Guess what: Most resolvers DO negative caching. But you can only cache, if you have first asked for a result, and therefore there is a NEED to ask the root servers about bogus tlds.
There are better technologies to bring highspeed to the people than powerline. In fact powerline has much disadvantages against modern xDSL technologies and other widely used methods like cable. In Germany many companies tried the powerline game, and most ceased to exist.
Nonsense, just turn it off then. Theres no point to continue operating the phone, when it is of no use. If you shield the RF-waves, you won't even be able to receive calls.
Yes, we are talinkg about some binary modules which are compiled before distribution and WHICH SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. All "binary only" modules i've seen so far contains at least a short kernel linkage stub which is distributed in source and compiled by the enduser, because this is the only way to ensure that the module is compatible with your running kernel.
The companies providing "binary only" drivers are only distributing this stub source (which they very often GPL) plus their propitary binary. Compiling and linking is usually done by the enduser. Providing real binary-only-drivers would lead to many problems and therefore just isn't done.
For development you will need the kernel sources, yes. But the companies are free to use them for inner-house development, and what they are shipping in final is free from kernel sources. See it more like a "patch" against the kernel. This patch is distributed to endusers which happen to use it against the kernel and compile it. And it would work against any other os kernel which happen to have the same module interface.
For the linking (which is done by the enduser!) you will fairly sure end up with having gpl code contained in your binary (e.g. through using the header files which include static inlines). But as the binary is not distributed (at least not by the company), this is no breach of the GPL.
I guess the phrase "binary modules" is misleading. Of course a complete binary-only-module would be very likely against the GPL. But most binary modules are only in part binary only but contain a lot of open sourced stuff for interfacing with the kernel etc. The final linking of the GPL'd stuff against binary-only modules is done by the enduser which is free to do so. No point here.
Linus talks all about linking source with the kernel and stuff like this. But guess what: With most binary modules this part is done by the user, not by the distributor, and this is clearly your right - you just cannot distribute the binary.
See for example stuff like driverloader (the ndis-wrapper around windows wlan drivers for the centrino and other cards): They are shipping a source which you can compile against the kernel headers (which are provided by YOU!) and will form a kernel module which can be loaded (by YOU!) against the kernel.
I really can't see how linus can claim copyright to the distribution of any source which happens to run with the linux kernel - but does not contain any part of it. And the enduser is free to compile and link this sources against the kernel, as the GPL allows modifications for own use without any restriction.
I guess the whole discussion is politics. Linus dislikes binary only drivers (for good reasons: they are unflexible, hard to debug and can cause user confusion and problems) and would like to have them not happen. But i don't think it is helpful to take a extreme shaky legal position (and downright confusing the users by making legal statements which simply do not apply here) to achieve this goal.
Although i dislike binary-only drivers in general, i came to the understanding that sometimes this might be the best you can get. In the business software world copyright is often a diverse field, and even companies who would like to release the source might be barred from that through NDAs and copyrights of third companies. So some companies have no choice but releasing binary drivers and i'm happy that they do at least that. If all would adhere to linus position we would just keep some users alone out in the rain. I'm all for helping users getting their hardware running. They might have made the wrong purchase in the first (getting a hardware with open sourced drivers would have been wiser), but just saying "tough stuff, you have lost, now go away" won't help them.
You might have missed this story about driverloader then. Driverloader allows you to use some windows wireless lan drivers under linux. They have a software for conexant winmodems as well using windows drivers too.
So you have missed the stories about the release of the 2.4.22, the 2.4.21, the 2.4.18, the 2.4.17 and many other linux kernels. So maybe next time you should first get your facts straight, before posting some uninformed nonsense.
...at least not during the same time. Sorry, but i thought that to be common sense. This Person is not a Wardriver but an complete idiot. "Real" Wardrivers do not wardrive for the sake of downloading or getting a personal advantage, but just for the fun of finding and mapping unsecure networks.
Something is strange here. The linked version of California Labor Code, Section 2870 from the original story has a totally different text as for example the one pasted in another reply to this story. And the differences are really important here:
The linked version says that the employer cannot claim rights to the software except for those that either is related to his business or resulted from work performed by the employee for the employer.
The version in the reply has it totally different, it says that the employer cannot claim rights to the software which is not related to his business or did not result from work performed by the employee for the employer.
This are to very different regulations. In the second one your work can be related to the business of your company if you did no do related work. E.g. your company does produce web browsers, but you are hired for creating a database. In this case and the second version you can create a web browser in your own time, and it belongs to you.
In the first version of the law the web browser would belong to your company, as it is sufficient that your company is active in this field.
