Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Bush the Elder held that cash back for 3 months. Shamir's Likud government collapsed in a heap on the ground and were replaced by Rabin's administration. Then again, Bush the Elder was not reelected. I read recently that around 60% of the US's 'foreign aid' goes to shoring up the Sharon government. Is that figure true?
The page marked as my home-page here might help. It is a bit short on NT/W2K/XP Domain stuff though, I stopped using Windows after Win98.
Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I'm embarrased that we elected him. Did I miss something? I thought his brother 'delivered Florida' by preventing a large number of potential Democrat voters from voting and the Supreme Court (voting on party lines) rubber stamped the results.
As to Israel, I suspect that a President Al Gore would have behaved in a similar fashion. George Bush the Elder was the only recent President to actually try and pressure Israel into making a peace (cue for flames on Suicide Bombers - something I see as mistaking cause and effect) and things went a long way forward then before some fascist kid murdered the Israeli PM Rabin and caused the whole thing to unravel again. Reagan was probably worse than Bush the Younger, and Clinton took 4 years to take his foreign policy off auto-pilot.
Look at the ESR document. Some of the things SCO are claiming that IBM took from them are techniques that SCO do not possess themselves yet, others (the original 2-processor coding) were developed by Alan Cox using a machine lent/donated by Caldera themselves. I agree with you on the LinuxWorld article though. Mod it as 'overrated' and the ESR one as 'insightful'.
That was in the ESR rebuttal, something that seemed to me - IANAL - to be far more informative than that somewhat vague LinuxWorld article. If ESR has done his homework, and it certainly looks like it, then over 90% of that document of his looks as though it could be used to murder that lawsuit in very short order.
(snip) but on the other hand we've had these dual-license things before (PCMCIA has been mentioned, but we've had reiserfs and a number of drivers like aic7xxx too), and I don't think I've _ever_ gotten a patch submission that disallowed the dual license.
In fact, I don't think I'd even merge a patch where the submitter tried to limit dual-license code to a simgle license (it might happen with some non-maintained stuff where the original source of the dual license is gone, but if somebody tried to send me an ACPI patch that said "this is GPL only", then I just wouldn't take it).
I suspect the same "refuse to accept license limiting patches" would be true of most kernel maintainers. At least to me a choice of license by the _original_ author is a hell of a lot more important than the technical legality of then limiting it to just one license.
So yes, dual-license code can become GPL-only, but not in _my_ tree.
Somebody else can go off and make their own GPL-only additions, and quite frankly I would find it so morally offensive to ignore the intent of the original author that I wouldn't take the code even if it was an improvement (and I've found that people who are narrow-minded about licenses are narrow-minded about other things too, so I doubt it _would_ be an improvement).
Linus
Thanks Linus. I don't think that I have any inherent moral right to dual-license reiserfs, but it sure is pragmatic to do so, and the courtesy of permitting me to do so is gratefully accepted from our contributors.
A bit more than half of our income comes from the dual licensing, and we'd not have survived to this date fiscally without it. If anyone on the reiserfs team ever owns a Boxster;-) at sometime in the future, it will be from dual-licensing to Apple, a storage appliance vendor, or the like. (from Hans Reiser)
A few years ago there was a talk at some conference about the Korn shell. At one point there was a major disagreement between two members of the audience on a technical point. One of these two announced that he was from Microsoft and he *knew* what he was talking about even if the other one did not. The other one finally lost patience and gave his name. David Korn. A lot of the other members knew who he was but they let the Microsoft representative talk himself into a corner if that was what he really wanted to do.
I just saw that Samba XP was released just over a month ago, at least the announcement was made then. Not that I can find it anywhere. Not having XP, that is no big deal for me.
No, sorry - that is not correct. Samba 3.0 has been in Alpha for a while but it is from the normal Samba team and has nothing at all to do with Samba TNG.
Samba 3.0 comes with (I think) 3 daemons. The last time I heard, Samba TNG came with quite a few more than that. This approach was rejected by the Samba team as being simply too complicated to administer, a decision that lead directly to the fork.
I had actually thought that TNG had run out of steam and was fading away, but this announcement seems to contradict that.
Most of the changes in TNG were based around domain controller stuff. Since I only use Samba as a client, it doesn't really affect me much... Same here.
Tell me this, how does he prove that he never hacked NORAD?
Given that NORAD is apparently not connected to the net, that should not be too difficult. Of course, it needs a judge/jury with a collective technical knowledge exceeding that of a slug and that might be the hard part.
No, there is something in that. The PPro ran existing applications pretty slowly. Intel were saying that eventually there would be enough applications written for it that this was only a temporary glitch.
Unfortunately, no-one had repealed Moore's law and the PPro was more-or-less a dead end.
