Personally, I like to think that I could release some prelim version of my code, get people using it, a free release, and still use my code in a commercial form as well,and allow the source to be open.
The GPL does not prevent this behavior, assuming either (1) you are the sole author of the code or (2) for any contributed code you add to the product you have the contribtor sign a seperate licensing agreement giving your company unrestricted re-distribution rights.
IANAL, but having read the GPL, it seems to me that releasing code under the GPL does not explicitly waive your rights to your intellectual property under the copyright act. However, if you were to add code to your product that other people contribute, without some sort of explicit statement from the contributor giving you rights beyond the GPL itself, you would only be able to include that code in GPL versions of your product.
Never attribute to malice or conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence or stupidity.
Not that I'm a huge fan of MS, but I personally think that the failure to update their search engine is a far likelier probability than MS intentionally concealing the specs.
The article mentioned IBM, HP, etc. claiming 8+ hour battery life on notebooks. If they can indeed bring such long life and keep the weight down to the ultra-light class, I predict a surge in laptop sales.
IMHO, Battery life is one of two killer apps that keeps the Palm platform at virtually a monopoly level over other hand helds (ease of use is the other, even non-geeks like to use Palms). The only thing that could stop Transmeta from eating Intel's mobile cake is if some manufacturer could produce an equivalently powered notebook that doubles the battery life over what Transmeta offers. Transmeta has some serious mindshare right about now.
But as for me and my house, we will remain content with $200 486 based laptops that we pick up on ebay.
C sharp and D flat are (for most practical purposes) the same note. Al Stevens (computer book author and columnist for Dr. Dobb's Journal)already has a programming language named D flat.
In a recent column, he mentioned in passing how he intentionally did not name the language c-sharp because he thought the play on words was so obvious that surely someone had trademarked the phrase. I hope so. I'd like to see Microsoft have to change the name or settle out of court for some undisclosed sum.
GTK suffers from many problems main being that C is not object oriented software and emulating OO results in rather ugly mess.
A decent programmer could code real OO code is assembler, if so inclined (and I know of at least one book that discusses how to do just that). Some languages (such as C++, Java, and Smalltalk) make it easier to code with an OO design philosophy, but OO code in C is not emulated. OO is mostly language independant, being more of a design philosophy than language implementation.
MS Operating Systems is still allowed to bundle all of these tools into their operating system. Only now they will have to pay MS Applications the same amount as any other OS vendor.
Outlook (when I say Outlook, I'm referring to Outlook Express 5.0, the most commonly used version and the one I have experience with) does not run this virus automatically. It cannot be made to run this virus automatically.
It DOES run embedded scripts by default, but so does any modern graphical web browser. Outlook runs embedded scripts in a secure sandbox -- they are NOT allowed to read/write files, send e-mail, etc. The ILOVEYOU virus is not an embedded script, it's an external script, analogous to a.pl Perl script.
Sounds nice and secure. I have two more words to comment on this: bubble boy.
One of the things I miss from my days using OS/2 is that in the workplace shell (WPS), everything was an object: every folder on the desktop; every template icon that pointed to an app; the launchpad; everything. As a result of this, I could customize the WPS in ways that the engineers at IBM had never anticipated. I could instantiate weird mutated variants of the launchpad with just a few lines of Rexx.
My question is what are the plans for this type of true objectification to come to gnome? When will everything be an object and be embeddedable anywhere the user pleases? Because gnome sits on top of X, which in turn sits on top of the OS, hat do you think the limits are for gnome in this regard, what limits does gnome have as far as objectifying and abstracting the OS?
I mean c'mon guys...powering the alien civilization with electrochemical brainwave energy? Really? They can create hyperrealistic virtual environments, but they can't figure out how to get hydrogen nuclei to fuse?
I think that it might have been more i interesting if instead of using human body heat and brainwaves as a power plant, if the brains were tremendous parallel processing plant for the AI to live on.
Now that would be a beowulf cluster worth seeing....
