I disagree. What matters is whether this actually is an exploitable vulnerability. Whether it is or not has nothing to do with whether he's a Nobel Prize winning mathematician or a certified lunatic in a home.
BTW, I think it's exceedingly ironic that someone criticising someone's grasp of mathematics on the basis of an accusation that they're mentally a little off-the-wall should have the Slashdot nick "A Beautiful Mind"...
Here's the explanation of that comment. He's not accusing Linus of being an evil torturing Saddam-wannabee, he's refering to the development model of Linux.
The guy was refering to the oft-quoted observation that Linus is a "benevolent dictator", or rather than Linux's development model is one of benevolent dictatorship. It wasn't an insult aimed at Torvalds. It's a comment about the development model used by many FOSS projects. See also Larry Wall and Perl, or Guido Van Rossem and Python. In all these cases contributors to the projects defer to a project figurehead who makes the final decisions as to what goes into the official version of the project, and where that project goes.
The most common alternative model is community development, where a - usually but not always elected - committee of developer 'elders' steer the project. Apache and Mozilla would be good examples of the latter.
I appreciate some people have heard about this comment first today, people are joining the Free Software and Open Source communities all the time, but it kind of surprises me that so many are criticising Colin for this without anyone explaining this.
Well, it can, but it generally will not. I think more people (and days) have spent time in jail for shoplifting than for P2P-style piracy.
Generally though, you said it: the issue is one of damage. From the point of view of the recording industry, someone who distributes (directly and indirectly) one of their albums to millions (remember, I said directly and indirectly) of anonymous strangers is far, far, more damaging than someone who removes one copy of a CD from circulation without paying for it. From their point of view, the latter constitutes the removal of 2c of plastic from sale plus $5-10 (or so) in lost revenue (after retail margins etc.) The other constitutes, potentially, tens of thousands to millions of dollars in lost revenues through lost sales.
Which would you be more concerned about if you're heavily investing large quantities of money into funding the creation, recording, and promotion of music?
Like Dvorak, you're tarring all opponents of what O'Gara has done on the basis of the actions of a tiny handful of extremists. Nothing in my comment implied any support for DDoS attacks. DDoS attacks were not typical of the reaction of the vast majority of people who objected to O'Gara's article. You know that. You choose to claim otherwise.
Unless you know differently, I suggest you not merely withdraw your assertion, but apologise. We know where the extremists are, they're not the people calling for O'Gara to be disciplined, they're the people like you who dismiss the views of a huge group of people because of a tiny handful of nutcases.
Curious. Dvorak (a) suggests O'Gara's reporting may be "nutty" but perfectly worthy of publication:
Oh, brother. In the olden days, O'Gara would have been given a medal for generating readership. But in today's world of the so easily offended, she's apparently let go instead, and things calm down as the hissy fit subsides.
and (b) castigates O'Gara and Jones/The Entire Linux Community for claiming the other is a stooge for some evil entity:
That said, the Linux community figures that O'Gara is being paid by SCO or Microsoft or someone bad. Again, if this were so, and if it was ever proven or stumbled on during the discovery process (nothing to take lightly), it would be a disaster for the litigation chances of the company doing the paying. It just wouldn't be worth the risk. It appears to me that O'Gara is just being overly provocative to get readers.
while speculating that the presence of people offended by O'Gara in the Linux community is in fact... wait for it... a giant conspiracy by Microsoft!
If anything is going to kill Linux and the open-source movement, it's the presence of certifiable lunatics in the ranks representing the users. It may be that this is actually a deep Astroturf PR campaign orchestrated by Microsoft to discredit open source and Linux. It sure seems like something weird is going on.
Oh brother.
Here's the deal John:
1. There were many reasonable people offended by O'Gara and her attempts to intimidate Jones. And that's what you have to call it, because if you're trying to find out if someone's a stooge for IBM (Dvorak suggests this is all O'Gara was trying to do), you're not making your case by publishing the address of their mother.
