Everyone knows you can't do anything with Mach by itself. And if BSD is the OS server doing the work, it's pretty natural you'd need the whole thing. What could you possibly cut out? Networking? File systems? Nah.
And whatever these questions are about why Apple won't put it's tools on Linux, I'd say they remain wide open since BSD and Linux and plenty close.
I suppose it had to happen eventually. Mac running on Mach.
A lot of stuff now days needs numbers greater than the 4 gig you can fit in 32 bits. e.g. most disks are bigger than 4 gig and memories are starting to go there too. Remember small and large memory models under DOS? You don't want to go there. As far as disks and databases that use them it's slower, and extremely painful programming-wise to use 32 bit calculations to manage more than 4 gig of a resource.
While I'd admit the system shutdown on Linux could still do with more work, it's really as easy as Ctrl-Alt-F1 (to exit X) and Ctrl-Alt-Del (to reboot). Or in Gnome, Menu->Logout, Menu->shutdown. Why it can't be one step in Gnome I don't know.
If you used the same "file format" as outlook - i.e. embeddable VB script and fully supported that format, then you'd run the script and presumably suffer the bug.
The solution is really to avoid dumb software. If email is to allow scripting it should be under a very strict security model.
Maybe it hasn't been testing *because* it is bullet proof. Would you sue if you know you're going to lose?
As for the issue of legal costs, well a threat at least is free, and there are *some* squillionairs who could put up the dough if they cared) to (like Eric Raymond who has let companies off scott free in the past).
I would have thought the answer was obvious. "Open source all your drivers or we'll sue your a**".
Re:I don't understand the question.
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
You know those chess problems where it says "white to play and mate in two moves". Well if chess were solved you would see a chess problem showing the opening position saying "white to play and mate in 100 moves" or some such. In other words you could say before the game starts that if white plays perfectly he will always win. Or maybe black will always win. Or maybe if black and white play perfectly it will always be stalement. One of those three outcomes, but which we don't know till chess is solved.
The difference between Corel and MPAA is that Corel violated a COPYLEFT. The copyleft is supposed to force you to share stuff. The MPAA are trying to enforce COPYRIGHT to stop people sharing stuff. See the difference?
The difference is if you thrash the net it has no effect on the content. Let's say you have a worthy piece of information in freenet. You may feel the need to set up a thrasher bot just to make sure it doesn't disappear. I mean just because Shakespear's sonnets are not accessed regularly doesn't mean they are not worthy.
Freenet would seem much more interesting if it had some method to allow really interesting information to stick around forever.
Before accusing people of "spouting off", read the article yourself. There is no mention of "Windows Terminal Devices". Now maybe that's what they're talking about, but according to the article the only problem with Linux is a few device drivers. Maybe that's a smoke screen, I don't know. But if we take it at face value it's pretty crazy. Writing a driver for a bar code reader is prety easy.
If they're switching OSes just because they can't write a few drivers for bar-code readers, there's something very wrong with the company. In fact I'm surprised if WinCE has very good support for obscure hardware, I'd imagine Linux would be better, not to mention that writing Linux drivers is probably a whole lot better documented.
I don't think you're comparing apples with apples Tim. Postgresql will have V7.0 released way before 3 months time at which point the SQL should be equal or superior in standardisation to Interbase. OTOH, who actually knows where Interbase will be in 3 months? It might be nowhere fast.
And in terms of "advanced", Interbase will probably never catch PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is the king of features in RDBMS with its ORDBMS features. Interbase may one day be faster, but more featureful or advanced, I doubt.
As always, it still depends on how good the compiler is. If it can optimise common p-code sequences to a compiled solution, or do run-time java-type stuff, then you're ahead.
Someone correct me if I'm off track here, but FUNCTIONAL != DECLARATIVE. In SQL, you say nothing about how to achieve a result. In a functional language you still have to say exactly how to solve it, it's just that you avoid assignment as a tool to solve it (leading to a whole lot of benefits). Admittedly a pure functional program starts to show some similarities to declaritive (like saying n! = n*(n-1), but it's not quite the same thing).
