And at the top of the press release there is a video. Guess what service they used to publish the video? Yes, it was vimeo, not the facebook video service!
There's nothing to stop anyone from reverse-engineering the protocol and getting the devices to work as intended again - nothing but money
The vendors argue with the DMCA that you can't install foreign ROMs on the devices. And thanks to key pinning and other techniques, its impossible to replace the server side with at least changing small parts of the ROMs.
The bubble investors of silicon valley need a new hype to put their money into, so that they can sell more overvalued stocks of companies that did nothing more than register an "on the internet" (or "on the smartphone") patent and re-invent the wheel, but with added monetisation.
In their eyes, IRC has failed.
You see the death of IRC even on one of its strongholds: FLOSS projects. Many of the newer ones are moving to gitter.
We've started interfering with natural selection since when we didn't leave the sick and weak be torn apart by the wolves, but when we invented medicine and helped people to survive despite of their sickness. With all the methods medicine has, we've stopped natural selection. This is nothing bad though, as evolution is a very cruel process. We've gained humanity, and more diversity. And from an evolutionary standpoint that's in fact even better, as a more diverse population can adapt to problems much better and faster.
If you have immigrated illegally to a country, you lead your life in that country as far from the state as possible. You don't pay any taxes directly, you don't have a bank account under your name and address, you don't have a house registered to your name. Your whole life is illegal. If somebody steals from you or threatens you, you can't get the police, because the police would then send you back to where you came from. If your employer doesn't give you a minimal wage, you can't protest. If there is an accident which is the employer's fault, you can't sue them. If you immigrate illegally, your whole life becomes illegal, for as long as you reside in the country.
Saying that the whole immigrant is illegal when their whole life is as far from the law as possible is justified in my opinion.
That's what the state does: it provides security for its people, by prosecuting the criminals.
But yeah I know what you meant... This will just lead to DRMed (or criminalized) SDRs or something, totally the wrong approach IMO. Policemen may be trusting their lives on these devices, and the video footage may be used as proof in court. If the defendant can prove there is no encryption, then boom the proof may be void.
Yes, BSD can be converted to GPL, but GPL can't be converted to BSD. That's because the GPL does use copyright law to protect the freedom of the software.
It does use the same legal tools as the proprietary software, but it promotes user freedom with those tools, and not restrictions towards the user.
We often see the same people riding the hype wave. Rust is a good example of this. It's quickly becoming one of the most-hyped programming languages, despite being inferior to C++11 and C++14 in almost every way.
If you can't write rust, the compilation will fail. If you can't write C++, the program will segfault, and perhaps only on some specific condition. C++ doesn't have unified unit testing, it still has the C preprocessor, and still has very easy access to many unsafe C routines. Rust has a borrowship concept that may seem complicated but knowing every single aspect of C++ well its much much harder, C++ is much more complex.
Rust has deserved every bit of hype in my opinion, it can be seen as a full and suiting replacement for C++.
You can "use" (as in run) GPL licensed software for any purpose whatsoever. You just can't create proprietary closed source software with extracts of the source code provided to you. That's why the GPL promotes freedom, and the BSD license promotes proprietary software.
The GPL removes no freedom at all. It only doesn't grant it. That means, if you really want to distribute closed source software based on GPL, you only need the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL does grant freedoms, the only freedoms it doesn't grant is the freedom to remove freedom. This isn't granted by states either (you may not imprison people, but the state can).
I don't say the GPL is perfect, but for huge monolithic software it is a good model.
Microsoft can do so many things to promote open source:
* not threaten companies that build products basing on linux because of patent infringement
* support open GL / Vulkan on xbox
* actually make their office product based on an open standard, and not apply corruption-like strategies for people who use open source competition
I don't see anything happening. One thing is fortunate however, the browser market is very rough, and Microsoft really has improved with Edge. But most of the "Microsoft loves open source" stuff is just greenwashing.
This move by microsoft is very smart: I interpret that they want to enable developers to develop cloud applications on windows (instead of on the ubuntu desktop), and then deploy it to ubuntu servers.