2. Calling for a journalist to be disciplined, up and including being fired, for a clearly inaccurate and evil piece of journalism is not, in any way, "nutty" or indicative of "mob rule". To lump those who have done so with those on the fringes making death threats is to lump all christians with anti-abortionist murderers of doctors, or all muslims concerned about the US presence in the Middle East with Osama Bin Laden.
It's really that simple. Something did something clearly wrong to many of us, so many of us publicly expressed our disappointment. Some did so angrily, some didn't.
It's the height of paranoid fanaticism (and yes, I use the word paranoid quite justifiably):
I can tell you that my mere mentioning of any of this will result in incredibly hateful attempted postings on this forum and on my moderated blog. What is wrong with these people?
to lump together a diverse group of people with differing opinions and charge them with some conspiracy to attack you.
That's assuming you're not trolling for webpage hits. I assume the editors were by posting this article.
*shrug* The concern Stallman had was that OOo wouldn't be compatable with (real and hypothetical) Free Java implementations, a legitimate concern given the difficulty of restricting one's self to an "official" API. Sun themselves had the same problem when Microsoft came out with their own Java implementation, they were extremely concerned that people would create programs that would only run under Microsoft's JVM.
They actually sued Microsoft over it. I don't know if you remember.
You may feel that the good-practice inspired guidelines are stuff the OOo team would have done anyway, and that's well and good, but as nobody was sure that was actually what would have happened, it was worth the FSF talking to the OOo people to make sure.
I await the news about Linus rewriting Linux in Sun's Java. Now, that'll be some flamewar, as you'll get all the "If an obscure proprietary method happens to be best for the job, Linus is absolutely right to use it and make the entire Linux kernel dependent on it!" apologists flaming those who do not consider wearing someone else's handcuffs "practical".
Even worse is that Ben doesn't even appear to know what he's criticising. He takes a quote out of context and puts the same spin on it that/. did a few weeks ago, treating it as a criticism of Apple when the thrust of the original piece was protesting that people were assuming that just because Apple had added something to WebKit, it follows that it'd be in the next release of KHTML, and were getting pissed at the KHMTL people when that didn't happen.
I'm not 100% surprised, given the degree to which the original post was misrepresented, but given some replies to his blog entry pointed this out and Ben's single response to them has been dismissive, it'd be nice to see a sign of good faith.
We're talking about Samba not AppleShare here. PC users can only log in as real users on a Mac (if you use the default configuration) and then access that user's complete home directory.
No, CDMA is not better than GSM, and none of Europe is moving to CDMA except in a way that makes your sentence lose all meaning.
The letters CDMA have two meanings: they refer to an air-interface technology, and they refer to a particular standard built on that technology, also known as IS-95. The technology is good. The standard is awful.
The sentence "CDMA is better than GSM" can only be refering to the standard, because GSM is a standard, not an air-interface technology. It's completely false, as anyone who's used both can attest. CDMA isn't location/network independent and it doesn't support, in its most widely implemented form, support personal mobility. It's essentially stuck in a 1970's mobile phone network mindset. It's sole advantage over GSM is the use of a CDMA-technology air interface.
The sentence "All of Europe is moving to CDMA" is only true if you switch meanings and start refering to the air interface technology in place of the standard.
I don't know if you're confused, or you're a Qualcomm shill. Qualcomm shills were taking advantage of people's confusion throughout the late nineties to try and ensure exactly this kind of "argument" could be made. People would post, apparently sincerely, "Well, GSM is based on TDMA, and my friend has a TDMA phone and the sound sucks and he doesn't have any features that aren't on my flash CDMA phone!", and more recently "Oh yeah? Well if CDMA sucks, why is Europe switching to it?" It's slight of hand. Stop it.
UMTS incidentally, which is what we're talking about Europe switching to, is essentially GSM2. The system is more modular, so operators can use different air interface technologies depending on their precise needs. Most are choosing WCDMA ("Wideband Code Division Multiple Access"). There is no connection whatsoever between this and the system Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless uses beyond a similar principle being used to transmit data between the towers and the handsets.