I can't remember exactly what the problem with existing software was, but it may well have been a 16-bit/32-bit issue. Not so sure about those early K586s though, I though the first ones had some other serious problem. It could have been a very slow fpu, this is all so long ago.
I used to admin a couple of PPro/200s with 512MB each at my old job. One was a Linux/Apache/Samba server, the other ran NT applications. Booting them remotely was awful - counting that memory took forever. Once up, they (at least the Linux one) ran very well.
AMD is a company which has traditionally relied on pricing to shift it's products, because they were competing with Intel most of the time. This time they have no direct competition and are presumably trying to test the waters in the server market with a higher margin product. They can always reduce prices if necessary. The stripped-down desktop model arrives a few months later and will be priced for that market anyhow.
I am sure they know that they are dogmeat if they screw this one up so I think we can rely on them to take this very seriously.
Disclaimer: I bought my shares in AMD just over a week ago. Itanium must fail!!;-)
My desktop machine (this one) is a C3/866 and cannot *quite* run with passive cooling. I think the C3/800 could. It's performance is adequate, but quite a bit slower than a Celeron or Duron would be at that clockrate. When it comes down to it, I am very happy with it. It is quiet and I have not compiled a kernel this year so it does not break my heart when that takes 10-15 minutes (can't remember just how long, sorry) or longer if I am surfing at the time. A 64-bit processor would be lovely but not if it needs 110 watt (110 Volt is a no can do, I'm in Europe:-).
I suspect that I am not the target market for these devices;-)
Well, I went a different way. Up until two to three years ago, I bought one CD a week on average. Then prices went up and the business compounded things by starting to crack down. My average is now one every 3 months, and they are older ones without copy protection which I can play anywhere I want.
And no, I have no MP3s and no CD burner. Of course, it makes a difference when I listen to the radio and think
It is all very well blaming the MS programmers for these holes - and some of that is justified - but several of those points you make were policy decisions made right at the very top by His Billiousness for non-technical reasons. Embedding the web-browser was done to screw Netscape by inserting a replacement which could not be removed (even though early versions could be). Other decisions here will have had similar backgrounds.
Under these circumstanced, 'Trustworthy Computing' is nothing but a PR exercise. Correcting design errors like that is an impossible job. I believe that the original NT security model was fundamentally sound, but the add-ons have killed it. MS show no signs of learning this, XP is more bloated than ever.
The *nix model of discrete components which can be installed separately when required, or replaced by other components which do the same job (sendmail/postfix ) is simply safer. An additional advantage is that there is no 'standard configuration' which Virus/Trojan writers can assume present, not that that would have helped with a one-component worm like this one.
hehehe - can you imagine a better time to buy? They may be even lower in a month (or they may not) but if AMD manage to shift these things then they should be a lot higher in a year.
C't, the German technical magazine, got hold of a 1.2GHz Hammer recently. They ran various 32-bit benchmarks on it against a 1.2GHz Athlon XP and a 2.2GHz P4s. The Hammer blew the Athlon out of the water and was only slightly slower that the P4 on most tests. For example, the Linux 2.4 kernel compile times were: 161s (Hammer) 222s (Athlon) and 166s (P4) [yup, I know the Hammer won that one]. Two weeks later, they posted more benchmarks with software optimised for the P4. The Hammer benefitted more from the optimisations than the P4 did. Bottom line is, everything benefits with this processor. 64-Bit applications benefit even more. I bought shares in that company this week on the back of those results and wish they would release that baby as soon as possible to anyone who wants it.
A few months ago, Dell were indicating great interest in AMD's 64-bit processors. They were saying something like it's the first time that AMD have something to offer other than the price. They put it a lot more eloquently than that, but that was the gist of it. AFAIK, Intel has nothing to match this processor so Dell and friends have good reason to be interested.
Neither. A device driver for an IDE Raid card came out a few months ago. One of the bsd developers had written a driver for the same device shortly before and looked at it to see how the linux developer had approached the problem.
It was his code with the comments changed to remove all references to him.
At a guess, this was 8 months back but it could easily be a year ago. The kernel was one of the 2.4.x releases.
If you read the Janis Ian article which was linked to here a couple of months ago: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml , you would have seen that they are obliged to. The record companies will not let artists undercut the record stores. They will not even let them compete - record stores are allowed to sell CDs at a discount and bands are not.
The industry has been complaining for years about the stranglehold the middle-man has on their dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to offend those middle-men. (BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD. They know very well that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much; the point is to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them. What actually happens is no sales to us or the stores.) NARAS and RIAA are moaning about the little mom & pop stores being shoved out of business; no one worked harder to shove them out than our own industry, which greeted every new Tower or mega-music store with glee, and offered steep discounts to Target and WalMart et al for stocking CDs. The Internet has zero to do with store closings and lowered sales.