Sorry, but i'm confused. Which version of the law is the current one, and where does the other one originate from? After all this is a really meaningful difference. Please, can someone bring some insight into this?
Your post ist not Insighful, but Clueless. So you say almost everything is GPL'ed. Yes, exactly, with the totally small exception of the COMPLETE hardware abstraction layer. Yes, everything which deals with the hardware is binary only and NOT gpl'd. The rest of the driver is worthless, the heart and core would be the HAL. So this driver is better than nothing but not really acceptable.
Atheros is as bad as Broadcom is. Dump both and buy Intersil PrismGT. Not even did they support a linux driver effort, they even sponsored the developent!
Most people who participate in such contests don't do it for the money, but because the problem is interesting or just for the fun. I belive that most good software was written by programmers who were really into the concept, not into the money which could be made out of it. So there is nothing worthless about this, except for your comment. Remember: Nobody was forced to take part in this contest.
It seem to me that you are lacking any insight into hackerdom and geek culture and how good programmers and hackers think and work. If you are really and associate professor in computer science, your comment makes me sick. But i don't believe that a person who was moderated so often as troll like you that he got a starting score of zero is really a professor.
Yes, and because you are of course right, 90% of the mobile phones sold by german carriers like vodafone and t-mobile are dualband ones... And all the people i know who recently got a mobile phone got a dualband, not a triband. I don't know where you are located, but in germany triband is still virtually unseen.
No, the aren't. Most phones today sold in europe are dualband - gsm 900 and gsm 1800. triband types are very rare and usually cost much more than the dualband ones which explains why the triband ones are not common.
You should have noticed, that he said "if everyone", and not only some. This could leed to very smart and powerful traffic control systems, which could control in a dynamic way. I won't deny that the designers of our current systems did often a good job regulating the traffic to the optimum, but there are way to much things that could go wrong and break the whole concept. If our traffic control systems could detect how much traffic is coming/waiting it could counter unusual situations no city planner has anticipated.
Respected german magazine c't once wrote, that you would be able to find (corrected) errors on a CD-R as soon as you take it out of the box. After all its a somewhat delicate media, and the pure fact that a correctable error occurs is not something to worry about.
and what good is a Linux solution you have to pay for?
Easy. It isn't Microsoft. You would support ta company instead, which does good things to the linux community. And additionally i'm sure, that their solution won't end up eating 2 gigs of memory after running for a few days and serving about 15 clients (what a gigantic user number...). And maybe they don't have those silly outlook limitation, that you can't have both an mailforward to an external address for an account and use the calendar functions too. I ended up with creating one account for the mail forward, and another one for calender & address book access. Must be to complex for microsoft to implement it. So i think there are enough reasons to choose another solution instead of exchange. even if its pay-for software.
Why don't you fuck yourself? Your posting is such a blatant troll, i can't believe. If you use a shitty service provider which is unwilling to provide you with more than one ip address on documented need, than this is complete and in whole your own problem. Just change the company you use.
Currently over 40% of the global address space is unallocated, and freeing allocated but unused ip space would make even more addresse available. We don't have a shortage of ip addresses, we are not even in the near of the end of free addresses.
And for your other nonsense: RIRs like APNIC, RIPE, ARIN don't make money from allocating ip addresses. For example RIPE will allocate as much ip addresses as you can document need to any of its members. Yes, you need to be a member, but this is good, as it prevents joe-shithead-provider from messing arround. Every serious provider can easily get member of RIPE and get the needed addresses for free. And as said, there are enough free addresses left. No need for IPv6. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year. And currently the use of ip addresses is stalling, as technologies like NAT made a lot of ip usage predictions pointless.
I would rather type in www..com and be right, than using a lookup service. It is much more overhead to type in these informations, and the resultings urls might be difficult to remember (think ibm would probably be under ibm-computer.com, because some other used ibm.com first. In a locator service one would argue, that the real domainname won't matter (and thus won't be fight over) and therefour "real" ibm should have no problem in not having ibm.com. Do you really want this?
This would mean, we all would have to use a locator lookup service as requirement. This would really slow down my everyday work and fun. No more www.slashdot.org, now i must enter USA -> Computers -> Culture -> Nerds -> slashdot. Yes, thats what i ever wanted. 5 Minutes for each URL i want to open. If you really think, that you wan't to do something like a lookup, use google. enter companyname and maybe some other criteria, and nearly sure as hell will be your wanted site under the first four links, if not even on first position. So, there is your locator service. No need to change the domain name system.
Slashdot Mirror
satcodx.com has lots of listings for all known satellites. Select your region and look.
Moderator on crack? I don't see why this is modded as offtopic.