This is the first step. It promotes tools like Microsoft Visual studio, which of course only run on windows. New tools will be only developed for windows of course, and for the "extended" toolset provided by Microsoft, that only runs on Win. The second step will be that microsoft announces a hybrid OS, that's partly windows, partly ubuntu, for the server part. Then, once Microsoft has enough market share, they can cut off the connections to open source. They will maintain some pseudo open source products that require this windows+ubuntu server system to run, and point to it when they say "Microsoft loves open source".
Exactly. If this is indeed a true story and not an april's fool joke (which may be very well possible), then this is only done in order to promote windows. Microsoft is the strong party here, not canonical.
Microsoft is doing a giant PR campaign about how much they love Linux, and when the cameras are off, they behave like a patent troll, claiming to have patents on Linux technology, and forcing companies to pay them money.
The ability for pseudonyms is something really important I think for freely expressing your opinion, without the fear that some of your future bosses won't like something you said in some forum five years ago.
The smuggler trick can be dried up by not letting mexican or canadian SIM cards roam on US networks unless the confirmed ID is known by US authorities.
But the stealer trick... well, that's probably what's gonna happen.
I'm looking forward to the "free dopamine brain implant" offerings where you get free dopamine for the first ten days for the month, and after that you have to pay for it.
There is a legal aspect, and there is a moral aspect. SourceForge had the right to adware infected installers for open source software. Whether they should do, is another question. Same here.
So you say everybody should write their own buggy and incomplete reinvention of the wheel?
Yes, probably most of his libraries aren't longer than 2000 lines of code, and therefore are pretty replaceable, but I don't think that writing your own libraries will decrease the total number of bugs, it will rather increase them.
Slashdot Mirror
And at the top of the press release there is a video. Guess what service they used to publish the video? Yes, it was vimeo, not the facebook video service!
There's nothing to stop anyone from reverse-engineering the protocol and getting the devices to work as intended again - nothing but money
The vendors argue with the DMCA that you can't install foreign ROMs on the devices. And thanks to key pinning and other techniques, its impossible to replace the server side with at least changing small parts of the ROMs.
The bubble investors of silicon valley need a new hype to put their money into, so that they can sell more overvalued stocks of companies that did nothing more than register an "on the internet" (or "on the smartphone") patent and re-invent the wheel, but with added monetisation.
In their eyes, IRC has failed.
You see the death of IRC even on one of its strongholds: FLOSS projects. Many of the newer ones are moving to gitter.
We've started interfering with natural selection since when we didn't leave the sick and weak be torn apart by the wolves, but when we invented medicine and helped people to survive despite of their sickness. With all the methods medicine has, we've stopped natural selection. This is nothing bad though, as evolution is a very cruel process. We've gained humanity, and more diversity. And from an evolutionary standpoint that's in fact even better, as a more diverse population can adapt to problems much better and faster.
Didn't he say it already when he said "machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones"?
If you have immigrated illegally to a country, you lead your life in that country as far from the state as possible. You don't pay any taxes directly, you don't have a bank account under your name and address, you don't have a house registered to your name. Your whole life is illegal. If somebody steals from you or threatens you, you can't get the police, because the police would then send you back to where you came from. If your employer doesn't give you a minimal wage, you can't protest. If there is an accident which is the employer's fault, you can't sue them. If you immigrate illegally, your whole life becomes illegal, for as long as you reside in the country.
Saying that the whole immigrant is illegal when their whole life is as far from the law as possible is justified in my opinion.
When's unicode being fixed?
Not for embedded CPUs, they are considerably less powerful, and if there isn't dedicated support for the algorithms there is considerable lag.
That's what the state does: it provides security for its people, by prosecuting the criminals.
But yeah I know what you meant... This will just lead to DRMed (or criminalized) SDRs or something, totally the wrong approach IMO. Policemen may be trusting their lives on these devices, and the video footage may be used as proof in court. If the defendant can prove there is no encryption, then boom the proof may be void.
