It seems from the article, that Mr. Gerstner thinks Linux is a Java, and that programs that run on Linux can run on all Linux's everywhere. Which of course is false.
OK, that is what it looks like from a first glance view of the article, but I know better. IBM is trying to go back to their old philosophy of selling hardware. Let someone else do the software. IBM is putting all the money in so that it will take off. This is a good strategy, since it could take the dominant force away from their foe "MS". As well they look like the heroes, and their old reputation will finally be gone. Thus, they can claim it back again!
I'm worried about VA Linux. Don't get fooled by the stock price, they can be crushed by IBM. RedHat probably has nothing to worry about this, infact, they may make out more by this.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a Good Thing(TM). Maybe now I won't have such trouble compiling GTK on AIX!
Actually what I was thinking is that once a story is promoted to headline, then it is out of the bucket. The next good story that gets picked is next in the headlines. So the headline stories are no longer compared to what is in the bucket. Only the ones that are in the bucket must compete with each other. Have the life in the bucket be longer then the life in the headline area, that way the story can still get promoted if there is enough interest.
Like all other things, this solution is not perfect, but I think IMO that this is better than the current situation. Steven Rostedt
Hemos, I'm repeating what I wrote before, so you don't have to go looking for it, and I don't really have time now to bother linking to my comments.
How about a second queue?
Instead of placing the stories into the headlines like you do today, you can place them in a bucket that is viewable by all. Place the stories in this bucket the same way you do headlines. The difference is that people can not comment on these stories.
But instead of you guys picking from the bucket, the logged in users can place a rating on each story. The stories that have the highest ratings get to go up to the headlines automatically. That way you can't be complained to if a story doesn't make it.
Each logged in user can cast only one rating per story. The best stories can then go up to the headlines like the top 10 comments do today. The headlines are the only stories that users can comment against.
After a given time, if a story doesn't get the rating to go up, then it falls out of the bucket.
This way you don't can't have people abusing what is in this bucket, because you are the ones that put the stories in there. Also if there is a story you think is borderline headline, then you can just place it in the bucket and let the users decide if it goes up.
Again, people should not complain if their story is somewhat good, and you place it into the bucket, but then it falls out because of bad ratings. The decision was changed from you to the rest of/.
I wouldn't do that. What I was explaining is that the stuff that is openned must be filtered for the reasons given for why you can't just open them up. As stated, people can then flood the input queue with their own agendas. It has to be filtered.
This should not be much more work for CT and Hemos since it is basically what they do today. The only thing that is different, is that they don't place the stories in the headlines, but they place them in the second queue. They can place only the ones that they see fit. Then the public can choose from that selection and automate that process from going from queue to headline. They then don't have to try so hard to decide what goes in the second queue. If they think that it just might be something worthy, then place it there. The only difference between the queue and the headline is that you can't comment to the stories in the queue. It must be voted up to be placed in the headline, and then it can be commented on.
Again, this voting needs to be done by only logged on users and you can only cast a vote (or rating) once per story. This will prevent abuses.
CT or Hemos, are you reading these comments, or do I have to email you these ideas? I really don't want to fill your email boxes anymore than they already are.
I would be interested in the stories that almost make it. I'm sure that they see some stories and debate whether or not to post it, then decide, nah, and dump it. We need a bin that CT and H can place stories that are on the edge to be posted, then let the readers decide if it is good enough. Or better yet, just place ALL the stories in this bin and the ones that get moderated up become the headlines. When I say "all", I mean all the ones that Hemos and CT decide are good enough. They can filter out the multiple submissions and the "tricks", and the "see my page" links. But place all unique stories into the bin.
Only let the logged in users vote, and only vote once per article. And again, only allow comments to the ones that "make it". I think that if Rob and gang put out the larger list of stories, we can have the users decide what gets in and what doesn't. Even if you see a story you like that doesn't get in, at least you can look at it yourself, but you just can't comment.
I mentioned this in my earlier post, but those that are good at breaking a system are the ones that are good a securing them. In fact it also goes the other way around. If you are good a securing a system, then you usually are good a breaking it. My only worry is trust, but this may come in time, when their skills are not looked at as mischievous but as a way to fix systems.
I just wish my company could understand this (see my prior post!)
I read about this morning in the paper and tried to find it on the web, to post to/., but when I finally found one, it was already posted:(.
