Why *is* it harder to read from an ntfs filesystem than to write to it?
Because NTFS is a (publically) undocumented cesspool of links, dependencies, and lists.
NTFS appears to be deliberately designed to be unusable by anything except Windows. People have gone mad attempting to understand the structure of NTFS - even MS only allows expendable programmers to look at the source, lest they become permanently damaged by it.
Rumor has it that when Bill Gates sold his soul to Satan, he was forced to bring NTFS from Hades to the moral realm.
Regardless of the replies you've had, yes this is very useful.
If you're using Win2K and Active Directory, once the drive has less than 20MB free (depending on the system), you can no longer log in - at all - you can't even boot to a command prompt.
For example, Win2K (pre SP-1) had a problem with the log files filling up the harddrive.. old files were supposed to be deleted, but weren't - so the drive fills up.
The 'solution' to this was to install Win2K on a new drive... (the MS bulletin I read noted this was 'disaster recovery' - only in the land of MS would 'your drive is almost full' be a 'disaster'.)
Being unable to log into a Win2K system is more common than a lot of people think.
it wasn't built with security in mind at all--it evolved that way.
No, it really was designed for security - any multi-user system that allows users to restrict or allow what other users can do is (by definition) built for security.
Remember that Unix has had a pretty ambivalent, colored history, and has almost 15 years head-start on Windows. And the Morris worm proved pretty conclusively that Unix needed a lot of work before being considered "secure"
Wrong definition of security - and (for the correct definition) the Morris worm proves that security was designed into Unix..
The Morris worm took advantage of a security hole that allowed it to overrule the existing security system - a security system that was designed into the OS.
And what are "arithmetic in your head" skills useful for ?
How about going to the store and knowing if you got the correct change?
Math skills are an essential part of functioning in today's society. By allowing people to skip over them, you're permanently damaging their ability to function properly.
Math is wonderful. You can basically create formulas that may or may not have any basis in reality. This is why in addition to in addition to mathematician we have experimental physicists who whack the mathematician on the snout
Reminds me...
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were all taken to a farm and asked to build the best fence - the fence had to encompass the largest amount of area, with the smallest perimeter.
The engineer said - "That's easy - you make a circle!"
The physicist said - "No, you have the fence section encompass the diameter of the earth, that way you get more area because of the third dimension."
The mathematician ran over to a pile of fence sections, picked up three small ones and arranged them around himself to create a tiny enclosure - then said "I am on the outside!"
This is the same court who sided with our domestic DTH satellite providers and outright made it illegal to subscribe to US services in our country
That's a half-truth.
Yes, it's illegal for American DTH providers to sell services in Canada, unless they follow the same rules as the Canadian companies, however if the American sattelite companies 'broadcast' into Canada, it is perfectly legal for people to receive them.
when it comes to protecting a few broadcasting monopolies it's ok to ban foreign signals.
WRONG
The foriegn signals aren't 'banned' - what's banned is selling these foriegn signals (again, unless the companies obey the same laws as everybody else). The upshot is if you have a 'pirate' receiver, it's perfectly legal to receive signals from American transmitters.
your example: what if you made money with that book (by whatever means), that violates the original author's IP? would the original author be entitled to make you stop or sue you for damages, etc.? My guess (again IANAL) is yes.
Yes, but irrelevant.
We're talking about USING, not selling/leasing/renting/making money.
more realistically, what if i sold you the rights to a patent i didn't own
Also irrelevant. Patents are not copyrights, and are governed by a completely different set of rules.
a contract is based on unlawful circumstances (ie. IP-violation) is plain void.
No - there is no such thing as "IP-violation." There is patent violation, trademark violation, and copyright violation. Each is governed by different laws, and you can't point to one and claim that it's rules affect the others.
There is no 'contract'. As long as the software is bought in good faith (the buyer believed that the seller was licensed to produce the copy) then that's all that matters.
that the original owner of that IP still has some rights
Again, define 'IP' (copyright, trademark, or patent), and what are the circumstances?