Guess what: Most resolvers DO negative caching. But you can only cache, if you have first asked for a result, and therefore there is a NEED to ask the root servers about bogus tlds.
There are better technologies to bring highspeed to the people than powerline. In fact powerline has much disadvantages against modern xDSL technologies and other widely used methods like cable. In Germany many companies tried the powerline game, and most ceased to exist.
You're right, i'm sorry.
> (you'd have to go to nice level 40 or so)
Are you bubbling? Valid nice ranges are -20 to +19.
Nonsense, just turn it off then. Theres no point to continue operating the phone, when it is of no use. If you shield the RF-waves, you won't even be able to receive calls.
Yes, we are talinkg about some binary modules which are compiled before distribution and WHICH SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. All "binary only" modules i've seen so far contains at least a short kernel linkage stub which is distributed in source and compiled by the enduser, because this is the only way to ensure that the module is compatible with your running kernel.
The companies providing "binary only" drivers are only distributing this stub source (which they very often GPL) plus their propitary binary. Compiling and linking is usually done by the enduser. Providing real binary-only-drivers would lead to many problems and therefore just isn't done.
For development you will need the kernel sources, yes. But the companies are free to use them for inner-house development, and what they are shipping in final is free from kernel sources. See it more like a "patch" against the kernel. This patch is distributed to endusers which happen to use it against the kernel and compile it. And it would work against any other os kernel which happen to have the same module interface.
For the linking (which is done by the enduser!) you will fairly sure end up with having gpl code contained in your binary (e.g. through using the header files which include static inlines). But as the binary is not distributed (at least not by the company), this is no breach of the GPL.
I guess the phrase "binary modules" is misleading. Of course a complete binary-only-module would be very likely against the GPL. But most binary modules are only in part binary only but contain a lot of open sourced stuff for interfacing with the kernel etc. The final linking of the GPL'd stuff against binary-only modules is done by the enduser which is free to do so. No point here.
Linus talks all about linking source with the kernel and stuff like this. But guess what: With most binary modules this part is done by the user, not by the distributor, and this is clearly your right - you just cannot distribute the binary.
See for example stuff like driverloader (the ndis-wrapper around windows wlan drivers for the centrino and other cards): They are shipping a source which you can compile against the kernel headers (which are provided by YOU!) and will form a kernel module which can be loaded (by YOU!) against the kernel.
I really can't see how linus can claim copyright to the distribution of any source which happens to run with the linux kernel - but does not contain any part of it. And the enduser is free to compile and link this sources against the kernel, as the GPL allows modifications for own use without any restriction.
I guess the whole discussion is politics. Linus dislikes binary only drivers (for good reasons: they are unflexible, hard to debug and can cause user confusion and problems) and would like to have them not happen. But i don't think it is helpful to take a extreme shaky legal position (and downright confusing the users by making legal statements which simply do not apply here) to achieve this goal.
Although i dislike binary-only drivers in general, i came to the understanding that sometimes this might be the best you can get. In the business software world copyright is often a diverse field, and even companies who would like to release the source might be barred from that through NDAs and copyrights of third companies. So some companies have no choice but releasing binary drivers and i'm happy that they do at least that. If all would adhere to linus position we would just keep some users alone out in the rain. I'm all for helping users getting their hardware running. They might have made the wrong purchase in the first (getting a hardware with open sourced drivers would have been wiser), but just saying "tough stuff, you have lost, now go away" won't help them.
You might have missed this story about driverloader then. Driverloader allows you to use some windows wireless lan drivers under linux. They have a software for conexant winmodems as well using windows drivers too.
So you have missed the stories about the release of the 2.4.22, the 2.4.21, the 2.4.18, the 2.4.17 and many other linux kernels. So maybe next time you should first get your facts straight, before posting some uninformed nonsense.
...at least not during the same time. Sorry, but i thought that to be common sense. This Person is not a Wardriver but an complete idiot. "Real" Wardrivers do not wardrive for the sake of downloading or getting a personal advantage, but just for the fun of finding and mapping unsecure networks.
Something is strange here. The linked version of California Labor Code, Section 2870 from the original story has a totally different text as for example the one pasted in another reply to this story. And the differences are really important here: The linked version says that the employer cannot claim rights to the software except for those that either is related to his business or resulted from work performed by the employee for the employer.
The version in the reply has it totally different, it says that the employer cannot claim rights to the software which is not related to his business or did not result from work performed by the employee for the employer.
This are to very different regulations. In the second one your work can be related to the business of your company if you did no do related work. E.g. your company does produce web browsers, but you are hired for creating a database. In this case and the second version you can create a web browser in your own time, and it belongs to you.
In the first version of the law the web browser would belong to your company, as it is sufficient that your company is active in this field.