Or they are just idiots who think that nobody would ever want to hack their product, and that its much easier to debug without encryption.
its a cartel, and even wikipedia knows it.
Yes, BSD can be converted to GPL, but GPL can't be converted to BSD. That's because the GPL does use copyright law to protect the freedom of the software.
It does use the same legal tools as the proprietary software, but it promotes user freedom with those tools, and not restrictions towards the user.
We often see the same people riding the hype wave. Rust is a good example of this. It's quickly becoming one of the most-hyped programming languages, despite being inferior to C++11 and C++14 in almost every way.
If you can't write rust, the compilation will fail. If you can't write C++, the program will segfault, and perhaps only on some specific condition. C++ doesn't have unified unit testing, it still has the C preprocessor, and still has very easy access to many unsafe C routines. Rust has a borrowship concept that may seem complicated but knowing every single aspect of C++ well its much much harder, C++ is much more complex.
Rust has deserved every bit of hype in my opinion, it can be seen as a full and suiting replacement for C++.
You can "use" (as in run) GPL licensed software for any purpose whatsoever. You just can't create proprietary closed source software with extracts of the source code provided to you. That's why the GPL promotes freedom, and the BSD license promotes proprietary software.
And even if copyright allows you to use the software, TFA hasn't said anything about patent licenses.
The GPL removes no freedom at all. It only doesn't grant it. That means, if you really want to distribute closed source software based on GPL, you only need the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL does grant freedoms, the only freedoms it doesn't grant is the freedom to remove freedom. This isn't granted by states either (you may not imprison people, but the state can).
I don't say the GPL is perfect, but for huge monolithic software it is a good model.
Microsoft can do so many things to promote open source:
* not threaten companies that build products basing on linux because of patent infringement
* support open GL / Vulkan on xbox
* actually make their office product based on an open standard, and not apply corruption-like strategies for people who use open source competition
I don't see anything happening. One thing is fortunate however, the browser market is very rough, and Microsoft really has improved with Edge. But most of the "Microsoft loves open source" stuff is just greenwashing.
This move by microsoft is very smart: I interpret that they want to enable developers to develop cloud applications on windows (instead of on the ubuntu desktop), and then deploy it to ubuntu servers.
This is the first step. It promotes tools like Microsoft Visual studio, which of course only run on windows. New tools will be only developed for windows of course, and for the "extended" toolset provided by Microsoft, that only runs on Win. The second step will be that microsoft announces a hybrid OS, that's partly windows, partly ubuntu, for the server part. Then, once Microsoft has enough market share, they can cut off the connections to open source. They will maintain some pseudo open source products that require this windows+ubuntu server system to run, and point to it when they say "Microsoft loves open source".
I don't trust anything coming from this company.
Exactly. If this is indeed a true story and not an april's fool joke (which may be very well possible), then this is only done in order to promote windows. Microsoft is the strong party here, not canonical.
Microsoft is doing a giant PR campaign about how much they love Linux, and when the cameras are off, they behave like a patent troll, claiming to have patents on Linux technology, and forcing companies to pay them money.
They have experience from doing this for Vietnam and Afghanistan too.
The ability for pseudonyms is something really important I think for freely expressing your opinion, without the fear that some of your future bosses won't like something you said in some forum five years ago.
You are lonely if you can't connect your mind to the other drones. All hail the borg queen!
The smuggler trick can be dried up by not letting mexican or canadian SIM cards roam on US networks unless the confirmed ID is known by US authorities.
But the stealer trick... well, that's probably what's gonna happen.
I'm looking forward to the "free dopamine brain implant" offerings where you get free dopamine for the first ten days for the month, and after that you have to pay for it.
There is a legal aspect, and there is a moral aspect. SourceForge had the right to adware infected installers for open source software. Whether they should do, is another question. Same here.
So you say everybody should write their own buggy and incomplete reinvention of the wheel?
Yes, probably most of his libraries aren't longer than 2000 lines of code, and therefore are pretty replaceable, but I don't think that writing your own libraries will decrease the total number of bugs, it will rather increase them.