The best part is this line, used to describe the kernel developers:
Numerous unrelated and unknown software developers..
I mean, do they think that everybody at Microsoft is releated to each other?
Hmm - come to think of it, this might explain everything - SCO expects all of their employees to be inbred! What they became is the tech equvalent of Deliverance!
Open sourcing a search engine would 100% guarantee absolute junk for results.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your entire argument seems to be "some software is inherently flawed" - which I take issue with. If the method is flawed, then you need to find a better method.
In fact, I submit that an open-source search engine would produce better search results.
Why? For the same reason that every other search engine benefits from open-source: everybody gets to see the algorithm
If you are able to manipulate the data provided to get better results, other people will see the same thing, and be able to provide checks that would eliminate that flaw.
Open-sourcing software makes it easier to find and fix any flaws that might result.
while it is not a substitute for a good security policy, it is an excellent augmentation.
No, it is a very, very bad thing.
The problem with obscurity is not that it doesn't do anything - the problem is that it makes people think that it does do something.
Security through obscurity causes people to take steps which do absolutely nothing - and this can lead to a false sense of security.
In other words, obscurity is fine, as long as you know that it's useless. Which leads to the question: if you know it's useless, why are you using it?
we all turn off ping before we put our servers up.
No - if it's on a server, I don't bother. On most clients I do though (except for those originating from my ISP,) but I don't turn it off for security reasons.
On clients, I turn it off because it cuts down on the number of portscans I get, and those portscans take up bandwidth. It's not a security thing.
Err, no they don't. Traceroute uses UDP and ICMP 'destination unreachable' messages.
Path MTU Discovery fails
Again, no. PMTU Discovery uses ICMP 'Fragmentation needed but DF bit set' messages.
and the niceity of sitting at a remote location and doing a "ping" to see if the machine is still alive fails.
Umm - DUH - "turning off X means you can't use X anymore".
'Ping' uses ICMP 'echo request' and ICMP 'echo reply' messages - it doesn't affect anything else.
Turning off ping is a BAD idea.
No, it most certainly isn't.
Google for it, you'll find many papers written about ICMP being necessary.
And what (exactly) does that have to do with disabling ping? There is a very big difference between disabling ONE type of ICMP message, and disabling ALL ICMP messages.
Disabling inbound ICMP echo-request messages will limit the amount of portscans you have to deal with. It's a good idea.
Maximum statutory damages for willful copyright violation is $150,000 per infringment
The thing is that Google obtained the software in good faith. There is no willful infringement.
Google is also not distributing Linux, so (according to Eben Moglen) they can't be liable for copyright infringement at all. (The party from whom they obtained the software would be liable.)
If they couldn't sue Google per se, could they pursue some sort of injunction against them to stop using what SCO claims is "their" technology?
Google's defense against that (right now) is that they obtained the software in good faith. Before SCO could get an injunction like that, they'd have to prove that they own the copyright (as you noted). And in order to do that, they'd have to provide some evidence.
if they can't sue Google, SCO may still have means to try and extract cash from Google
The only way they can extract cash from Google would be if Google lets them - because the cost of litigation would be more than the cost of paying up.
They are infringing on the licensing terms of Linux.
Sorry, but a license is an agreement - how (exactly) has Google "infringed" on something they've never seen?
As SCO owns Linux, it can set its own licensing terms.
I can only assume you're being sarcastic (or playing Devil's Advocate) with the first part of that sentence - but even if SCO "owned" linux, they couldn't take Google to court for violating an agreement they didn't agree to.
how you can sue someone for violating your IP rights
The thing is, you can't sue someone for 'violating IP rights' (well, you can sue for anything, but you can't win)
If SCO is going to sue, they'll have to say what 'IP' it is that Google is infringing WRT Linux - is Google infringing copyright (Hmm, they're not distributing Linux), Trademark (SCO doesn't own the Linux trademark), or Trade Secret (that would be a tough one to prove.)
