Pipes are actually quite nifty. To grep a string in your own program,
Create a pair of pipes, and assign them to stdin and stdout
Fork
In one branch, execute grep with stdin (i.e. a pioe) as the input and stdout(i.e. a pipe) as the output. In the other, feed the input into one pipe, and read it out the other pipe.
But the original poster seemed to be talking about lawyer's fees ("high-profile == expensive"). And I replied that there were no lawyer's fees. And that's true too.
I'm getting anal here. It's Journalism school talking. But you're taking statements out of context.
I did not say "Linux market penetration is similar to Mac". I said ". ..counting desktops and servers, Linux market penetration is similar to Mac". I did not say "Counting desktops and servers, Linux market penetration is similar to Mac", either-- those three periods (called an elipsis) show that the quotation is a fragment of my original sentence.
Now, let's look at the original comments-- are they really about market penetration as a whole?
"Of course if the Mac were in any way a significant platform for web serving. .."
"The reasons that the Mac is a marginal platform for servers. .."
"They have not been built as true servers"
Out of context, OSgod's comment looks like it's about the Mac in general: "Frankly the Mac is a marginal system. Always has been. May always be."
But when you consider the context-- what OSgod is responding to, what OSgod is talking about in the rest of the comment, especially, the first time the word "marginal" is used, it's pretty clear that these comments are only about the Mac as a server platform. If you say the statements are wrong based on Mac as a desktop platform, you're missing the point.
No, OSgod doesn't specifically say that the last paragraph is about servers. People don't. We assume that people are going to pick up on our context.
You're wrong. Go look at Netcraft. It's true that, counting desktops and servers, Linux market penetration is similar to Mac. But Mac systems don't act as servers nearly as often as Linux systems, AND THE COMMENT YOU'RE REPLYING TO IS ABOUT THE SERVER MARKETPLACE.
In terms of memory bandwidth and latency, they are very different.
The fastest networking technologies do not approach the speed and responsiveness of a memory bus. Yet a cluster design uses networking in place of a memory bus some of the time.
If there's not a lot of data, it doesn't matter much. If there's tons and tons of data, a cluster design is inefficient.
BSD variants aren't even slightly facist. In fact, the Windows IP stack was based on the BSD IP stack, which is completely legal. The GPL and the modified BSD license are compatible.
The original BSD License had an "obnoxious advertising clause" which required all advertisments to say the software was based on x. That's fine for one component, but with 50 components, you'd have more attributions than anything else in the ad.
Hardly anyone uses the original BSD license anymore.
Re:Desktop users may like the pre-emption patch
on
Linux Kernel 2.4.10
·
· Score: 1
Okay, the suspense is over. MP3's play flawlessly under Windows even when you switch to DOS fullscreen mode, which uses the same text mode as the standard Linux console. Multiple workspaces are also no problem for Windows.
Re:Desktop users may like the pre-emption patch
on
Linux Kernel 2.4.10
·
· Score: 2
I'm using ALSA, and I didn't set high priority for the mp3 players I tried (mpg123 and xmms).
I had thought the preemtible kernel would make it unnecessary to set a priority, but I see now that it doesn't help if the sound syscalls aren't blocked but the app is stuck.
Looks like I'm in for more testing. I did recompile the ALSA driver, but would that be enough to make it preemptible? Hey, stop laughing!
Re:Desktop users may like the pre-emption patch
on
Linux Kernel 2.4.10
·
· Score: 2
How to switch workspaces: There are multiple-workspace window managers for Windows. VirtuaWin is the one I use.
How to switch to console: DOS fullscreen mode. It's true that I don't often switch to a fullscreen dos session (i.e. text mode) under Windows. I'll let you know how that works out.
You're right, though. Part of the problem is that I do things with Linux that I'd never try with Windows.
Re:Desktop users may like the pre-emption patch
on
Linux Kernel 2.4.10
·
· Score: 2
I dunno. I've installed the patch and built a preemtible kernel, and mp3s still glitch pretty easily when I switch from X to console or switch workspaces.
I was really excited about the preemtible kernel when I first heard about it. Now I'm disappointed. This is one place where Linux is actually worse than Windows. Feh.
That's cool, but what you describe sounds like making a disk image, which can also be done natively on Windows boxes. The tool I know is Norton Ghost. And of course, there's always Gnu dd. . .
You said, "Win2k is not hard to secure; neither is any other MS system." What you apparently meant was "Win2k is not hard to secure; neither is Windows NT."
The first statement is way too broad for any sane person to make, so I went on a sarcastic rant to show how silly it was.
And in my opinion, an operating system should never hide anything from the administrator, if the administrator tries to see it. I recently tried to determine what was taking up so much space on a Windows 2000 server. I had to resort to an alternative program, because Windows Explorer hid the Exchange subdirectory from me completely.