In one corner we have the Crusoe, burdened by needing to re-compile, err code morph, x86 instructions on the fly via software.
In the other Corner we have the StrongARM with no FPU.
StrongARM runs (will run?) at up to 600Mhz on half a watt.
Crusoe runs 700 Mhz on one watt.
Anyone have an idea at which is actually faster? It seems to me that StrongARM is better suited (slightly) for the mobile market. Crusoe major advantage seems to be x86 compatibitly, though being able to intelligently adjust its speed might help (although my guess is that it can't adjust it so much to take away the StrongARM's half watt power draw advantage).
I've never used 'true' handwriting recognition, but having used a palm pilot (not a palm, i had an old usr palm pilot pro), I really liked graphiti.
I can write in graphitti much faster than I can in any legible script and it seems to me that in the present state of processors and power drain that it is much better to train users to learn the computer's script than it is to train computers to learn the user's script.
Other than that, I think this is good. Now if eventually I can get something like jot to work with my touchpad in X, that would be great.
I wish a hearty Bah! Humbug! to all, but in an age when even folks on alt.gothic.parenting are posting the infamous 'Is there a Santa Claus' letter, I can find precious little support for not celebrating the holidays.
I've resisted for four years now, perhaps it is time to face the inevitable and be assimilated.
Edutainment drives the home computer market. Right now I can go down to the public library and check out any of hundreds of cdrom educational titles for my children for windows or mac os. In fact most Mac/Windows debates I hear from home users is the availability of children's software.
Two things are holding Linux back from mainstream acceptance, the first is the overwhelming availability of non-Linux software. Until you can get the latest 'American Girls' cd or whatever to run on Linux, most home users will have little or no reason to load Linux.
The second thing Linux really needs is more pre-loads. Until manufacturers such as Dell and Compaq offer Linux as the default with the windows flavor of the month as cost added extra, Linux will never be mainstream. Saving $100 to $150 bucks by forgoing windows would entice many people to try linux.
unsubstantiated slander is an oxymoron?
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 1
The previous poster's post was unsubstantiated. As such it makes it very difficult to verify to ascertain whether it is slander or not.
While I have the highest respect for Brett Glass's intellect I refuse to make judgements on issues that are essentially unverifiable. I'm sure the people that know and work with Brett could offer some insight on Brett's character, but not being one of those people I refuse to attempt to make such a judgement one way or the other.
If the incident in question did happen, the previous poster has every right to bring it up in a discussion. Of course, his/her credibility would be far higher if (s)he hadn't posted anonymously.
Also, the statement: Provide your real name, or you're nothing but a liar gives two alternatives that are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. The poster could very well be a liar, and be willing to provide his/her real name. OR the poster could be telling the truth and still be unwilling to leave the cloak of anonymousity.
What is the world coming to, with programmers of all people using such faulty logic?
coupled with the fact that quad intel xeon machines have about 5 times the I/O bandwidth and overall speed compared to suns "enterprise" line of hardware, and you have a clear winner. Linux.
Not that I'm a Solaris biggot or anything. But I'd certainly like to see anyone tackle running a real time billing system tracking hundreds of millions of mobile phone calls on a quad xeon.
The production Solaris boxes at the company I'm on site at have more processors than most Intel boxes have Megs of RAM. And bandwidth? FDDI feeds are pretty quick.
We had a problem with a particular job failing in a test environment and the issue came back from development with the answer that the problem was occurring because that particular test system only had 2 Gigs of RAM. Guess what, the patch that will let Xeons see up to 64 GB hasn't made it to the 'stable' kernels series and it will be a while before it does. Even with that patch individual processes still have trouble dealing with as much as 4 GB.
Don't get me wrong, Linux will get to the point where it competes with Solaris someday. But it certainly isn't there now, except on the low end. As more and more of what distinguishes Solaris from Intel gives way to hordes of open source kernel hackers, Sun's software division might have something to start to worry about, but then again, Sun is predominantly a hardware company and hopefully by the time Linux can offer the same features as Solaris on an Enterprise 10000, Sun will be smart enough to jump on the band wagon.