Excellent! I did not know that. That adds the missing piece for me, thanks!
That also adds more substance to the explanation of why the ASL2 was chosen in place of the GPL (which the ^G*P$ was upset about.) If it's not merely the fact people want to build projects on it and Apache, but also that it has to interact with another ASL2 project, then there's really no other appropriate license for them beyond non-copyleft ones.
If that were true, then Apache wouldn't be usable in the free world.
The truth is the opposite of your stance. Apache wants a free Java because an enormous amount of back-end web code these days is written in Java. As such, they need a Java interpreter that "plays well" with Apache. That means something licensed under the ASL2, which, like the GPL, is a Free Software license.
If they licensed it under the GPL, then the question of how well it could legally integrate with Apache would come up.
Long term the solution to this almost certainly lies in the GPL3, which will alleviate many of the issues that forced the Apache people to put together an alternative license to begin with. But for now, looking at the circumstances, this is one of those rare cases where a license that happens to be incompatable with the GPL is appropriate.
(And, FWIW, I speak as someone accused of being a GPL zealot on a regular basis. I love the GPL. For most projects, providing the GPL as the license or a license a user can choose as an alternative, seems absolutely appropriate.)
The ASL2 is a Free Software license. It's not compatable with the GPL, and incompatabilities do undermine freedom, but when choosing between it and the GPL, you have to look at what critical code it will have to interact with. Had they choosen the GPL, it would arguably have undermined freedom far more than the choice they made.
If you want GPL compatable Java, take a look at GCJ and GNU Classpath. There are people working on both these and Harmony. They are cooperative. This project is helping freedom, not working against it.
In case you're serious, the Apache Sofware License 2.0 is considered a Free license, just not a GPL compatable one. The FSF actually quite likes it:
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
It's quite probable that once version 3 of the GPL is released, there'll be a strong effort from both sides to get some compatability between the two as incompatable licenses hurt everyone, whatever your ideological differences. Version 3's important because it's the one the FSF has suggested it'll deal with the issue of patents in.
In the mean time, the Apache group's choice of license for their Java project makes perfect sense given a major, if not the major, use for Java these days is for back-end work of web-fronted applications. Apache's Tomcat sometimes seems to be more popular than Apache itself. (I said seems people, seems); I can't think of any other reason why the Apache people would be organizing this, though it surprises me they're going for J2SE and not J2EE compatability.
So, no. There's no "Java trap" inherent in developing code for Apache Harmony.
This is one of the things I like about OS X. You have essentially two ways to do everything, Apple's way, and *IX's way. Despite the assertion of many Mac fans that everything "just works" with OS X, frequently it doesn't and there are often things missing that would really, really, help with whatever it is you want to do.
Want to create an arbitrary share like you can under Windows? Right clicking on the directory will not help. Pretty soon you realise there's actually no easy way to do it. Apple presumably wants you to buy OS X Server for that.
But it doesn't matter, because OS X has Darwin underneath, and Darwin's just another made-over Unix-clone. It's running Samba. So quickly sudo vi/etc/smb.conf, add the entry, kill -HUP {smbd's PID}, and you're up and running.
The Finder is just a shell over all of this, and if it doesn't do something, either because the designers didn't think about it, or because it doesn't work properly, you can generally workaround the missing functionality. As you've just described.
It's an OS semi-guaranteed to be undamaged by marketing hype and marketing decisions. What more could you want? (Well, othe than the entire thing to be FOSS? *sigh*)
Of course they care. The broadcast flag devalues devices like DVRs and digital VCRs. Who wants to buy one if you can't use it to record the content you want to watch?
It doesn't matter how much they've invested, this gives them the opportunity to sell products that are unemcumbered by the technology. And that means more sales. Only a handful of companies, like Sony, that have stakes in the entertainment industry, are going to implement anything like this.