Anyway, this is good and bad. The ones that can make the best secured machine is usually the ones that are the best a breaking them. But most crackers have an ego. They will probably always leave a back entrance that is very difficult to find. Now I would trust them enough to analyze a system, and consult on how to make it better, but I don't know if I could trust them to work on the machines themselves. But then again, if they are now a company that relies on trust, then the may keep from doing it. But if this company gets big and starts to hire lots of people the trust may just go down. So, it's a good thing and it's a bad thing.
Funny, my company just got new filtering software and I no longer can look at www.l0pht.com or www.2600.com. They are filtered as "criminal activity" sites. But I use to read these sites to get the information on how to secure my systems better. But at least I can see these sites at home.
-- The subject is just a saying, I'm not really calling anyone stupid!
Larry Wall is a good writer, he is funny, and he holds your attention well. Unfortunately humour doesn't help with language design.
Actually I believe that a good programmer is good in any language. I never complain about a language for bad code. Although I do believe that different languages are better for different things, and there is no "end all" of languages. As for perl, I think it's great. As a heavy C programmer, I picked it up in a day, and started writing lots of useful code. But I only did it with small scripts. Later, I started using it for larger scripts, and found that I needed to document the code (lots of comments) to have a good idea of what is going on. I find that good documentation allows for the most cryptic code.
I also met Mr. Wall at Linux World Expo back in March. To paraphrase you I would have to say Larry Wall is a good writer, he is funny, and he holds your attention well. Unfortunately humour doesn't help with understanding language After thanking Mr. Wall for the great language that he created, I continued to criticize his book "Programming perl". Because I found that it jumped around a lot, and took a few reads to understand what he was trying to say. He answered me with "Yeah, I know, that's why I added all those jokes". We both laughed. Although I think it was those jokes that made things confusing in the first place;)
---- Larry Wall: China has now adapted perl as its National programming language.
Linus Torvalds: Yeah, that's because the are use to incomprehensible characters.
you insult the person who thinks their password is 'asterisk asterisk asterisk',
Actually that strip didn't really have the user stupid, but rather clever.
When I make dumb mistakes, I laugh at myself. It's good to do so. I almost became a Darwin Award, by changing the Power Supply without unplugging the power cord (I was in a hurry). I look back and laugh. Noone got hurt, but it took a notch out of my pliers.
Funny too, is that when I call tech support, I usually find out that the person I'm talking to doesn't know any more than me. And thus tells me to do the things that I have already done, and does not believe me when I tell them "I did that already". I usually have to repeat the steps and give my diagnostics about the problem to get them to pass me on to someone who really knows what they are talking about. At work, I almost refuse to call tech support, because they usually frustrate me. And at the end, I have to figure every thing out myself.
I recently had my cable modem go down, and when I called tech support, I had to go through all the steps with the support guy, checking for conflicts with interrupts and such (which I did in the first place) before he would believe me that the modem was bad. Finally I got someone that knew what they were doing to bring me a new cable modem, and everything worked fine.
So relax, and if you don't think it's funny, then go off and read Family Circus!
If DVD CCA doesn't point the finger at someone, then it must be their fault (which I believe it is). Just because you code and compile something, doesn't make it a trade secret. Someone else mentioned Coca Cola's secret formula. If you figure it out, you can use it. Reverse engineering is the same thing.
Didn't this once come up with a case of Ford against a Nissan or Honda. Where the Japanese company bought a Ford and dismantled it to find out how it worked. When Ford tried to sue, the judge ruled that they didn't do anything wrong. Since they bought the car, it was theirs to do what they pleased. I think this is the same thing.
Now as for linking. That is getting out of hand. If you do business on the Web, you should be prepared to be linked to. Altough, this is slightly different, But as for free speech, not being able to link to something is a definite form of censorship. Yes, you can complain about content, but how can you complain about someone else linking to them. IANAL, but if you hear someone that shows bootlegged movies, and tell someone about it, and if someone asks who is doing it, and you tell them, are you just as guilty at bootlegging the movie. Now you are not related in any way to that bootlegger, and did not profit in telling someone about it. You just shared information that you knew about.
Unfortunately, I'm in NY and won't be able to go. I would love to see this trial!
I work for a large company, and when it came turn for me to place a patent, I wanted it to be open source. The company lawyer I talked to seemed very intelligent about the technical aspect of the patent utility. But he told me he is under special orders for the powers above, and can't do much of what I wanted. This of course made me not try so hard in making my stuff patentable. So it ended that the company actually suffered from this. For me to patent something, they will take a look at it, then after it goes off to the patent office, they will then decide what the rules shall be. By then, what I think doesn't matter any more.