As Eben Moglen has said, you can't bring a copyright infringement suit against someone for using something, only for copying it. They would have to go after whoever Google got their software from (or the case would be thrown out.)
They have a better shot at going after Google for contributory infringement (linking to Linux download sites) - but even that has a snowball's chance in hell.
if too many mails from Don Smith are declared spam, Don Smith appears on blacklists. You're free to choose which blacklists you're using to block your spam and which blacklists you're contributing to (if any).
How is that any different than what we've got now?
What we can hope for here is that IBM's motions to compel will be upheld, and SCO will be ordered to provide details on exactly -what- they claim was illegaly put into Linux, within a set time frame.
But the case isn't over by a long shot.
If SCO has to detail their claims, then the case will indeed be over. Once it's shown that there are no infringements, SCO's bubble will burst, and they go into liquidation.
2. The Babylon 5 production crew were the ones that revoutionised SciFi special effects arena (it had been running a FULL two years before SA&B). They showed EVERYONE that you could make an episode using computer graphics without the $1Million price tag that star trek espiodes cost then.
Not if you wanted it to look good.
The CGI for B5 blew very large, stinky goats. Yes, it was amazing that these people pulled the wool over some people's eyes, but the plain truth is that the CGI sucked (I was a big Toaster fan, and wanted it to be good - but after seeing B5, I never mentioned that my favourite platform was used to make the special effects, because it was so damn embarrassing.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why *is* it harder to read from an ntfs filesystem than to write to it?
Because NTFS is a (publically) undocumented cesspool of links, dependencies, and lists.
NTFS appears to be deliberately designed to be unusable by anything except Windows. People have gone mad attempting to understand the structure of NTFS - even MS only allows expendable programmers to look at the source, lest they become permanently damaged by it.
Rumor has it that when Bill Gates sold his soul to Satan, he was forced to bring NTFS from Hades to the moral realm.
Regardless of the replies you've had, yes this is very useful.
If you're using Win2K and Active Directory, once the drive has less than 20MB free (depending on the system), you can no longer log in - at all - you can't even boot to a command prompt.
For example, Win2K (pre SP-1) had a problem with the log files filling up the harddrive.. old files were supposed to be deleted, but weren't - so the drive fills up.
The 'solution' to this was to install Win2K on a new drive... (the MS bulletin I read noted this was 'disaster recovery' - only in the land of MS would 'your drive is almost full' be a 'disaster'.)
Being unable to log into a Win2K system is more common than a lot of people think.
many of us allow a binary Nvidia module, without knowing how good (usually) or bad (sometimes) it might be.
The difference is, of course, that the Nvidia module is written specifically for the Linux kernel.
See what Alexandre Julliard has to say about Windows DLLs.. would you really want this?
Microsoft has a two year head start slapping the same brand on everything it sells (.NET)
DirectAudio
*Ahem*
ActiveDirectory
ActiveX
Direct3D
DirectDraw
DirectPants
How many years of head start did you say they had?
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information.
No, it doesn't.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of material.
That material may be 'intellectual property', or it may be physical goods.
It's perfetcly possible to have a free market without scarcity of information.
it wasn't built with security in mind at all--it evolved that way.
No, it really was designed for security - any multi-user system that allows users to restrict or allow what other users can do is (by definition) built for security.
Remember that Unix has had a pretty ambivalent, colored history, and has almost 15 years head-start on Windows. And the Morris worm proved pretty conclusively that Unix needed a lot of work before being considered "secure"
Wrong definition of security - and (for the correct definition) the Morris worm proves that security was designed into Unix..
The Morris worm took advantage of a security hole that allowed it to overrule the existing security system - a security system that was designed into the OS.
And what are "arithmetic in your head" skills useful for ?
How about going to the store and knowing if you got the correct change?
Math skills are an essential part of functioning in today's society. By allowing people to skip over them, you're permanently damaging their ability to function properly.
So who does ?
EVERYBODY
Math is wonderful. You can basically create formulas that may or may not have any basis in reality. This is why in addition to in addition to mathematician we have experimental physicists who whack the mathematician on the snout
Reminds me...