That is what I originally thought, but that is not correct or even relevant in this case. You are right about IIS, but if someone installs MS SQL (and it is apparently not there by default) then they want it to be open on at least one interface and there is no way for MS to know which one - that has to be left up to the Admins.
Those Admins have failed in at least two ways here:
They should have made that decision
It should have been backed up by a firewall
The patch or the service pack should have been installed. This last one is a bit iffy because apparently both the patch (available since last summer) and the Service Pack (available since last week) are pigs to install and can mean several hours of downtime, even given competent administrators (who would have have got one of the first two choices right anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Bush the Elder held that cash back for 3 months. Shamir's Likud government collapsed in a heap on the ground and were replaced by Rabin's administration.
Then again, Bush the Elder was not reelected.
I read recently that around 60% of the US's 'foreign aid' goes to shoring up the Sharon government. Is that figure true?
The page marked as my home-page here might help. It is a bit short on NT/W2K/XP Domain stuff though, I stopped using Windows after Win98.
I'm embarrased that we elected him.
Did I miss something? I thought his brother 'delivered Florida' by preventing a large number of potential Democrat voters from voting and the Supreme Court (voting on party lines) rubber stamped the results.
As to Israel, I suspect that a President Al Gore would have behaved in a similar fashion. George Bush the Elder was the only recent President to actually try and pressure Israel into making a peace (cue for flames on Suicide Bombers - something I see as mistaking cause and effect) and things went a long way forward then before some fascist kid murdered the Israeli PM Rabin and caused the whole thing to unravel again. Reagan was probably worse than Bush the Younger, and Clinton took 4 years to take his foreign policy off auto-pilot.
Look at the ESR document. Some of the things SCO are claiming that IBM took from them are techniques that SCO do not possess themselves yet, others (the original 2-processor coding) were developed by Alan Cox using a machine lent/donated by Caldera themselves.
I agree with you on the LinuxWorld article though. Mod it as 'overrated' and the ESR one as 'insightful'.
Bad option. Why would IBM *want* to own SCO and their debts?
That was in the ESR rebuttal, something that seemed to me - IANAL - to be far more informative than that somewhat vague LinuxWorld article.
If ESR has done his homework, and it certainly looks like it, then over 90% of that document of his looks as though it could be used to murder that lawsuit in very short order.
In fact, I don't think I'd even merge a patch where the submitter tried to limit dual-license code to a simgle license (it might happen with some non-maintained stuff where the original source of the dual license is gone, but if somebody tried to send me an ACPI patch that said "this is GPL only", then I just wouldn't take it).
I suspect the same "refuse to accept license limiting patches" would be true of most kernel maintainers. At least to me a choice of license by
the _original_ author is a hell of a lot more important than the technical legality of then limiting it to just one license.
So yes, dual-license code can become GPL-only, but not in _my_ tree.
Somebody else can go off and make their own GPL-only additions, and quite frankly I would find it so morally offensive to ignore the intent of the original author that I wouldn't take the code even if it was an improvement (and I've found that people who are narrow-minded about licenses are narrow-minded about other things too, so I doubt it _would_ be an improvement).
Linus
Thanks Linus. I don't think that I have any inherent moral right to dual-license reiserfs, but it sure is pragmatic to do so, and the courtesy of permitting me to do so is gratefully accepted from our contributors.
A bit more than half of our income comes from the dual licensing, and we'd not have survived to this date fiscally without it. If anyone on the reiserfs team ever owns a Boxster;-) at sometime in the future, it will be from dual-licensing to Apple, a storage appliance vendor, or the like.
(from Hans Reiser)
A few years ago there was a talk at some conference about the Korn shell. At one point there was a major disagreement between two members of the audience on a technical point. One of these two announced that he was from Microsoft and he *knew* what he was talking about even if the other one did not. The other one finally lost patience and gave his name. David Korn. A lot of the other members knew who he was but they let the Microsoft representative talk himself into a corner if that was what he really wanted to do.
I just saw that Samba XP was released just over a month ago, at least the announcement was made then.
Not that I can find it anywhere. Not having XP, that is no big deal for me.
Samba 3.0 comes with (I think) 3 daemons. The last time I heard, Samba TNG came with quite a few more than that. This approach was rejected by the Samba team as being simply too complicated to administer, a decision that lead directly to the fork.
I had actually thought that TNG had run out of steam and was fading away, but this announcement seems to contradict that.
Most of the changes in TNG were based around domain controller stuff. Since I only use Samba as a client, it doesn't really affect me much...
Same here.
Tell me this, how does he prove that he never hacked NORAD?
Given that NORAD is apparently not connected to the net, that should not be too difficult. Of course, it needs a judge/jury with a collective technical knowledge exceeding that of a slug and that might be the hard part.
If he wanted one, I am sure he could swing it ;-) /.? Maybe he even has one from way back when.