Novell tells him to work on this project while on company time.
He takes the project and starts his own company and is suprised when Novell sues.
What gets me is not him starting his own company that competes with his former employer, but that he was spent so much time on Novell's dollar building what he was planning to make his own fortune off of. He should have burned the midnight oil doing that at home and given Novell what they paid him to, no more, no less.
"I regret what happened here," says TRG CEO Merkey. "I mistakenly believed that, because we had developed certain technology while employed by Novell, we could take elements of that technology with us when we left. We have learned that the law does not work that way."
IIRC, what happened is the one guy was the chief guy behind the Novel clustering project. He wrote the whole thing in pretty much undocumented C and when he left Novel, he took his hard drive with him. Novel sued and eventually he returned the hard drive, damaged and unreadable. But I'm too lazy to do a longer search to find out if I'm remembering correctly.
Which does raise the question, why should we believe them now?
There are lots of religions in the wide world: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Sub-Genius, etc. All of these seem to have one thing in common: the works that they consider their "sacred scriptures" are not copyrighted.
The original works for most of the major religions were written so long ago that they clearly are older than the longest imaginable term of a copywright (lifetime of the author +50 years).
That said, typically anyone making a modern translation files for a copyright. This is why all the free online bibles only ship with old, crusty free translations like the King James or Revised Standard that were made a couple hundred years ago. You have to pay the copyright owner to get one of the modern translations like the New International Version or the New Revised Standard Version.
In principal, I think this is a crock of sh!t. Assuming the Gospel is true, I can't wait for judgement day when all these busines folks get to explain to the Judge why they had the audacity to copyright the word of God.
Rare are the real mystics like Sadhu Sundar Singh, who pronounce 'My mouth has no copyright'
There are only 2 ways of making money in OpenSource, and horizontal software is not one of them.
I beg to differ. The 30,000+ person organization I word for is plumping down hundreds of dollars for each PC it installs for licensing for MS Office. If employee churn is something like 10% (which is low for an IT company) and the company is growing by 5% a year (again a low estimate), your looking at a yearly bill of 4,500 time the cost of the license.
It seems to me that the yearly bill alone for licensing MS software could foot the consultation bill for rollout and conversion to a new office suite.
And then there is always the Microsoft mandated forced upgrade. The only the company I work at upgraded to Office 97 from Office 95 were the incompatible file formats. The bulk of our clients were emailing us documents in Word and Excel 97 formats that couldn't be read. 30,000 times the upgrade fee is a pretty penny.
Which brings up another very good point. The only way that a gnome based office suite will be succesful is if it has complete compatability with Word and Excel. 99% compatability won't be good enough. Re-formatting the thousands of design documents in our cvs tree alone would be a nightmare, let alone all our day to day business docs or the docs people email to us on a daily basis.
I wish Helix good fortune and hope they can pull it off, because if they can, it will be quite lucrative and at the same time beneficial to everyone. Free (as in freedom) software is a very good thing.
I bought shrink wrapped Caldera OpenLinux because I wanted the install support. It was useless. Caldera's support dept took three weeks to come up with a solution to a hosed lilo.conf. comp.os.linus.caldera took seven hours.
Next I submitted an XFree86 problem. It has been three months and I've yet to get a solution from them.
Of course, RedHat is not Caldera. But, tech support by and large is of the same quality. At least in my experience.
Nowhere does the GPL state that a GPL product has to be freely distributed to every one. An entity can be entirely selective about who it distributes the product to, but retstrictions are not allowed to be place on further distribution.
Maybe one or more of the beta testers will upload the distribution somewhere. But they will more than likely have to first remove the non-GPL portions such as WordPerfect.
I think PC Week really blew it. If you read their configuration page They list the steps that they took to secure Linux.