Nobody's accused Sun of not giving their OS away for free. They've been doing that since Solaris 8 (well, there's the cost of the media, but you could always obtain more licenses for free anyway.)
The issue here is about Sun making an open source version of Solaris, a version Sun can sell at any price, we don't care, as long as people who obtain it aren't saddled with restrictions that prevent them from being able to make changes and distribute those changes in an open source fashion.
I didn't distinguish between released and unreleased code. I just said that SCO was being given AIX code they didn't have. I'm not sure the clarification is important, especially not from a legal standpoint.
Get this through the soft spot at the top of your head: SADDAM WAS A STALIN-TYPE FASCIST SOCIALIST. He was the ENEMY of liberalism. We should have been OPPOSING him.
Yes, and I did, and "we" did, well before it became popular to. So you might want to lay off the insults.
That doesn't mean that an illegal invasion based upon a premise that was clearly false from the start with only the UK and US (and Poland!) involved was the way to do it.
I'm not remotely sure why you've decided to flame me over this, given the discussion was about WMDs and the fact that most us didn't believe the US and UK about it. According to the original poster we were wrong to because "most of the experts" had a "consensus" that there were WMDs in Iraq and therefore, somehow, it was illogical for us to disagree with them.
The fact is, however, there was ample reason not to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.
We needed a proper International coalition that included countries in the locality (not just "Canada and the EU and Russians"), just as Bush-the-smarter had achieved nearly a decade and a half previous. You can't build coalitions by very obviously lying to them. That's what "we" (the US and UK) did. Going to war over WMDs was a fucking stupid thing to do. It left us on our own, and ensured we had no moral highground.
Oh, and stop pretending to be a liberal. Liberals understand perfectly well why this war was opposed.
In all obviousness AIX does not contain SCO code, heck SCO is in no position to accuse that at all... Novell owns the trademark.
1. AIX almost certainly contains code that is also in Unix. AIX is a Unix variant. Whether it does or not is not at issue here. What's issue is if there's AIX code in Linux. I'll explain later.
2. Novell owns the copyrights (and, I believe, patents) that pertain to Unix. Probably. That is, they believe they do, and they very well may do so given that they've kind of decided to take a fall for IBM by claiming this, as if SCO loses because of this, then given Novell was contractually obliged to hand over the rights to SCO, SCO can probably sue Novell.
This is why Novell is a good admirable company and why you should install Novell networking throughout your business. Well, maybe not, but they're good people.
Now the trademark, that belongs to The Open Group.
most UNIX sourcecode will become available, Solaris will be opensourced, and future lawsuits of these types will be thrown out making Linux more resilient in the corporate.
Solaris is in the process of being open sourced and will be regardless of the success or failure of the SCO suite. Much Unix source code is available, Caldera (the version of SCO run by Ransome Love) actually released much of the pre-System V stuff under a BSD-like license.
Ok, let's get back to the whole "What this lawsuit is about" thing.
SCO alleges that IBM signed a contract that makes all its improves to Unix belong to SCO. Hence, if IBM added stuff to AIX (which is a version of Unix), and some of that is in Linux, then, according to SCO and their contract, IBM sucks and is in breach of contract.
This is on top of many, many, allegations. But in this case this is why IBM is handing over millions of lines of AIX code. SCO doesn't have it, and cannot prove that any of it is in Linux unless they have it. If they can find AIX code sitting in Linux, then at least part of their claims are more likely to be upheld.
Actually, most of us were content to see Hans Blix continue the inspections. He wanted to, and if there was real evidence WMDs existed, there should have been no problem with the relevent intelligence agencies passing on pointers to Blix. Instead "we" (the US and UK) pre-empted an investigation that hindsight has told us was absolutely on the mark. And for no good reason.