I also understand that there are some file extensions that are hidden unless you edit the registry. That's just wrong.
I've been getting spam that claims to be from Yahoo today. It seems to originate with a site whose front page says "this site is under construction.... ".
Here's the entirety:
Click these links to see recent news and up to the minute stats:
Current link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ivoc.ob&d=v1
52 week link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ivoc.ob&d=c&k=c4
Please FWD this email to your associates of similar interests..... Sorry for any
intrusions.
Disclaimer: Neither Corporate America nor the writers of this communique makes
specific trading recommendations or gives individualized market advice.
Information contained in this newsletter is provided as an information service
only. Corporate America recommends that you get personal advice from an
investment professional before buying or selling stocks or other securities. The
securities markets are highly speculative areas for investments and only you can
determine what level of risk is appropriate for you. Although Corporate America
obtains the information reported herein from sources that it deems reliable, no
warranty can be given as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the
information provided or as to the results obtained by individuals using such
information. In no way should this be construed as a recommendation to buy or
sell a particular security.
Not Interested: http://www.cyberxworld.com/cleanlist.html
Well, that's certainly different from your standard GPL discussion. It's been a few years since I took philosophy, so the positive/natural right dichotomy was a little hard to recall.
But I was actually talking about a legal right that has various implementations is different jurisdictions. It's true that others could provide a more nuanced description of copyright than I did.
While I wasn't trying to cover the possibilities of dual licensing or private licensing, I tried leave room for that possibility. In fact, some of my GPLed code is separately licensed to the company I work for, in excange for being able to copy modifications made at work back into the GPLed version.
The copyright is not a legal document. Copyright is a right. The right of an author to prevent anyone and everyone from copying his or her work.
In order to legally copy an author's work, you must have a license from the author to copy it. Typically, authors license their works to publishing companies who then pay them.
Now, if you get GPLed source, you don't have the right to distribute it. Unless you accept the GPL.
If you do distribute it against the terms of the GPL, you'll get charged with, not GPL violation, but copyright infringement. Since the works are copyrighted, you'll have to argue that you have a license to copy them. But the only license you can have the is the GPL. Only you didn't follow its terms, so your license isn't valid. . .
MS DOS is easy to secure? What are you smoking? And can I have some?
Sure MS DOS isn't subject to worms or IP spoofing, but that's 'cause it doesn't ship with and IP stack. You may be amazed to hear that my toaster is also secure from Internet attacks! And these days, my toaster is more useful than MS DOS. The hot, buttery toast I'm chewing is testament to that. Why, the last time I saw the DOS command prompt was when I installed Windows 98.
What about Windows 3.1, 95, 98 or ME? They didn't have a very firm grasp on the notion of multiple users. Anyone could read anyone else's files, for crying out loud! That's not secure, that's Swiss cheese. My apologies to the Swiss. I like that cheese.
I've never touched Windows CE. I hear it sucks less now, which is good. I wonder how many IPAQs it would take to run a medium-sized web site? How many would it take to weather the Slashdot effect?
Windows NT, I grant, is far more secure than any MS System. But I shouldn't really mention NT and 2000 separately, since I lumped 95 in the same pile as ME. Even Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of lying to you about certain file extensions. It can also hide files and directories from the administrator.
As for other products, well-- When you say "system", you must mean operating system, 'cause we can't go around comparing Linux to Microsoft Word. That would be silly.
Shall we compare compare Word and Outlook to VI and Mutt?
Does this mean that you can use the patent for any GPLed work? Because you can take RTLinux and mutate it, until your "derivative work" bears no resemblance to the original-- except for performing operations that fall within the scope of the patent.
When you create a new Work, you own the copyright. If your new Work is derived from somone else's Work, they also own the copyright. If they GPLed their Work, you can GPL your derived work. You definitely own what you write. It's just that someone else may own it, too.
It's not really bashing. It's having a sense of homour about it. McGyver was fun, but you got the impression that if you locked him in an airtight chamber with a stick of chewing gum and a pair of sneakers and buried it in concrete, McGuyver would invent a teleporter before the air ran out.
Although much more plausible, McGuyver's character was a bit like "The Professor" on Gilligan's Island. The show also has a Sherlock Holmes flavour, because both characters did amazing things because the authors had set things up so that they could do those things. Doyle left clues, while McGuyver's writers gave him access to substances and objects he needed to succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Pipes are actually quite nifty. To grep a string in your own program,
Create a pair of pipes, and assign them to stdin and stdout
Fork
In one branch, execute grep with stdin (i.e. a pioe) as the input and stdout(i.e. a pipe) as the output. In the other, feed the input into one pipe, and read it out the other pipe.
