Even public key crypto isn't immune to man-in-the-middle attacks. There still has to be an initial key exchange, which can be intercepted and substituted.
Actually the verb comes last in relative clauses, which also happens to be the base word order for German. In main clauses a bit of movement causes the verb to end up as the second word of the sentence.
Let's say MS releases a patch that ends up causing major problems for mission critical systems at a nonzero number of Fortune 500 companies. The next time those companies are looking at major systems overhauls, do you think they're going to seriously consider MS products?
I'm guessing that simply writing out those assumptions is going to do wonders for the security of your program. Incorrect assumptions are the bane of software correctness, as djb found out:)
No, all computers share a "drive" and GFS makes sure they don't step on eachother's toes.
Usually that "drive" is a largish storage device with a lot of harddisks, though.
Anyway, there seems to be an feeling that a "methodology" is somehow inferior, and I don't think that's right. Referring to something as a methodology is not a detraction. Looking at the relative success of the Linux kernel vs. The Hurd you can see how far just being ideological gets you.;)
From my viewpoint both the OSI and FSF are very useful and I'd love for them to cooperate instead of compete. Lobbing words like "kook-aid" at eachother is not going to help that, though.
I never contested that. However, if you don't care about the why but just about the how ("use freedom to make software") then Open Source sounds more like a methodology than a philosophy indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately you can't do that test without entering a contract with Adobe. Pity.
It doesn't always recommend D66 though (try some extreme choices and see).
The stomwijzer (stupidguide instead of voteguide) is a nice parody.
Use http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php to extract a direct link to the FLV source movie. Then use mplayer to play it. A bit of a hassle, but it works.
Even public key crypto isn't immune to man-in-the-middle attacks. There still has to be an initial key exchange, which can be intercepted and substituted.
Nope.
Actually the verb comes last in relative clauses, which also happens to be the base word order for German. In main clauses a bit of movement causes the verb to end up as the second word of the sentence.
Neither, sadly.
I'm guessing that simply writing out those assumptions is going to do wonders for the security of your program. Incorrect assumptions are the bane of software correctness, as djb found out :)
No, all computers share a "drive" and GFS makes sure they don't step on eachother's toes. Usually that "drive" is a largish storage device with a lot of harddisks, though.
So you mean to say that their IGOS program is restricted to the operating system only?
So you meant to say that the purpose of Indonesia's Open Source IGOS program is to be able to run proprietary software?
Do you mean to say that the "Java Desktop System" does not contain a Sun JDK?
Excuse me, but how does Sun's proprietary Java offering fit in an "Open Source" strategy?
I believe this particular fallacy is usually referred to as "statistics".
Wow, my stack hit the ceiling there, trying to parse that. Nice one.
gefeliciteerd dan, alsnog ;)
"bedoeld" :P
Morals imply religion? How old-fashioned. :)
Anyway, there seems to be an feeling that a "methodology" is somehow inferior, and I don't think that's right. Referring to something as a methodology is not a detraction. Looking at the relative success of the Linux kernel vs. The Hurd you can see how far just being ideological gets you. ;)
From my viewpoint both the OSI and FSF are very useful and I'd love for them to cooperate instead of compete. Lobbing words like "kook-aid" at eachother is not going to help that, though.
I never contested that. However, if you don't care about the why but just about the how ("use freedom to make software") then Open Source sounds more like a methodology than a philosophy indeed.
Russ Nelson wrote:
[RMS] continues to contend that open source is just a development methodology whereas free software has a philosophical basis.
and later on says:
Who cares why you prefer freedom?
Heh, doesn't that last bit just prove RMS's point? It's also reminiscent of another article on Slashdot.
Russ Nelson wrote:
> I don't understand.
An AC wrote:
Please try to, for all our sakes.
Seconded.
Arguing for something (freedom) without knowing why? That can't be right.
You don't have to agree with RMS, but it would be good to avoid remarks about "kook-aid" if you don't even understand his point of view.
Hmm, if this is going to be the kind of diplomacy we can expect it will be interesting times indeed.
Interesting. He'll be heading OSI but does qmail and other djbsoftware consulting?