I don't really see any connection with the consensus on global warming. And no, I've no plans to put consensus in quotation marks. From the kooky write-up in the story (Nature's censoring anti-GW-exists evidence? Really? And Nature's the only location you can publish that, right? Really?) to the routinely discredited sources anti-GW-exists arguments come from to the simple fact that nobody opposed to the concept of existing can come up with a consistant argument to begin with ("No, the Earth's not warming up!" "Yes it is, but it's cyclical!" "Yes, and it's probably greenhouse gasses, but we don't contribute enough, it's got to be cows farting or something like that!"), it's hard to take seriously the notion that the vast majority of serious scientists in relevent fields are seriously split on the subject.
Not that it matters. People listen to what they want to hear. If Michael Crichton, MD, writes that it's all cyclical and includes a whole bunch of footnotes, or the Cato institute issues another report for the aptly named "junkscience.com" to link to, then who cares what the truth is?
That's not really the problem. Gore was saying there was an initiative to create the Internet which he took through the legislature. That's true. He did. The word "invent" really doesn't mean the same thing as "create" though I expect a thousand trolls to argue it does. I created a small web server a few months ago, but I'm damned if I'll take the credit for inventing such a thing. Essentially the issue is both that "invented" is different from "created", and more importantly, that it's taken out of context by critics of Gore. Gore isn't claiming to have created anything, he just claimed he pushed an initiative through the legislature to create something. Vint Cerf, for one, is more than happy to say he's right. That's why Vint's going to be presenting Gore with this prize.
Anyway, be that as it may, I think this article - to some extent - is just a big troll. I mean, even Zonk wearily acknowledges what's about to happen. Scroll to the top:
Politics: Al Gore to Receive Internet Achievement Award
The Internet | Posted by Zonk on 2005-05-05 12:16 from the no-invented-the-internet-jokes-please dept
So, I suggest we have a related but different discussion. For example, did you hear about that woman who got millions from MacDonalds when she poured coffee all over herself? Geez, what is the world coming to. Tut tut.
Umm, isn't the whole point of fiction, including science fiction, at least temporarily believing something that isn't true?
Oh come on. There's a world of difference between telling someone a bedtime story and saying something is, essentially, something it isn't, such as passing off a film with a different message and with different values to the original as a version of the original. I don't think the two situations are comparable.
I was disappointed with UT2004. It was ok, but it wasn't exactly a massive advance on '03, in the same way that '03 was over UT Classic. Despite this, unlike '03, it went over the borderline of what was usable on my PowerBook, '04 - without being particularly more spectacular, and often playing identical levels - just crawled.
UT Returns looks like it has potential. Yes, it'll need a hardware upgrade. But, yes, it'll justify one. If it's what it's cracked up to be.
but I hope that I will eventually have a technological way of watching the films in a G-rated version so I can enjoy it with my kids.
Why a G-rated version?
Eventually you will have a technological way of watching the film in such a way that you can enjoy it with your kids. The technology will be the same one that you use now, and the key word is "eventually". They'll not be kids forever.
I see little point in you bastardizing the film further (or rather, worse, getting someone to do so on your behalf), even if, on past form, Lucas does a pretty good job of bastardizing it anyway, nor on you presenting to your kids something as being SWIII that clearly isn't.
Don't lie to them. If it's a choice between lying and not giving them access, do the honest thing, and set a good example by not giving them access. You're instilling the wrong ethics in them from day one if you're encouraging them to believe things that are not true.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I think it's exceedingly ironic that someone criticising someone's grasp of mathematics on the basis of an accusation that they're mentally a little off-the-wall should have the Slashdot nick "A Beautiful Mind"...
Here's the explanation of that comment. He's not accusing Linus of being an evil torturing Saddam-wannabee, he's refering to the development model of Linux.
The most common alternative model is community development, where a - usually but not always elected - committee of developer 'elders' steer the project. Apache and Mozilla would be good examples of the latter.
I appreciate some people have heard about this comment first today, people are joining the Free Software and Open Source communities all the time, but it kind of surprises me that so many are criticising Colin for this without anyone explaining this.