You're right. I believe what you say is true.
But the original poster seemed to be talking about lawyer's fees ("high-profile == expensive"). And I replied that there were no lawyer's fees. And that's true too.
Actually, high-profile!= expensive here. John Keker is doing the case "pro bono", i.e. for free.
I'm getting anal here. It's Journalism school talking. But you're taking statements out of context.
.counting desktops and servers, Linux market penetration is similar to Mac". I did not say "Counting desktops and servers, Linux market penetration is similar to Mac", either-- those three periods (called an elipsis) show that the quotation is a fragment of my original sentence.
."
."
I did not say "Linux market penetration is similar to Mac". I said ". .
Now, let's look at the original comments-- are they really about market penetration as a whole?
"Of course if the Mac were in any way a significant platform for web serving. .
"The reasons that the Mac is a marginal platform for servers. .
"They have not been built as true servers "
Out of context, OSgod's comment looks like it's about the Mac in general: "Frankly the Mac is a marginal system. Always has been. May always be."
But when you consider the context-- what OSgod is responding to, what OSgod is talking about in the rest of the comment, especially, the first time the word "marginal" is used, it's pretty clear that these comments are only about the Mac as a server platform. If you say the statements are wrong based on Mac as a desktop platform, you're missing the point.
No, OSgod doesn't specifically say that the last paragraph is about servers. People don't. We assume that people are going to pick up on our context.
You're wrong. Go look at Netcraft. It's true that, counting desktops and servers, Linux market penetration is similar to Mac. But Mac systems don't act as servers nearly as often as Linux systems, AND THE COMMENT YOU'RE REPLYING TO IS ABOUT THE SERVER MARKETPLACE.
And though the microphones are further away than the cameras, they are attached to the camera tripods and pick up the sound through the tripods. . .
In terms of memory bandwidth and latency, they are very different.
The fastest networking technologies do not approach the speed and responsiveness of a memory bus. Yet a cluster design uses networking in place of a memory bus some of the time.
If there's not a lot of data, it doesn't matter much. If there's tons and tons of data, a cluster design is inefficient.
BSD variants aren't even slightly facist. In fact, the Windows IP stack was based on the BSD IP stack, which is completely legal. The GPL and the modified BSD license are compatible.
The original BSD License had an "obnoxious advertising clause" which required all advertisments to say the software was based on x. That's fine for one component, but with 50 components, you'd have more attributions than anything else in the ad.
Hardly anyone uses the original BSD license anymore.
Okay, the suspense is over. MP3's play flawlessly under Windows even when you switch to DOS fullscreen mode, which uses the same text mode as the standard Linux console. Multiple workspaces are also no problem for Windows.
I'm using ALSA, and I didn't set high priority for the mp3 players I tried (mpg123 and xmms).
I had thought the preemtible kernel would make it unnecessary to set a priority, but I see now that it doesn't help if the sound syscalls aren't blocked but the app is stuck.
Looks like I'm in for more testing. I did recompile the ALSA driver, but would that be enough to make it preemptible? Hey, stop laughing!
How to switch workspaces: There are multiple-workspace window managers for Windows. VirtuaWin is the one I use.
How to switch to console: DOS fullscreen mode. It's true that I don't often switch to a fullscreen dos session (i.e. text mode) under Windows. I'll let you know how that works out.
You're right, though. Part of the problem is that I do things with Linux that I'd never try with Windows.
He sounds a bit like Scott McNealy to me.
I dunno. I've installed the patch and built a preemtible kernel, and mp3s still glitch pretty easily when I switch from X to console or switch workspaces.
I was really excited about the preemtible kernel when I first heard about it. Now I'm disappointed. This is one place where Linux is actually worse than Windows. Feh.
That's cool, but what you describe sounds like making a disk image, which can also be done natively on Windows boxes. The tool I know is Norton Ghost. And of course, there's always Gnu dd. . .
You said, "Win2k is not hard to secure; neither is any other MS system." What you apparently meant was "Win2k is not hard to secure; neither is Windows NT."
The first statement is way too broad for any sane person to make, so I went on a sarcastic rant to show how silly it was.
And in my opinion, an operating system should never hide anything from the administrator, if the administrator tries to see it. I recently tried to determine what was taking up so much space on a Windows 2000 server. I had to resort to an alternative program, because Windows Explorer hid the Exchange subdirectory from me completely.
I also understand that there are some file extensions that are hidden unless you edit the registry. That's just wrong.
That's not the only option. If the story is true, DiskZerver has committed fraud AND copyright violation. Xstore has only violated copyright.
The copyright holders, like Linus and company can sue both companies for copyright infringement. Xstore can also sue DiskZerver for fraud.