Choose not to install services such as SMTP, FTP server, News Install Photoads Chmod 777 the photoads directory Chmod 755 cgi-bin Chmod 766 kas_data.pl Chmod 766 adnumber.num Chmod 766 ads_data.pl Chmod 755 all *.cgi files Configure default directories for photoads Set 0 length on upload files Delete unnecessary user accounts Set root password to Disable all services in inetd.conf Configure apache to run as nobody Disable server side includes
These configs implement all changes in linux.com security-howto chapter eight and the apache group's security tips
So we know that they at least know about the Linux security howto. They should have at least been tipped off by this section in chapter 8:
Denial of service attacks have increased greatly in recent years. Some of the more popular and recent ones are listed below. Note that new ones show up all the time, so this is just a few examples. Read the Linux security lists and the bugtraq list and archives for more current information.
And if they would have read chapter 9
9.5 Apply All New System Updates.
Most Linux users install from a CD-ROM. Due to the fast-paced nature of security fixes, new (fixed) programs are always being released. Before you connect your machine to the network, it's a good idea to check with your distribution's ftp site and get all the updated packages since you received your distribution CD-ROM. Many times these packages contain important security fixes, so it's a good idea to get them installed.
The thing the really gets to me was the post someone quoted where someone from PCWeek stated that they applied Fixpack 5 for NT because it was only one file. Come on. Did anyone else see all the keys they edited in the NT registry? To the eye untrained in NT administration, it looks like PCWeek spent at least three to four times the effort jumping through hoops to make certain that NT machine has secure. It is inexcusable for them to go through such effort to secure one box and not the other
There is no excuse for anyone putting up the Linux box they did in the state it was, but especially not for a crack this box contest. I'm just pissed they aren't losing more money on this. $1000 is a pittance for stupidity. And just for their record, I'd be just as pissed if the table had been turned and they put NT out there without the latest security patchesr
CISC architectures have generally also outperformed RISC architectures at the same clock speed.
Then I'm confused as to why a PowerPC (take your pick as to which one, 604e, G4 or G4) runs photoshop much faster than an identically clocked Pentium (of any variety).
I'm also confused as to why SGI's outperform virtually everything (except maybe for Alpha's) with 250Mhz MIPS chips.
It seems to me that most RISC architectures actually do more per clock cycle than most CISC architectures. They may have fewer instructions, but they can stack more of them in the pipeline at one time
but it's like saying i am a master musician because i can play the Bethoven and Bach on a guitar.....i might be a good musician, but far from a genius.
Well....
If you could reconstruct the symphonies of Bach and Beethoven on a guitar without access to the source code (sheet music) but with good descriptions of the api (musical theory) and a good knowledge of how it was supposed to sound, I would consider you to be a musical genius.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I like to think that I could release some prelim version of my code, get people using it, a free release, and still use my code in a commercial form as well,and allow the source to be open.
The GPL does not prevent this behavior, assuming either (1) you are the sole author of the code or (2) for any contributed code you add to the product you have the contribtor sign a seperate licensing agreement giving your company unrestricted re-distribution rights.
IANAL, but having read the GPL, it seems to me that releasing code under the GPL does not explicitly waive your rights to your intellectual property under the copyright act. However, if you were to add code to your product that other people contribute, without some sort of explicit statement from the contributor giving you rights beyond the GPL itself, you would only be able to include that code in GPL versions of your product.
Never attribute to malice or conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence or stupidity.
Not that I'm a huge fan of MS, but I personally think that the failure to update their search engine is a far likelier probability than MS intentionally concealing the specs.
The article mentioned IBM, HP, etc. claiming 8+ hour battery life on notebooks. If they can indeed bring such long life and keep the weight down to the ultra-light class, I predict a surge in laptop sales.
IMHO, Battery life is one of two killer apps that keeps the Palm platform at virtually a monopoly level over other hand helds (ease of use is the other, even non-geeks like to use Palms). The only thing that could stop Transmeta from eating Intel's mobile cake is if some manufacturer could produce an equivalently powered notebook that doubles the battery life over what Transmeta offers. Transmeta has some serious mindshare right about now.