Actually, how old is
Unfortunately, no-one had repealed Moore's law and the PPro was more-or-less a dead end.
I can't remember exactly what the problem with existing software was, but it may well have been a 16-bit/32-bit issue. Not so sure about those early K586s though, I though the first ones had some other serious problem. It could have been a very slow fpu, this is all so long ago.
I used to admin a couple of PPro/200s with 512MB each at my old job. One was a Linux/Apache/Samba server, the other ran NT applications.
Booting them remotely was awful - counting that memory took forever. Once up, they (at least the Linux one) ran very well.
This time they have no direct competition and are presumably trying to test the waters in the server market with a higher margin product. They can always reduce prices if necessary. The stripped-down desktop model arrives a few months later and will be priced for that market anyhow.
I am sure they know that they are dogmeat if they screw this one up so I think we can rely on them to take this very seriously.
Disclaimer: I bought my shares in AMD just over a week ago. Itanium must fail!! ;-)
It's performance is adequate, but quite a bit slower than a Celeron or Duron would be at that clockrate.
When it comes down to it, I am very happy with it. It is quiet and I have not compiled a kernel this year so it does not break my heart when that takes 10-15 minutes (can't remember just how long, sorry) or longer if I am surfing at the time.
A 64-bit processor would be lovely but not if it needs 110 watt (110 Volt is a no can do, I'm in Europe
I suspect that I am not the target market for these devices ;-)
Tim O'Reilly called it 'progressive taxation', which put it very well.
And no, I have no MP3s and no CD burner.
Of course, it makes a difference when I listen to the radio and think
Embedding the web-browser was done to screw Netscape by inserting a replacement which could not be removed (even though early versions could be).
Other decisions here will have had similar backgrounds.
Under these circumstanced, 'Trustworthy Computing' is nothing but a PR exercise. Correcting design errors like that is an impossible job. I believe that the original NT security model was fundamentally sound, but the add-ons have killed it. MS show no signs of learning this, XP is more bloated than ever.
The *nix model of discrete components which can be installed separately when required, or replaced by other components which do the same job (sendmail/postfix ) is simply safer. An additional advantage is that there is no 'standard configuration' which Virus/Trojan writers can assume present, not that that would have helped with a one-component worm like this one.
hehehe - can you imagine a better time to buy? They may be even lower in a month (or they may not) but if AMD manage to shift these things then they should be a lot higher in a year.
C't, the German technical magazine, got hold of a 1.2GHz Hammer recently. They ran various 32-bit benchmarks on it against a 1.2GHz Athlon XP and a 2.2GHz P4s.
The Hammer blew the Athlon out of the water and was only slightly slower that the P4 on most tests. For example, the Linux 2.4 kernel compile times were: 161s (Hammer) 222s (Athlon) and 166s (P4) [yup, I know the Hammer won that one].
Two weeks later, they posted more benchmarks with software optimised for the P4. The Hammer benefitted more from the optimisations than the P4 did.
Bottom line is, everything benefits with this processor. 64-Bit applications benefit even more. I bought shares in that company this week on the back of those results and wish they would release that baby as soon as possible to anyone who wants it.
A few months ago, Dell were indicating great interest in AMD's 64-bit processors. They were saying something like it's the first time that AMD have something to offer other than the price. They put it a lot more eloquently than that, but that was the gist of it.
AFAIK, Intel has nothing to match this processor so Dell and friends have good reason to be interested.
A device driver for an IDE Raid card came out a few months ago. One of the bsd developers had written a driver for the same device shortly before and looked at it to see how the linux developer had approached the problem.
It was his code with the comments changed to remove all references to him.
At a guess, this was 8 months back but it could easily be a year ago. The kernel was one of the 2.4.x releases.If you read the Janis Ian article which was linked to here a couple of months ago: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml , you would have seen that they are obliged to. The record companies will not let artists undercut the record stores. They will not even let them compete - record stores are allowed to sell CDs at a discount and bands are not.
The industry has been complaining for years about the stranglehold the middle-man has on their dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to offend those middle-men. (BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD. They know very well that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much; the point is to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them. What actually happens is no sales to us or the stores.) NARAS and RIAA are moaning about the little mom & pop stores being shoved out of business; no one worked harder to shove them out than our own industry, which greeted every new Tower or mega-music store with glee, and offered steep discounts to Target and WalMart et al for stocking CDs. The Internet has zero to do with store closings and lowered sales.
You are right about IIS, but if someone installs MS SQL (and it is apparently not there by default) then they want it to be open on at least one interface and there is no way for MS to know which one - that has to be left up to the Admins.
Those Admins have failed in at least two ways here:
This last one is a bit iffy because apparently both the patch (available since last summer) and the Service Pack (available since last week) are pigs to install and can mean several hours of downtime, even given competent administrators (who would have have got one of the first two choices right anyway).