Although I am a strong Linux advocate, my first thought was about Open BSD as well. But to quote the article exactly:
Linux along with the open source model for software development as the most secure computer architecture available.
I took it as saying that Linux AND the open source model. So isn't Open BSD open sourced. Although I know there are differences in the license. So Linux is what stands out most in the view of the public. I believe that Linux is a stepping stone to the others (*BSD). Linux is more user friendly IMO.
So I believe this is more of comparing open source to closed source. So you *BSD people don't get alarmed. The more exposure that Linux receives, the more exposure the *BSDs do to. In fact, I never heared of the *BSDs (besides the original) before I started using Linux. Now I recommend Open BSD for those that need a tight secure system.
Actually, I agree with him. I now own stock in ANDN and so I want the company to oblidge to customers requests. Although you may not see a/. poster as a customer, but the more users read/. the more revenue they can get.
Ok, back on topic here.
I work for a large company that does embedded systems. Although I personally am not working on any such products, a few of my coworkers are. Some are looking for RT linux to run on a Power PC chip. Right now we are using VX Works and are having tons of problems with the system. We develop the tools on Linux, since Linux has a better interface for tool development then VX Works. We then port the code to VX Works and recompile. The things that go wrong are amazing.
One thing that VX Works does is put global variables into global space. That is, if one process has a global variable X, and another process states "extern X", it then has access to the previous process' X. This is not a security issue since it is an embedded OS, but it can cause crazy debugging if you are not careful and declare two globals with the same name. Although I will say it makes shared memory easier, and thus I believe that was Windrivers' rational.
First I want to say that I mostly agree with you. I really like your statement of "Linux/GNU", and I try to tell RMS that the next time I see him. Although he may state that the GNU products were there before Linux.
What I got on discussing this with RMS before, is that every distro includes GNU products. He told me "I did NOT have invent Linux, that is completely Linus Torvalds. But I invented the products that run on top of it, and that every one uses with it" It would be hard to find those that use Linux without using GNU. I would argue that, I'm sure some embedded Linux may do without. But the majority uses it.
The reason GNU was ported to Linux is because of the availability of the source code. And that is primarily because of the GPL. I don't believe Linux would be as big as it is today without it. So I would like to give RMS some credit, and help him push the GNU agenda. But like I said, I think I prefer your "Linux/GNU" too. That way you don't get confused and think that Linux is a GNU product, because it ain't! (sorry... "because it is not!")
At LinuxWorldExpo back in March. I watch several people come up to him and ask him to sign their book. RMS would look down at it and say "Not an O'Reilly! Find another book and I'll sign that". For that five minutes I was looking at the things in the FSF booth, I saw four people come up and ask him, and he gave the same answer each time.
I'm not sure what O'Reilly did, but I think it had to do something with Sendmail. Anyone know the details?
I've met Mr. Stallman three times. Once at my college, and twice at Linux World Expo in San Jose back in March, where I was able to get into a lengthy discussion with him.
My experience with him is that he is very focused. That doesn't mean that he can't laugh. I thought he was actually a nice guy with strong beliefs. I don't 100% agree with him, but what I hear him say makes a lot of sense. I don't much like reading about him because all reports are bias in one way or another. What I recommend is to try to go to one of these Open Source/Linux/Free Software events that he will be attending and meet him for yourself. Keep an open mind, and forget all that you have read about him. Listen to what he says and then judge him as you like.
I believe he is a man before his time, and eventually, the world may be the way he wants. But for now it will take a lot to get there. Maybe GNU/Linux (or Linux, which ever you prefer. I really don't care) will help pave the path. Or better yet, try to get your college/work pay for him to come and give a lecture.
It seems we all like to put Microsoft as one of those companies.
God how many of these are we going to see??? Ok, I'm a hypocrite, so here's mine.
"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's losers have conveyed to every Anonymous Coward with the potential to smack in the Internet industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, Slashdot, Compaq, Microsoft, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense bunnies to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's geeky products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such Trolls and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and nerds that exhibit the potential to slash dot effect Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly crash consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not reboot with Microsoft's First Post."
I am also a parent of two very young children. And I could not see myself implanting them with chips, even though I would be devastated if they were ever taken. But the morality of implanting something does not seem to be the answer. I rather be extra careful with them. Its a major dilemma that I have yet been asked.