But as for me and my house, we will remain content with $200 486 based laptops that we pick up on ebay.
In a recent column, he mentioned in passing how he intentionally did not name the language c-sharp because he thought the play on words was so obvious that surely someone had trademarked the phrase. I hope so. I'd like to see Microsoft have to change the name or settle out of court for some undisclosed sum.
GTK suffers from many problems main being that C is not object oriented software and emulating OO results in rather ugly mess.
A decent programmer could code real OO code is assembler, if so inclined (and I know of at least one book that discusses how to do just that). Some languages (such as C++, Java, and Smalltalk) make it easier to code with an OO design philosophy, but OO code in C is not emulated. OO is mostly language independant, being more of a design philosophy than language implementation.
MS Operating Systems is still allowed to bundle all of these tools into their operating system. Only now they will have to pay MS Applications the same amount as any other OS vendor.
Outlook (when I say Outlook, I'm referring to Outlook Express 5.0, the most commonly used version and the one I have experience with) does not run this virus automatically. It cannot be made to run this virus automatically.
It DOES run embedded scripts by default, but so does any modern graphical web browser. Outlook runs embedded scripts in a secure sandbox -- they are NOT allowed to read/write files, send e-mail, etc. The ILOVEYOU virus is not an embedded script, it's an external script, analogous to a .pl Perl script.
Sounds nice and secure. I have two more words to comment on this: bubble boy.
One of the things I miss from my days using OS/2 is that in the workplace shell (WPS), everything was an object: every folder on the desktop; every template icon that pointed to an app; the launchpad; everything. As a result of this, I could customize the WPS in ways that the engineers at IBM had never anticipated. I could instantiate weird mutated variants of the launchpad with just a few lines of Rexx.
My question is what are the plans for this type of true objectification to come to gnome? When will everything be an object and be embeddedable anywhere the user pleases? Because gnome sits on top of X, which in turn sits on top of the OS, hat do you think the limits are for gnome in this regard, what limits does gnome have as far as objectifying and abstracting the OS?
I mean c'mon guys...powering the alien civilization with electrochemical brainwave energy? Really? They can create hyperrealistic virtual environments, but they can't figure out how to get hydrogen nuclei to fuse?
I think that it might have been more i interesting if instead of using human body heat and brainwaves as a power plant, if the brains were tremendous parallel processing plant for the AI to live on.
Now that would be a beowulf cluster worth seeing....
In one corner we have the Crusoe, burdened by needing to re-compile, err code morph, x86 instructions on the fly via software.
In the other Corner we have the StrongARM with no FPU.
StrongARM runs (will run?) at up to 600Mhz on half a watt.
Crusoe runs 700 Mhz on one watt.
Anyone have an idea at which is actually faster? It seems to me that StrongARM is better suited (slightly) for the mobile market. Crusoe major advantage seems to be x86 compatibitly, though being able to intelligently adjust its speed might help (although my guess is that it can't adjust it so much to take away the StrongARM's half watt power draw advantage).
I've never used 'true' handwriting recognition, but having used a palm pilot (not a palm, i had an old usr palm pilot pro), I really liked graphiti.
I can write in graphitti much faster than I can in any legible script and it seems to me that in the present state of processors and power drain that it is much better to train users to learn the computer's script than it is to train computers to learn the user's script.
Other than that, I think this is good. Now if eventually I can get something like jot to work with my touchpad in X, that would be great.
I wish a hearty Bah! Humbug! to all, but in an age when even folks on alt.gothic.parenting are posting the infamous 'Is there a Santa Claus' letter, I can find precious little support for not celebrating the holidays.
I've resisted for four years now, perhaps it is time to face the inevitable and be assimilated.
i missed it my microseconds, I'll never get it. NEVER!
Edutainment drives the home computer market. Right now I can go down to the public library and check out any of hundreds of cdrom educational titles for my children for windows or mac os. In fact most Mac/Windows debates I hear from home users is the availability of children's software.
