basis and will make a summary of the results freely available to the Linux development community.
"This is a benefit to the Linux development community, and we appreciate Coverity's efforts to help us improve the security and stability of Linux," said Andrew Morton, lead Linux kernel maintainer. Morton said developers have already addressed the top-priority bugs uncovered in the study.
You are 100% correct.
However, you fail to realize that corporations are above the law.
You are absolutely right; Slashdot's editors (hah! editors!) do not care about communication. This is one reason Digg is killing Slashdot.
There is no US Constitutional basis for the concept of "pirating." The Constitution says that artists (not companies, only artists) can have a limited monopoly because this encourages the creation of more art. The copying of music would otherwise fall under the first amendment, i.e. freedom of expression.
Since technological advancement is now pressing the issue, the fight will continue until the business paradigm changes for good. Unfortunately, there is no longer a need for a middleman like a major label; recorded music is no longer tied to a tangible good. (Perhaps that's not so unfortunate.) Therefore, the music can no longer be treated as a physical piece of property, and is no longer scarce; it has no inherent monetary value (despite how much you might like a song).
The jig is up.
This set of 'pranks' is the most uninspired yet. Nice going, buttmunches.
Public display has nothing to do with optional communication. Your child does not need to surf the internet, and if for some reason he does, he shouldn't be able to do it without your guidance. If you are not willing to provide this guidance, you have no reason to complain.
Only if you are running Cosmos. I heard that's bannz0rd. Also, hunters are losing aim-shoot, and the rogue class is getting canceled altogether (all rogues will automatically become warrior class). And all Alliance races will be getting a new racial ability: Detect Horde.
RMS seems to want everything to be free (as in freedom -- which is a great idea) *and* beer (which is unrealistic). Maybe I misunderstand him, but that can be his only actual problem with CC. And what I don't understand is: if you have a problem with the CC, and you are a well-known person who has some influence, why not work *with* the CC people and at least try to address the perceived problems -- rather than just dismiss the whole thing wholesale?
Offtopic:
You should never neeed to use a firewall on a computer with only one network interface!
Sure you should. You may believe that only the services you want to be running on the box are actually the only ones, but the extra protection of a firewall will help ensure that.
The RIAA's point of view seems to be: we don't want you putting those files on those blastard computers in the first place. Just pretend it's 1985, and listen to your expensive CDs on your expensive tradition CD players. And don't go lending your CDs to your friends -- that's illegal sharing. We're coming after you.
Did I read that right -- they've raised $840? Total?
HA HAHAH AHHAHAHA HHAHAHAH
Hahaha hahahahaha hahaha haha hahah ahahah
hahah ahahaha hahah ah
ahem.
Sorry. I'm sure $840 will completely convince the necessary assholes that Firefly must stay on the air.
I, for one, would like to know what you (Taco) have against spelling and grammar.
It would only irritate me, I suppose, if you didn't refer to yourself as a "journalist." Hah.
It's not because you're giving something for free that you can't be a bastard.
I love it when people try to justify the actions of assholes. "Dude, it's free, so they can entice you to join and then do anything they want to you!"
No more Lesbians Until Graduation? What a shame.
Does Having Fun Make IT More Enjoyable?
I dunno, is tonight Christmas Eve?
DUH. If you're not having fun, you're probably not doing a very good (or enthusiastic) job.
Imagine Scotty the engineer not having fun on his job. Sure, he got frustrated, but he was still having fun.
Ok, here's a better answer than "patience."
iTMS is a runaway success. Awesome. That helps the cause.
My point is that a band doesn't need Sony or Warner anymore. You can get your songs on iTMS via CDBaby for a very low rate. Publicity -- I can see paying something for that.
But what would a record company do for me as a musician? (Besides take the vast majority of profits from sales away from me?) I don't need them for distribution. And if someone handled the publicity part (non-internet), well, then the RIAA is just a group of dinosaurs. Its propaganda will hold it up for a few years, but ultimately it has no viable business model.
Patience, my son. The internet is very young.
It's one thing to set your own prices. This works in an open market because other people can come along and offer a better price (if your price is too high).
But when there are limited players (a small handful of sellers, like in the record industry) and they collude to set their prices higher, that's illegal -- and it breaks the marketplace.
Of course, what ultimately fixes the whole situation is better competition, and that's coming. Musicians don't really need traditional publishing and distribution anymore. Once the practice of developing a fanbase and breaking bigtime really takes off, the dinosaurs will die. And they know it, btw.
Your score is now -10, taco.
Zonk, you're on notice: -5 for duping a ./ article from days ago.
We really ought to be able to ding ./ editors who dupe *on the same day*.
It's not thievery, by definition. To steal means that someone loses something to someone else. That does not happen here.
This is merely a paradigm shift. As with all paradigm shifts, some people understand, and many others don't -- and the ones that don't usually start screaming "foul!"
Theft is not unbeatable in the long run. But new business models are. We don't need publishers anymore. A lot of people just aren't used to that idea yet.
-1 Flamebait
Their business model is outdated. Consumers dictate business models. The industry is trying to hold on to an archaic model and attempting to use government to prop it up.
You are incorrect, sir. "I don't waaaanaa" = consumer demand = what makes the market work.
European publishers have ordered the internet to be shut down.
Look, Mike: we've covered this subject countless times on Slashdot. To summarize for you: there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows intangible items from being treated as physical property. Copyright law is allowed based on an amendment that says
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Authors and Inventors can have exclusive *rights* for *limited times*. Read that again. Now again. That's not property, and companies are not allowed to own anything. The author or inventor can have exclusive rights for a limited time. Read it again.
You cannot own the contents of a book. And by putting a book out into the world, you have intruded into my space -- so I naturally have some claim over it. You really need to think about this one, too.
Google Print threatens you? It probably does. This isn't Google's fault; your business model is slowly failing. Find another one.