Look at it this way. Would you have been happy if your parents implanted something in you for this very reason?
I think this type of technology can have some very valuable uses if used properly.
This is your key statement. Unfortunately, as human history has shown, we never use things properly. Well we start doing so, but then someone takes advantage of it, and everyone else sees that they need to, otherwise they will be left behind in the dust. The same goes with patents themselves. They started as a good thing because they were used properly. But then companies saw that they could use them for a greater advantage, and other companies followed because of the fear of what could happen if they don't.
Implanting chips should be thought out in every way, and debated thoroughly. I personally don't like this idea, but I do have to say, my stock broker talked me into buying 100 shares of this company last week. So I have mixed emotions about this;)
I completely agree with you. Although I tried to get in at 100 (fat chance) I think in a month or two I just might. 300 is WAY overpriced for VA Linux, and I think I myself contributed to that.
I was extremely impressed with who was employed there and I liked the way they did business. When RedHat came out I said to my broker, that I wanted to wait for VA Linux. Boy was that a mistake. But what I didn't know was that I started spreading the word about this company. And so did others. So with RedHat doing extremely well, it cause anything to do with Linux to go sky rocket. And with me being one of the "techs" in on the business for my broker, he started recommending this company without even knowing what it does. It also seams that anything to do with Linux is red hot and overpriced. This I believe is not a good thing. Although if we can use this money to improve things maybe it is a good thing.
My biggest fear was that VA will become so big it ceases to be a good company. The people involved won't know what to do with the cash. The only thing that I can think of is to follow RHAT and start buying other companies. This way you can actually aquire more revenue.
Anyway I also jumped the gun and bought ANDN (Andover.net) at the opening price (84.5) and it just dropped from there:(. I'll keep it though. I like saying that I own/.;)
Ok. You have a program, one situation is under GPL and the other one is under BSD. Lets say the owner now stops maintaining it. Under the BSD, someone else can take over. And lets say that this code is used by many and you are dependant on it. Now a company takes this code and starts maintaining it under a proprietary license. You use them because they may provide the best support. Then that company falls under and no longer can support you. Or they just don't think there's enough profit in maintaining it any longer, or they come out with a version that nolonger supports you. Now you are stuck with no one supporting this tool.
Lets look at this under GPL. It must remain open. Say that same company takes it over, but sells the support for that tool. Lets say that company makes many enhancements. All these enhancements must remain under GPL. This company now no longer supports it, it is easy to get someone else to support it, because it IS under GPL and anyone has access to the source.
BSD can promot forking more than GPL because you can license it under a proprietary license. Although the original code is still free, which is a good thing. I don't think we would have had the forks of the Unix if the original Unix code was under GPL.
A good article on this was posted on slashdot last month that points to the explaination of GPL and forking.
Like I said before, BSD is great when you take someone else's code. GPL is great when you make your own.
Actually, you can make profit off of GPL too. Not just the obvious support of the code. Being author you are the most qualified individual to offer the support. If you write the code entirely and place it under GPL, there is nothing in the GPL that says you (the original owner) can't place that code under another license. Once you do so, it has basically been forked. That means that you CAN NOT place anyone elses enhancements made to the GPL version into your non GPL code. You can do what ever you want to the stuff you write. But nothing has to be forced under the GPL.
Now, if you take someone else's GPL code, you can't do this. Basically, the GPL says that anyone can use it and modify it but all versions that fork must remain free. But this does NOT apply to the owner of the code. Now if your not absolutely sure on this, you can state a clause that says: all of your code is owned by you, and may be used elsewhere by you, but anyone else must only use it under GPL.
This is also why you can take non GPL code that you own and place it under GPL. If you own it, you can do what ever you like with it.
I like the GPL because it is the only license that says the code I write and give to the community, shall always be free to the community. But I prefer the LGPL, because that way only the code that people use to change what I write, remains free, and not something that uses my code but does not effect my code.
Being in the Southern Tier New York LUG, I guess that qualifies me to go.:-)
But I was just trying to talk my manager sending me for work. So do I go for work (harder to convice the managers I need to go, but they pay everything) or do I just go because of this invitation?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems from the article, that Mr. Gerstner thinks Linux is a Java, and that programs that run on Linux can run on all Linux's everywhere. Which of course is false.