Two things are holding Linux back from mainstream acceptance, the first is the overwhelming availability of non-Linux software. Until you can get the latest 'American Girls' cd or whatever to run on Linux, most home users will have little or no reason to load Linux.
The second thing Linux really needs is more pre-loads. Until manufacturers such as Dell and Compaq offer Linux as the default with the windows flavor of the month as cost added extra, Linux will never be mainstream. Saving $100 to $150 bucks by forgoing windows would entice many people to try linux.
The previous poster's post was unsubstantiated. As such it makes it very difficult to verify to ascertain whether it is slander or not.
While I have the highest respect for Brett Glass's intellect I refuse to make judgements on issues that are essentially unverifiable. I'm sure the people that know and work with Brett could offer some insight on Brett's character, but not being one of those people I refuse to attempt to make such a judgement one way or the other.
If the incident in question did happen, the previous poster has every right to bring it up in a discussion. Of course, his/her credibility would be far higher if (s)he hadn't posted anonymously.
Also, the statement: Provide your real name, or you're nothing but a liar gives two alternatives that are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. The poster could very well be a liar, and be willing to provide his/her real name. OR the poster could be telling the truth and still be unwilling to leave the cloak of anonymousity.What is the world coming to, with programmers of all people using such faulty logic?
coupled with the fact that quad intel xeon machines have about 5 times the I/O bandwidth and overall speed compared to suns "enterprise" line of hardware, and you have a clear winner. Linux.
Not that I'm a Solaris biggot or anything. But I'd certainly like to see anyone tackle running a real time billing system tracking hundreds of millions of mobile phone calls on a quad xeon.
The production Solaris boxes at the company I'm on site at have more processors than most Intel boxes have Megs of RAM. And bandwidth? FDDI feeds are pretty quick.
We had a problem with a particular job failing in a test environment and the issue came back from development with the answer that the problem was occurring because that particular test system only had 2 Gigs of RAM. Guess what, the patch that will let Xeons see up to 64 GB hasn't made it to the 'stable' kernels series and it will be a while before it does. Even with that patch individual processes still have trouble dealing with as much as 4 GB.
Don't get me wrong, Linux will get to the point where it competes with Solaris someday. But it certainly isn't there now, except on the low end. As more and more of what distinguishes Solaris from Intel gives way to hordes of open source kernel hackers, Sun's software division might have something to start to worry about, but then again, Sun is predominantly a hardware company and hopefully by the time Linux can offer the same features as Solaris on an Enterprise 10000, Sun will be smart enough to jump on the band wagon.
Man (or Woman), you really had me laughing.
He chose to work for Novell.
Novell pays him to be at work.
Novell tells him to work on this project while on company time.
He takes the project and starts his own company and is suprised when Novell sues.
What gets me is not him starting his own company that competes with his former employer, but that he was spent so much time on Novell's dollar building what he was planning to make his own fortune off of. He should have burned the midnight oil doing that at home and given Novell what they paid him to, no more, no less.
No kidding. Check out this zdnet article. You got to love this quote:
IIRC, what happened is the one guy was the chief guy behind the Novel clustering project. He wrote the whole thing in pretty much undocumented C and when he left Novel, he took his hard drive with him. Novel sued and eventually he returned the hard drive, damaged and unreadable. But I'm too lazy to do a longer search to find out if I'm remembering correctly.
Which does raise the question, why should we believe them now?
There are lots of religions in the wide world: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, Sub-Genius, etc. All of these seem to have one thing in common: the works that they consider their "sacred scriptures" are not copyrighted.
The original works for most of the major religions were written so long ago that they clearly are older than the longest imaginable term of a copywright (lifetime of the author +50 years).
That said, typically anyone making a modern translation files for a copyright. This is why all the free online bibles only ship with old, crusty free translations like the King James or Revised Standard that were made a couple hundred years ago. You have to pay the copyright owner to get one of the modern translations like the New International Version or the New Revised Standard Version.