Why all the negative comments people? Shares are a good investment. If you don't invest in shares, what are you going to do with your money? All the suggestion is saying is to assign the voting right proxies (which lets face it you wouldn't have used anyway) over to some organisation which will go and use the votes for a good cause. Hey if every slashdot reader who was able invested $10,000 that would probably be a lot of votes. The worst that is likely to happen to you is you make some money on the stockmarket.
I didn't think it would come to this, but I think everyone these days needs encrypted file systems just to protect their basic human rights. Not just for the crackers and Mitnicks of this world any more.
If a program can run on linux, it can be made to run on Windows. If the judge's interpretation is correct then the exception in the Digital Millenium act is worthless. Surely he can't argue that.
So what if it runs on Windows? Maybe I want to write a Windows DVD player with a nicer user interface and better features. JUST BECAUSE I RUN IT ON WINDOWS DOESN'T MEAN I'M CIRCUMVENTING COPYRIGHT!
Another primary purpose it to circumvent the playing region stuff. Isn't this somehow illegal under international free trade treaties?
The DeCSS code is not patented or copyright. Does that mean I can distribute it as a general purpose encryption algorithm, so that I can say, encrypt my emails? If so can I put it into a Linux libcryptxxx.a. Can it really be the case that I can stop people using an algorithm? What if I take another algorithm and create my own DVD standard. Can I now start sueing people right and left for using the same algorithm. THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT AN ALGORITM IS PATENTS (even then it is a maybe).
Is the algorithm expressed in pseudo-English legal? What then if I write a pseudo-English compiler? Can English not be free speech?
The judge seemed to confuse the issues of copyrighted material excluded from free speech, and software which is not copyrighted (but allows circumvention of copyright) from being free speech. No-one can claim that DeCSS is copyrighted and can't be used. This seemed confused in the judgement.
There is no such thing as software that can only be used for one purpose. So is the Digital Millenium exclusion worthless because anything can be used for evil as well as good? The point is the only USEFUL purpose of DeCSS is playback, not copy. Copy can be done without DeCSS,therefore copy can't be a primary (or even any?) use for DeCSS. PEOPLE WHO PIRATE DVDs WILL NOT, AND NEVER WILL USE DeCSS. They will always copy bit for bit. I don't even know that an de-crypted DVD would even play in a regular DVD player. Therefore the only use for DeCSS effectively is playback. Maybe in the future it could be used for other things but the future is not here now.
The DMCA says that it is not intended to prevent fair use. DeCSS is the only way users can get fair use! See 1201(c)(1) " Nothing in this section effect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringment, INCLUDING FAIR USE, under this title."
How can it be significant whether DeCSS is "commercially significant"? Irrelevant Mr Judge!
The DMCA says that reverse engineering for interoperability is ok. Well if the judge doesn't think that THIS DeCSS was reverse engineered for the right reasons, lets get a ruling about EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT CONDITIONS might be. Once we have this ruling, we'll do ANOTHER clean room crack of DeCSS AGAIN, and this time with all the right reasons and motivations, and get a favourable ruling.
DeCSS by itself does not circumvent anything. It's not compiled, so it doesn't function and even if it was it's not a complete program. Therefore all it is is an (unpatented) algorithm. Much more would need to be added before it could circumvent anything. It's not the full story any more than a one line program could be expanded and added to into something useful. Even then it needs hardware etc etc.
If we believe the judge, Microsoft could stop people interoperating with MS-Word. Is this the level of anti-competition that the act implies?
Demonstrate copying of a DVD WITHOUT DeCSS, and then playing a DVD on Linux WITH DeCSS. That would prove that DeCSS does nothing to stop copying, but everything to allow playback (which must surely be fair use).
If DeCSS is prevented, it gives an illegal monopoly to the DVD association preventing others from entering the market. The only way to enter the market without going through the illegal monopoly is to crack CSS for interoperability.
Ok, let's say it's illegal to distribute DeCSS to circumvent this measure. Can we distribute it as part of a player that does NOT circumvent this measure? If not, why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone else in the world is moving their censored web sites INTO the USA.
Everyone knows you can't do anything with Mach by itself. And if BSD is the OS server doing the work, it's pretty natural you'd need the whole thing. What could you possibly cut out? Networking? File systems? Nah.
And whatever these questions are about why Apple won't put it's tools on Linux, I'd say they remain wide open since BSD and Linux and plenty close.