Sorry, but i'm confused. Which version of the law is the current one, and where does the other one originate from? After all this is a really meaningful difference. Please, can someone bring some insight into this?
Your post ist not Insighful, but Clueless. So you say almost everything is GPL'ed. Yes, exactly, with the totally small exception of the COMPLETE hardware abstraction layer. Yes, everything which deals with the hardware is binary only and NOT gpl'd. The rest of the driver is worthless, the heart and core would be the HAL. So this driver is better than nothing but not really acceptable.
Atheros is as bad as Broadcom is. Dump both and buy Intersil PrismGT. Not even did they support a linux driver effort, they even sponsored the developent!
Most people who participate in such contests don't do it for the money, but because the problem is interesting or just for the fun. I belive that most good software was written by programmers who were really into the concept, not into the money which could be made out of it. So there is nothing worthless about this, except for your comment. Remember: Nobody was forced to take part in this contest.
It seem to me that you are lacking any insight into hackerdom and geek culture and how good programmers and hackers think and work. If you are really and associate professor in computer science, your comment makes me sick. But i don't believe that a person who was moderated so often as troll like you that he got a starting score of zero is really a professor.
Yes, and because you are of course right, 90% of the mobile phones sold by german carriers like vodafone and t-mobile are dualband ones... And all the people i know who recently got a mobile phone got a dualband, not a triband. I don't know where you are located, but in germany triband is still virtually unseen.
No, the aren't. Most phones today sold in europe are dualband - gsm 900 and gsm 1800. triband types are very rare and usually cost much more than the dualband ones which explains why the triband ones are not common.
You should have noticed, that he said "if everyone", and not only some. This could leed to very smart and powerful traffic control systems, which could control in a dynamic way. I won't deny that the designers of our current systems did often a good job regulating the traffic to the optimum, but there are way to much things that could go wrong and break the whole concept. If our traffic control systems could detect how much traffic is coming/waiting it could counter unusual situations no city planner has anticipated.
Respected german magazine c't once wrote, that you would be able to find (corrected) errors on a CD-R as soon as you take it out of the box. After all its a somewhat delicate media, and the pure fact that a correctable error occurs is not something to worry about.
Word (2000) runs real fine in Wine (20030508) for me.
Same model worked for Palm...
and what good is a Linux solution you have to pay for?
Easy. It isn't Microsoft. You would support ta company instead, which does good things to the linux community. And additionally i'm sure, that their solution won't end up eating 2 gigs of memory after running for a few days and serving about 15 clients (what a gigantic user number...). And maybe they don't have those silly outlook limitation, that you can't have both an mailforward to an external address for an account and use the calendar functions too. I ended up with creating one account for the mail forward, and another one for calender & address book access. Must be to complex for microsoft to implement it. So i think there are enough reasons to choose another solution instead of exchange. even if its pay-for software.
Why don't you fuck yourself? Your posting is such a blatant troll, i can't believe. If you use a shitty service provider which is unwilling to provide you with more than one ip address on documented need, than this is complete and in whole your own problem. Just change the company you use.
Currently over 40% of the global address space is unallocated, and freeing allocated but unused ip space would make even more addresse available. We don't have a shortage of ip addresses, we are not even in the near of the end of free addresses.
And for your other nonsense: RIRs like APNIC, RIPE, ARIN don't make money from allocating ip addresses. For example RIPE will allocate as much ip addresses as you can document need to any of its members. Yes, you need to be a member, but this is good, as it prevents joe-shithead-provider from messing arround. Every serious provider can easily get member of RIPE and get the needed addresses for free. And as said, there are enough free addresses left. No need for IPv6. Not today, not tomorrow, not next year. And currently the use of ip addresses is stalling, as technologies like NAT made a lot of ip usage predictions pointless.
I would rather type in www..com and be right, than using a lookup service. It is much more overhead to type in these informations, and the resultings urls might be difficult to remember (think ibm would probably be under ibm-computer.com, because some other used ibm.com first. In a locator service one would argue, that the real domainname won't matter (and thus won't be fight over) and therefour "real" ibm should have no problem in not having ibm.com. Do you really want this?
This would mean, we all would have to use a locator lookup service as requirement. This would really slow down my everyday work and fun. No more www.slashdot.org, now i must enter USA -> Computers -> Culture -> Nerds -> slashdot. Yes, thats what i ever wanted. 5 Minutes for each URL i want to open.
If you really think, that you wan't to do something like a lookup, use google. enter companyname and maybe some other criteria, and nearly sure as hell will be your wanted site under the first four links, if not even on first position. So, there is your locator service. No need to change the domain name system.