A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer were all taken to a farm and asked to build the best fence - the fence had to encompass the largest amount of area, with the smallest perimeter.
The engineer said - "That's easy - you make a circle!"
The physicist said - "No, you have the fence section encompass the diameter of the earth, that way you get more area because of the third dimension."
The mathematician ran over to a pile of fence sections, picked up three small ones and arranged them around himself to create a tiny enclosure - then said "I am on the outside!"
The main downside is the amount of paper it could use
:o)
No, the main downside is that it's a bitch to run grep on a printout.
This is the same court who sided with our domestic DTH satellite providers and outright made it illegal to subscribe to US services in our country
That's a half-truth.
Yes, it's illegal for American DTH providers to sell services in Canada, unless they follow the same rules as the Canadian companies, however if the American sattelite companies 'broadcast' into Canada, it is perfectly legal for people to receive them.
when it comes to protecting a few broadcasting monopolies it's ok to ban foreign signals.
WRONG
The foriegn signals aren't 'banned' - what's banned is selling these foriegn signals (again, unless the companies obey the same laws as everybody else). The upshot is if you have a 'pirate' receiver, it's perfectly legal to receive signals from American transmitters.
your example: what if you made money with that book (by whatever means), that violates the original author's IP? would the original author be entitled to make you stop or sue you for damages, etc.? My guess (again IANAL) is yes.
Yes, but irrelevant.
We're talking about USING, not selling/leasing/renting/making money.
more realistically, what if i sold you the rights to a patent i didn't own
Also irrelevant. Patents are not copyrights, and are governed by a completely different set of rules.
a contract is based on unlawful circumstances (ie. IP-violation) is plain void.
No - there is no such thing as "IP-violation." There is patent violation, trademark violation, and copyright violation. Each is governed by different laws, and you can't point to one and claim that it's rules affect the others.
There is no 'contract'. As long as the software is bought in good faith (the buyer believed that the seller was licensed to produce the copy) then that's all that matters.
that the original owner of that IP still has some rights
Again, define 'IP' (copyright, trademark, or patent), and what are the circumstances?
The best part is this line, used to describe the kernel developers:
Numerous unrelated and unknown software developers..
I mean, do they think that everybody at Microsoft is releated to each other?
Hmm - come to think of it, this might explain everything - SCO expects all of their employees to be inbred! What they became is the tech equvalent of Deliverance!
Figuring out a search ranking algorithm that works well in that context is very hard, and would be impossible if it was public or open source.
I disagree - it would be easier, because there would be more people working on the problem.
Open sourcing a search engine would 100% guarantee absolute junk for results.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your entire argument seems to be "some software is inherently flawed" - which I take issue with. If the method is flawed, then you need to find a better method.
In fact, I submit that an open-source search engine would produce better search results.
Why? For the same reason that every other search engine benefits from open-source: everybody gets to see the algorithm
If you are able to manipulate the data provided to get better results, other people will see the same thing, and be able to provide checks that would eliminate that flaw.
Open-sourcing software makes it easier to find and fix any flaws that might result.
while it is not a substitute for a good security policy, it is an excellent augmentation.
No, it is a very, very bad thing.
The problem with obscurity is not that it doesn't do anything - the problem is that it makes people think that it does do something.
Security through obscurity causes people to take steps which do absolutely nothing - and this can lead to a false sense of security.
In other words, obscurity is fine, as long as you know that it's useless. Which leads to the question: if you know it's useless, why are you using it?
we all turn off ping before we put our servers up.
No - if it's on a server, I don't bother. On most clients I do though (except for those originating from my ISP,) but I don't turn it off for security reasons.
On clients, I turn it off because it cuts down on the number of portscans I get, and those portscans take up bandwidth. It's not a security thing.
Turning off ping can break so many things!
Such as?
traceroutes fail
Err, no they don't. Traceroute uses UDP and ICMP 'destination unreachable' messages.