Generally though, you said it: the issue is one of damage. From the point of view of the recording industry, someone who distributes (directly and indirectly) one of their albums to millions (remember, I said directly and indirectly) of anonymous strangers is far, far, more damaging than someone who removes one copy of a CD from circulation without paying for it. From their point of view, the latter constitutes the removal of 2c of plastic from sale plus $5-10 (or so) in lost revenue (after retail margins etc.) The other constitutes, potentially, tens of thousands to millions of dollars in lost revenues through lost sales.
Which would you be more concerned about if you're heavily investing large quantities of money into funding the creation, recording, and promotion of music?
Unless you know differently, I suggest you not merely withdraw your assertion, but apologise. We know where the extremists are, they're not the people calling for O'Gara to be disciplined, they're the people like you who dismiss the views of a huge group of people because of a tiny handful of nutcases.
You should be ashamed.
Here's the deal John:
1. There were many reasonable people offended by O'Gara and her attempts to intimidate Jones. And that's what you have to call it, because if you're trying to find out if someone's a stooge for IBM (Dvorak suggests this is all O'Gara was trying to do), you're not making your case by publishing the address of their mother.
2. Calling for a journalist to be disciplined, up and including being fired, for a clearly inaccurate and evil piece of journalism is not, in any way, "nutty" or indicative of "mob rule". To lump those who have done so with those on the fringes making death threats is to lump all christians with anti-abortionist murderers of doctors, or all muslims concerned about the US presence in the Middle East with Osama Bin Laden.
It's really that simple. Something did something clearly wrong to many of us, so many of us publicly expressed our disappointment. Some did so angrily, some didn't.
It's the height of paranoid fanaticism (and yes, I use the word paranoid quite justifiably):
to lump together a diverse group of people with differing opinions and charge them with some conspiracy to attack you.That's assuming you're not trolling for webpage hits. I assume the editors were by posting this article.
They actually sued Microsoft over it. I don't know if you remember.
You may feel that the good-practice inspired guidelines are stuff the OOo team would have done anyway, and that's well and good, but as nobody was sure that was actually what would have happened, it was worth the FSF talking to the OOo people to make sure.
I await the news about Linus rewriting Linux in Sun's Java. Now, that'll be some flamewar, as you'll get all the "If an obscure proprietary method happens to be best for the job, Linus is absolutely right to use it and make the entire Linux kernel dependent on it!" apologists flaming those who do not consider wearing someone else's handcuffs "practical".
I'm not 100% surprised, given the degree to which the original post was misrepresented, but given some replies to his blog entry pointed this out and Ben's single response to them has been dismissive, it'd be nice to see a sign of good faith.
Needless to say, this isn't really a sane option.
The letters CDMA have two meanings: they refer to an air-interface technology, and they refer to a particular standard built on that technology, also known as IS-95. The technology is good. The standard is awful.
The sentence "CDMA is better than GSM" can only be refering to the standard, because GSM is a standard, not an air-interface technology. It's completely false, as anyone who's used both can attest. CDMA isn't location/network independent and it doesn't support, in its most widely implemented form, support personal mobility. It's essentially stuck in a 1970's mobile phone network mindset. It's sole advantage over GSM is the use of a CDMA-technology air interface.
The sentence "All of Europe is moving to CDMA" is only true if you switch meanings and start refering to the air interface technology in place of the standard.
I don't know if you're confused, or you're a Qualcomm shill. Qualcomm shills were taking advantage of people's confusion throughout the late nineties to try and ensure exactly this kind of "argument" could be made. People would post, apparently sincerely, "Well, GSM is based on TDMA, and my friend has a TDMA phone and the sound sucks and he doesn't have any features that aren't on my flash CDMA phone!", and more recently "Oh yeah? Well if CDMA sucks, why is Europe switching to it?" It's slight of hand. Stop it.