I suppose it had to happen eventually. Mac running on Mach.
A lot of stuff now days needs numbers greater than the 4 gig you can fit in 32 bits. e.g. most disks are bigger than 4 gig and memories are starting to go there too. Remember small and large memory models under DOS? You don't want to go there. As far as disks and databases that use them it's slower, and extremely painful programming-wise to use 32 bit calculations to manage more than 4 gig of a resource.
If prohibition equals DMCA, then I guess Time-Warner equals Al Capone.
While I'd admit the system shutdown on Linux could still do with more work, it's really as easy as Ctrl-Alt-F1 (to exit X) and Ctrl-Alt-Del (to reboot). Or in Gnome, Menu->Logout, Menu->shutdown. Why it can't be one step in Gnome I don't know.
If you used the same "file format" as outlook - i.e. embeddable VB script and fully supported that format, then you'd run the script and presumably suffer the bug.
The solution is really to avoid dumb software. If email is to allow scripting it should be under a very strict security model.
Maybe it hasn't been testing *because* it is bullet proof. Would you sue if you know you're going to lose?
As for the issue of legal costs, well a threat at least is free, and there are *some* squillionairs who could put up the dough if they cared) to (like Eric Raymond who has let companies off scott free in the past).
I would have thought the answer was obvious. "Open source all your drivers or we'll sue your a**".
You know those chess problems where it says "white to play and mate in two moves". Well if chess were solved you would see a chess problem showing the opening position saying "white to play and mate in 100 moves" or some such. In other words you could say before the game starts that if white plays perfectly he will always win. Or maybe black will always win. Or maybe if black and white play perfectly it will always be stalement. One of those three outcomes, but which we don't know till chess is solved.
The difference between Corel and MPAA is that Corel violated a COPYLEFT. The copyleft is supposed to force you to share stuff. The MPAA are trying to enforce COPYRIGHT to stop people sharing stuff. See the difference?
Just use the java native interface to do
unixy daemony things. Not ideal, but not a big
enough reason to re-write it.
The difference is if you thrash the net it has no effect on the content. Let's say you have a worthy piece of information in freenet. You may feel the need to set up a thrasher bot just to make sure it doesn't disappear. I mean just because Shakespear's sonnets are not accessed regularly doesn't mean they are not worthy.
Freenet would seem much more interesting if it had some method to allow really interesting information to stick around forever.
Before accusing people of "spouting off", read the article yourself. There is no mention of "Windows Terminal Devices". Now maybe that's what they're talking about, but according to the article the only problem with Linux is a few device drivers. Maybe that's a smoke screen, I don't know. But if we take it at face value it's pretty crazy. Writing a driver for a bar code reader is prety easy.
If they're switching OSes just because they can't write a few drivers for bar-code readers, there's something very wrong with the company. In fact I'm surprised if WinCE has very good support for obscure hardware, I'd imagine Linux would be better, not to mention that writing Linux drivers is probably a whole lot better documented.
Come on guys. It doesn't take a a detective to figure out who took it. Havn't you seen any movies? The Nazis took it! Change all codes now!
I don't think you're comparing apples with apples Tim. Postgresql will have V7.0 released way before 3 months time at which point the SQL should be equal or superior in standardisation to Interbase. OTOH, who actually knows where Interbase will be in 3 months? It might be nowhere fast.
And in terms of "advanced", Interbase will probably never catch PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is the king of features in RDBMS with its ORDBMS features. Interbase may one day be faster, but more featureful or advanced, I doubt.
As always, it still depends on how good the compiler is. If it can optimise common p-code sequences to a compiled solution, or do run-time java-type stuff, then you're ahead.
Someone correct me if I'm off track here, but FUNCTIONAL != DECLARATIVE. In SQL, you say nothing about how to achieve a result. In a functional language you still have to say exactly how to solve it, it's just that you avoid assignment as a tool to solve it (leading to a whole lot of benefits). Admittedly a pure functional program starts to show some similarities to declaritive (like saying n! = n*(n-1), but it's not quite the same thing).
Why all the negative comments people? Shares are
a good investment. If you don't invest in shares,
what are you going to do with your money? All the suggestion is saying is to assign the voting right proxies (which lets face it you wouldn't have used anyway) over to some organisation which will go and use the votes for a good cause. Hey if every slashdot reader who was able invested $10,000 that would probably be a lot of votes. The worst that is likely to happen to you is you make some money on the stockmarket.