All without the DMCA or any other new BS laws being necessary.
Of course it's a real concern. They could be easily cloned. But making pirate copies of software is not a valid business model.
They must either accept the risk, or find another business. Furthermore, they could probably be easily cloned even if they don't release the source.
I've been getting spam that claims to be from Yahoo today. It seems to originate with a site whose front page says "this site is under construction.... ".
Here's the entirety:
Click these links to see recent news and up to the minute stats:
Current link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ivoc.ob&d=v1
52 week link
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ivoc.ob&d=c&k=c4
Please FWD this email to your associates of similar interests..... Sorry for any
intrusions.
Disclaimer: Neither Corporate America nor the writers of this communique makes
specific trading recommendations or gives individualized market advice.
Information contained in this newsletter is provided as an information service
only. Corporate America recommends that you get personal advice from an
investment professional before buying or selling stocks or other securities. The
securities markets are highly speculative areas for investments and only you can
determine what level of risk is appropriate for you. Although Corporate America
obtains the information reported herein from sources that it deems reliable, no
warranty can be given as to the accuracy or completeness of any of the
information provided or as to the results obtained by individuals using such
information. In no way should this be construed as a recommendation to buy or
sell a particular security.
Not Interested: http://www.cyberxworld.com/cleanlist.html
Well, that's certainly different from your standard GPL discussion. It's been a few years since I took philosophy, so the positive/natural right dichotomy was a little hard to recall.
But I was actually talking about a legal right that has various implementations is different jurisdictions. It's true that others could provide a more nuanced description of copyright than I did.
While I wasn't trying to cover the possibilities of dual licensing or private licensing, I tried leave room for that possibility. In fact, some of my GPLed code is separately licensed to the company I work for, in excange for being able to copy modifications made at work back into the GPLed version.
No.
The copyright is not a legal document. Copyright is a right. The right of an author to prevent anyone and everyone from copying his or her work.
In order to legally copy an author's work, you must have a license from the author to copy it. Typically, authors license their works to publishing companies who then pay them.
Now, if you get GPLed source, you don't have the right to distribute it. Unless you accept the GPL.
If you do distribute it against the terms of the GPL, you'll get charged with, not GPL violation, but copyright infringement. Since the works are copyrighted, you'll have to argue that you have a license to copy them. But the only license you can have the is the GPL. Only you didn't follow its terms, so your license isn't valid. . .
God, I know. But it should probably be called "Factually incorrect", since "Wrong" can mean a lot of things. . .
MS DOS is easy to secure? What are you smoking? And can I have some?
Sure MS DOS isn't subject to worms or IP spoofing, but that's 'cause it doesn't ship with and IP stack. You may be amazed to hear that my toaster is also secure from Internet attacks! And these days, my toaster is more useful than MS DOS. The hot, buttery toast I'm chewing is testament to that. Why, the last time I saw the DOS command prompt was when I installed Windows 98.
What about Windows 3.1, 95, 98 or ME? They didn't have a very firm grasp on the notion of multiple users. Anyone could read anyone else's files, for crying out loud! That's not secure, that's Swiss cheese. My apologies to the Swiss. I like that cheese.
I've never touched Windows CE. I hear it sucks less now, which is good. I wonder how many IPAQs it would take to run a medium-sized web site? How many would it take to weather the Slashdot effect?
Windows NT, I grant, is far more secure than any MS System. But I shouldn't really mention NT and 2000 separately, since I lumped 95 in the same pile as ME. Even Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of lying to you about certain file extensions. It can also hide files and directories from the administrator.
As for other products, well-- When you say "system", you must mean operating system, 'cause we can't go around comparing Linux to Microsoft Word. That would be silly.
Shall we compare compare Word and Outlook to VI and Mutt?
Does this mean that you can use the patent for any GPLed work? Because you can take RTLinux and mutate it, until your "derivative work" bears no resemblance to the original-- except for performing operations that fall within the scope of the patent.
When you create a new Work, you own the copyright. If your new Work is derived from somone else's Work, they also own the copyright. If they GPLed their Work, you can GPL your derived work. You definitely own what you write. It's just that someone else may own it, too.
It's not really bashing. It's having a sense of homour about it. McGyver was fun, but you got the impression that if you locked him in an airtight chamber with a stick of chewing gum and a pair of sneakers and buried it in concrete, McGuyver would invent a teleporter before the air ran out.
Although much more plausible, McGuyver's character was a bit like "The Professor" on Gilligan's Island. The show also has a Sherlock Holmes flavour, because both characters did amazing things because the authors had set things up so that they could do those things. Doyle left clues, while McGuyver's writers gave him access to substances and objects he needed to succeed.