In principal, I think this is a crock of sh!t. Assuming the Gospel is true, I can't wait for judgement day when all these busines folks get to explain to the Judge why they had the audacity to copyright the word of God.
Rare are the real mystics like Sadhu Sundar Singh, who pronounce 'My mouth has no copyright'
There are only 2 ways of making money in OpenSource, and horizontal software is not one of them.
I beg to differ. The 30,000+ person organization I word for is plumping down hundreds of dollars for each PC it installs for licensing for MS Office. If employee churn is something like 10% (which is low for an IT company) and the company is growing by 5% a year (again a low estimate), your looking at a yearly bill of 4,500 time the cost of the license.
It seems to me that the yearly bill alone for licensing MS software could foot the consultation bill for rollout and conversion to a new office suite.
And then there is always the Microsoft mandated forced upgrade. The only the company I work at upgraded to Office 97 from Office 95 were the incompatible file formats. The bulk of our clients were emailing us documents in Word and Excel 97 formats that couldn't be read. 30,000 times the upgrade fee is a pretty penny.
Which brings up another very good point. The only way that a gnome based office suite will be succesful is if it has complete compatability with Word and Excel. 99% compatability won't be good enough. Re-formatting the thousands of design documents in our cvs tree alone would be a nightmare, let alone all our day to day business docs or the docs people email to us on a daily basis.
I wish Helix good fortune and hope they can pull it off, because if they can, it will be quite lucrative and at the same time beneficial to everyone. Free (as in freedom) software is a very good thing.
I bought shrink wrapped Caldera OpenLinux because I wanted the install support. It was useless. Caldera's support dept took three weeks to come up with a solution to a hosed lilo.conf. comp.os.linus.caldera took seven hours.
Next I submitted an XFree86 problem. It has been three months and I've yet to get a solution from them.
Of course, RedHat is not Caldera. But, tech support by and large is of the same quality. At least in my experience.
Nowhere does the GPL state that a GPL product has to be freely distributed to every one. An entity can be entirely selective about who it distributes the product to, but retstrictions are not allowed to be place on further distribution.
Maybe one or more of the beta testers will upload the distribution somewhere. But they will more than likely have to first remove the non-GPL portions such as WordPerfect.
I think PC Week really blew it. If you read their configuration page They list the steps that they took to secure Linux.
So we know that they at least know about the Linux security howto. They should have at least been tipped off by this section in chapter 8:
And if they would have read chapter 9
The thing the really gets to me was the post someone quoted where someone from PCWeek stated that they applied Fixpack 5 for NT because it was only one file. Come on. Did anyone else see all the keys they edited in the NT registry? To the eye untrained in NT administration, it looks like PCWeek spent at least three to four times the effort jumping through hoops to make certain that NT machine has secure. It is inexcusable for them to go through such effort to secure one box and not the other
There is no excuse for anyone putting up the Linux box they did in the state it was, but especially not for a crack this box contest. I'm just pissed they aren't losing more money on this. $1000 is a pittance for stupidity. And just for their record, I'd be just as pissed if the table had been turned and they put NT out there without the latest security patchesr
CISC architectures have generally also outperformed RISC architectures at the same clock speed.
Then I'm confused as to why a PowerPC (take your pick as to which one, 604e, G4 or G4) runs photoshop much faster than an identically clocked Pentium (of any variety).
I'm also confused as to why SGI's outperform virtually everything (except maybe for Alpha's) with 250Mhz MIPS chips.
It seems to me that most RISC architectures actually do more per clock cycle than most CISC architectures. They may have fewer instructions, but they can stack more of them in the pipeline at one time
but it's like saying i am a master musician because i can play the Bethoven and Bach on a guitar.....i might be a good musician, but far from a genius.
Well....
If you could reconstruct the symphonies of Bach and Beethoven on a guitar without access to the source code (sheet music) but with good descriptions of the api (musical theory) and a good knowledge of how it was supposed to sound, I would consider you to be a musical genius.