I didn't think it would come to this, but I think everyone these days needs encrypted file systems just to protect their basic human rights. Not just for the crackers and Mitnicks of this world any more.
What, pray tell is wrong with UNIX on a pda?
What is UNIX? It's a file system interface API. It's a process control API. What is wrong with these APIs as far as PDAs? Nothing, that's what.
If a program can run on linux, it can be made to run on Windows. If the judge's interpretation is correct then the exception in the Digital Millenium act is worthless. Surely he can't argue that.
So what if it runs on Windows? Maybe I want to write a Windows DVD player with a nicer user interface and better features. JUST BECAUSE I RUN IT ON WINDOWS DOESN'T MEAN I'M CIRCUMVENTING COPYRIGHT!
Another primary purpose it to circumvent the playing region stuff. Isn't this somehow illegal under international free trade treaties?
The DeCSS code is not patented or copyright. Does that mean I can distribute it as a general purpose encryption algorithm, so that I can say, encrypt my emails? If so can I put it into a Linux libcryptxxx.a. Can it really be the case that I can stop people using an algorithm? What if I take another algorithm and create my own DVD standard. Can I now start sueing people right and left for using the same algorithm. THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT AN ALGORITM IS PATENTS (even then it is a maybe).
Is the algorithm expressed in pseudo-English legal? What then if I write a pseudo-English compiler? Can English not be free speech?
The judge seemed to confuse the issues of copyrighted material excluded from free speech, and software which is not copyrighted (but allows circumvention of copyright) from being free speech. No-one can claim that DeCSS is copyrighted and can't be used. This seemed confused in the judgement.
There is no such thing as software that can only be used for one purpose. So is the Digital Millenium exclusion worthless because anything can be used for evil as well as good? The point is the only USEFUL purpose of DeCSS is playback, not copy. Copy can be done without DeCSS,therefore copy can't be a primary (or even any?) use for DeCSS. PEOPLE WHO PIRATE DVDs WILL NOT, AND NEVER WILL USE DeCSS. They will always copy bit for bit. I don't even know that an de-crypted DVD would even play in a regular DVD player. Therefore the only use for DeCSS effectively is playback. Maybe in the future it could be used for other things but the future is not here now.
The DMCA says that it is not intended to prevent fair use. DeCSS is the only way users can get fair use! See 1201(c)(1) " Nothing in this section effect rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringment, INCLUDING FAIR USE, under this title."
How can it be significant whether DeCSS is "commercially significant"? Irrelevant Mr Judge!
The DMCA says that reverse engineering for interoperability is ok. Well if the judge doesn't think that THIS DeCSS was reverse engineered for the right reasons, lets get a ruling about EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT CONDITIONS might be. Once we have this ruling, we'll do ANOTHER clean room crack of DeCSS AGAIN, and this time with all the right reasons and motivations, and get a favourable ruling.
DeCSS by itself does not circumvent anything. It's not compiled, so it doesn't function and even if it was it's not a complete program. Therefore all it is is an (unpatented) algorithm. Much more would need to be added before it could circumvent anything. It's not the full story any more than a one line program could be expanded and added to into something useful. Even then it needs hardware etc etc.
If we believe the judge, Microsoft could stop people interoperating with MS-Word. Is this the level of anti-competition that the act implies?
Demonstrate copying of a DVD WITHOUT DeCSS, and then playing a DVD on Linux WITH DeCSS. That would prove that DeCSS does nothing to stop copying, but everything to allow playback (which must surely be fair use).
If DeCSS is prevented, it gives an illegal monopoly to the DVD association preventing others from entering the market. The only way to enter the market without going through the illegal monopoly is to crack CSS for interoperability.
Ok, let's say it's illegal to distribute DeCSS to circumvent this measure. Can we distribute it as part of a player that does NOT circumvent this measure? If not, why not?
Sort of a slash site ... TechPhoto.org
Yeah well, you could probably not bother paying
if you want, and the US couldn't do anything about it...
until....
you get back on home turf, at which time you're screwed.
Just put in more redundancy. Have several people
process the same data.