Path MTU Discovery fails
Again, no. PMTU Discovery uses ICMP 'Fragmentation needed but DF bit set' messages.
and the niceity of sitting at a remote location and doing a "ping" to see if the machine is still alive fails.
Umm - DUH - "turning off X means you can't use X anymore".
'Ping' uses ICMP 'echo request' and ICMP 'echo reply' messages - it doesn't affect anything else.
Turning off ping is a BAD idea.
No, it most certainly isn't.
Google for it, you'll find many papers written about ICMP being necessary.
And what (exactly) does that have to do with disabling ping? There is a very big difference between disabling ONE type of ICMP message, and disabling ALL ICMP messages.
Disabling inbound ICMP echo-request messages will limit the amount of portscans you have to deal with. It's a good idea.
thus when you recieve software, you get a license to copy it with certain restrictions on your rights to copy the software
Actually, because the 'copying' happens during the normal course of use, it's included under fair use. No license is required.
Maximum statutory damages for willful copyright violation is $150,000 per infringment
The thing is that Google obtained the software in good faith. There is no willful infringement.
Google is also not distributing Linux, so (according to Eben Moglen) they can't be liable for copyright infringement at all. (The party from whom they obtained the software would be liable.)
If they couldn't sue Google per se, could they pursue some sort of injunction against them to stop using what SCO claims is "their" technology?
Google's defense against that (right now) is that they obtained the software in good faith. Before SCO could get an injunction like that, they'd have to prove that they own the copyright (as you noted). And in order to do that, they'd have to provide some evidence.
if they can't sue Google, SCO may still have means to try and extract cash from Google
The only way they can extract cash from Google would be if Google lets them - because the cost of litigation would be more than the cost of paying up.
They are infringing on the licensing terms of Linux.
Sorry, but a license is an agreement - how (exactly) has Google "infringed" on something they've never seen?
As SCO owns Linux, it can set its own licensing terms.
I can only assume you're being sarcastic (or playing Devil's Advocate) with the first part of that sentence - but even if SCO "owned" linux, they couldn't take Google to court for violating an agreement they didn't agree to.
how you can sue someone for violating your IP rights
The thing is, you can't sue someone for 'violating IP rights' (well, you can sue for anything, but you can't win)
If SCO is going to sue, they'll have to say what 'IP' it is that Google is infringing WRT Linux - is Google infringing copyright (Hmm, they're not distributing Linux), Trademark (SCO doesn't own the Linux trademark), or Trade Secret (that would be a tough one to prove.)
As Eben Moglen has said, you can't bring a copyright infringement suit against someone for using something, only for copying it. They would have to go after whoever Google got their software from (or the case would be thrown out.)
They have a better shot at going after Google for contributory infringement (linking to Linux download sites) - but even that has a snowball's chance in hell.
Does this mean that there will be packets washing up on the coast over the next few days?
No silly, everybody knows they evaporate when they hit the air.
if too many mails from Don Smith are declared spam, Don Smith appears on blacklists. You're free to choose which blacklists you're using to block your spam and which blacklists you're contributing to (if any).
How is that any different than what we've got now?
What we can hope for here is that IBM's motions to compel will be upheld, and SCO will be ordered to provide details on exactly -what- they claim was illegaly put into Linux, within a set time frame.
But the case isn't over by a long shot.
If SCO has to detail their claims, then the case will indeed be over. Once it's shown that there are no infringements, SCO's bubble will burst, and they go into liquidation.
2. The Babylon 5 production crew were the ones that revoutionised SciFi special effects arena (it had been running a FULL two years before SA&B). They showed EVERYONE that you could make an episode using computer graphics without the $1Million price tag that star trek
espiodes cost then.
Not if you wanted it to look good.
The CGI for B5 blew very large, stinky goats. Yes, it was amazing that these people pulled the wool over some people's eyes, but the plain truth is that the CGI sucked (I was a big Toaster fan, and wanted it to be good - but after seeing B5, I never mentioned that my favourite platform was used to make the special effects, because it was so damn embarrassing.)