UMTS incidentally, which is what we're talking about Europe switching to, is essentially GSM2. The system is more modular, so operators can use different air interface technologies depending on their precise needs. Most are choosing WCDMA ("Wideband Code Division Multiple Access"). There is no connection whatsoever between this and the system Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless uses beyond a similar principle being used to transmit data between the towers and the handsets.
That also adds more substance to the explanation of why the ASL2 was chosen in place of the GPL (which the ^G*P$ was upset about.) If it's not merely the fact people want to build projects on it and Apache, but also that it has to interact with another ASL2 project, then there's really no other appropriate license for them beyond non-copyleft ones.
The truth is the opposite of your stance. Apache wants a free Java because an enormous amount of back-end web code these days is written in Java. As such, they need a Java interpreter that "plays well" with Apache. That means something licensed under the ASL2, which, like the GPL, is a Free Software license.
If they licensed it under the GPL, then the question of how well it could legally integrate with Apache would come up.
Long term the solution to this almost certainly lies in the GPL3, which will alleviate many of the issues that forced the Apache people to put together an alternative license to begin with. But for now, looking at the circumstances, this is one of those rare cases where a license that happens to be incompatable with the GPL is appropriate.
(And, FWIW, I speak as someone accused of being a GPL zealot on a regular basis. I love the GPL. For most projects, providing the GPL as the license or a license a user can choose as an alternative, seems absolutely appropriate.)
The ASL2 is a Free Software license. It's not compatable with the GPL, and incompatabilities do undermine freedom, but when choosing between it and the GPL, you have to look at what critical code it will have to interact with. Had they choosen the GPL, it would arguably have undermined freedom far more than the choice they made.
If you want GPL compatable Java, take a look at GCJ and GNU Classpath. There are people working on both these and Harmony. They are cooperative. This project is helping freedom, not working against it.
In the mean time, the Apache group's choice of license for their Java project makes perfect sense given a major, if not the major, use for Java these days is for back-end work of web-fronted applications. Apache's Tomcat sometimes seems to be more popular than Apache itself. (I said seems people, seems); I can't think of any other reason why the Apache people would be organizing this, though it surprises me they're going for J2SE and not J2EE compatability.
So, no. There's no "Java trap" inherent in developing code for Apache Harmony.
Want to create an arbitrary share like you can under Windows? Right clicking on the directory will not help. Pretty soon you realise there's actually no easy way to do it. Apple presumably wants you to buy OS X Server for that.
But it doesn't matter, because OS X has Darwin underneath, and Darwin's just another made-over Unix-clone. It's running Samba. So quickly sudo vi /etc/smb.conf, add the entry, kill -HUP {smbd's PID}, and you're up and running.
The Finder is just a shell over all of this, and if it doesn't do something, either because the designers didn't think about it, or because it doesn't work properly, you can generally workaround the missing functionality. As you've just described.
It's an OS semi-guaranteed to be undamaged by marketing hype and marketing decisions. What more could you want? (Well, othe than the entire thing to be FOSS? *sigh*)
It doesn't matter how much they've invested, this gives them the opportunity to sell products that are unemcumbered by the technology. And that means more sales. Only a handful of companies, like Sony, that have stakes in the entertainment industry, are going to implement anything like this.
Hey, don't leave him out of the loop like that. For example, SCO is suing IBM! Yep! And apparently Star Wars Episode 3 is coming out NEXT WEEK!
The issue here is about Sun making an open source version of Solaris, a version Sun can sell at any price, we don't care, as long as people who obtain it aren't saddled with restrictions that prevent them from being able to make changes and distribute those changes in an open source fashion.
I didn't distinguish between released and unreleased code. I just said that SCO was being given AIX code they didn't have. I'm not sure the clarification is important, especially not from a legal standpoint.
That doesn't mean that an illegal invasion based upon a premise that was clearly false from the start with only the UK and US (and Poland!) involved was the way to do it.
I'm not remotely sure why you've decided to flame me over this, given the discussion was about WMDs and the fact that most us didn't believe the US and UK about it. According to the original poster we were wrong to because "most of the experts" had a "consensus" that there were WMDs in Iraq and therefore, somehow, it was illogical for us to disagree with them.
The fact is, however, there was ample reason not to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.
We needed a proper International coalition that included countries in the locality (not just "Canada and the EU and Russians"), just as Bush-the-smarter had achieved nearly a decade and a half previous. You can't build coalitions by very obviously lying to them. That's what "we" (the US and UK) did. Going to war over WMDs was a fucking stupid thing to do. It left us on our own, and ensured we had no moral highground.
Oh, and stop pretending to be a liberal. Liberals understand perfectly well why this war was opposed.
2. Novell owns the copyrights (and, I believe, patents) that pertain to Unix. Probably. That is, they believe they do, and they very well may do so given that they've kind of decided to take a fall for IBM by claiming this, as if SCO loses because of this, then given Novell was contractually obliged to hand over the rights to SCO, SCO can probably sue Novell.
This is why Novell is a good admirable company and why you should install Novell networking throughout your business. Well, maybe not, but they're good people.
Now the trademark, that belongs to The Open Group.
Solaris is in the process of being open sourced and will be regardless of the success or failure of the SCO suite. Much Unix source code is available, Caldera (the version of SCO run by Ransome Love) actually released much of the pre-System V stuff under a BSD-like license.Ok, let's get back to the whole "What this lawsuit is about" thing.
SCO alleges that IBM signed a contract that makes all its improves to Unix belong to SCO. Hence, if IBM added stuff to AIX (which is a version of Unix), and some of that is in Linux, then, according to SCO and their contract, IBM sucks and is in breach of contract.
This is on top of many, many, allegations. But in this case this is why IBM is handing over millions of lines of AIX code. SCO doesn't have it, and cannot prove that any of it is in Linux unless they have it. If they can find AIX code sitting in Linux, then at least part of their claims are more likely to be upheld.
I don't really see any connection with the consensus on global warming. And no, I've no plans to put consensus in quotation marks. From the kooky write-up in the story (Nature's censoring anti-GW-exists evidence? Really? And Nature's the only location you can publish that, right? Really?) to the routinely discredited sources anti-GW-exists arguments come from to the simple fact that nobody opposed to the concept of existing can come up with a consistant argument to begin with ("No, the Earth's not warming up!" "Yes it is, but it's cyclical!" "Yes, and it's probably greenhouse gasses, but we don't contribute enough, it's got to be cows farting or something like that!"), it's hard to take seriously the notion that the vast majority of serious scientists in relevent fields are seriously split on the subject.
Not that it matters. People listen to what they want to hear. If Michael Crichton, MD, writes that it's all cyclical and includes a whole bunch of footnotes, or the Cato institute issues another report for the aptly named "junkscience.com" to link to, then who cares what the truth is?
Anyway, be that as it may, I think this article - to some extent - is just a big troll. I mean, even Zonk wearily acknowledges what's about to happen. Scroll to the top:
So, I suggest we have a related but different discussion. For example, did you hear about that woman who got millions from MacDonalds when she poured coffee all over herself? Geez, what is the world coming to. Tut tut.UT Returns looks like it has potential. Yes, it'll need a hardware upgrade. But, yes, it'll justify one. If it's what it's cracked up to be.
Eventually you will have a technological way of watching the film in such a way that you can enjoy it with your kids. The technology will be the same one that you use now, and the key word is "eventually". They'll not be kids forever.
I see little point in you bastardizing the film further (or rather, worse, getting someone to do so on your behalf), even if, on past form, Lucas does a pretty good job of bastardizing it anyway, nor on you presenting to your kids something as being SWIII that clearly isn't.
Don't lie to them. If it's a choice between lying and not giving them access, do the honest thing, and set a good example by not giving them access. You're instilling the wrong ethics in them from day one if you're encouraging them to believe things that are not true.