OK, that is what it looks like from a first glance view of the article, but I know better. IBM is trying to go back to their old philosophy of selling hardware. Let someone else do the software. IBM is putting all the money in so that it will take off. This is a good strategy, since it could take the dominant force away from their foe "MS". As well they look like the heroes, and their old reputation will finally be gone. Thus, they can claim it back again!
I'm worried about VA Linux. Don't get fooled by the stock price, they can be crushed by IBM. RedHat probably has nothing to worry about this, infact, they may make out more by this.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a Good Thing(TM). Maybe now I won't have such trouble compiling GTK on AIX!
Steven Rostedt
Actually what I was thinking is that once a story is promoted to headline, then it is out of the bucket. The next good story that gets picked is next in the headlines. So the headline stories are no longer compared to what is in the bucket. Only the ones that are in the bucket must compete with each other. Have the life in the bucket be longer then the life in the headline area, that way the story can still get promoted if there is enough interest.
Like all other things, this solution is not perfect, but I think IMO that this is better than the current situation.
Steven Rostedt
Hemos, I'm repeating what I wrote before, so you don't have to go looking for it, and I don't really have time now to bother linking to my comments.
/.
How about a second queue?
Instead of placing the stories into the headlines like you do today, you can place them in a bucket that is viewable by all. Place the stories in this bucket the same way you do headlines. The difference is that people can not comment on these stories.
But instead of you guys picking from the bucket, the logged in users can place a rating on each story. The stories that have the highest ratings get to go up to the headlines automatically. That way you can't be complained to if a story doesn't make it.
Each logged in user can cast only one rating per story. The best stories can then go up to the headlines like the top 10 comments do today. The headlines are the only stories that users can comment against.
After a given time, if a story doesn't get the rating to go up, then it falls out of the bucket.
This way you don't can't have people abusing what is in this bucket, because you are the ones that put the stories in there. Also if there is a story you think is borderline headline, then you can just place it in the bucket and let the users decide if it goes up.
Again, people should not complain if their story is somewhat good, and you place it into the bucket, but then it falls out because of bad ratings. The decision was changed from you to the rest of
So, what do you say?
Steven Rostedt
how bout opening up the input queues ?
I wouldn't do that. What I was explaining is that the stuff that is openned must be filtered for the reasons given for why you can't just open them up. As stated, people can then flood the input queue with their own agendas. It has to be filtered.
This should not be much more work for CT and Hemos since it is basically what they do today. The only thing that is different, is that they don't place the stories in the headlines, but they place them in the second queue. They can place only the ones that they see fit. Then the public can choose from that selection and automate that process from going from queue to headline. They then don't have to try so hard to decide what goes in the second queue. If they think that it just might be something worthy, then place it there. The only difference between the queue and the headline is that you can't comment to the stories in the queue. It must be voted up to be placed in the headline, and then it can be commented on.
Again, this voting needs to be done by only logged on users and you can only cast a vote (or rating) once per story. This will prevent abuses.
CT or Hemos, are you reading these comments, or do I have to email you these ideas?
I really don't want to fill your email boxes anymore than they already are.
Steven Rostedt
I would be interested in the stories that almost make it. I'm sure that they see some stories and debate whether or not to post it, then decide, nah, and dump it. We need a bin that CT and H can place stories that are on the edge to be posted, then let the readers decide if it is good enough. Or better yet, just place ALL the stories in this bin and the ones that get moderated up become the headlines. When I say "all", I mean all the ones that Hemos and CT decide are good enough. They can filter out the multiple submissions and the "tricks", and the "see my page" links. But place all unique stories into the bin.
:-)
Only let the logged in users vote, and only vote once per article. And again, only allow comments to the ones that "make it". I think that if Rob and gang put out the larger list of stories, we can have the users decide what gets in and what doesn't. Even if you see a story you like that doesn't get in, at least you can look at it yourself, but you just can't comment.
Please do this
Thanks.
Steven Rostedt
I mentioned this in my earlier post, but those that are good at breaking a system are the ones that are good a securing them. In fact it also goes the other way around. If you are good a securing a system, then you usually are good a breaking it. My only worry is trust, but this may come in time, when their skills are not looked at as mischievous but as a way to fix systems.
I just wish my company could understand this (see my prior post!)
Steven Rostedt
usually from the [h(cr)]ackers.
/., but when I finally found one, it was already posted :(.
I read about this morning in the paper and tried to find it on the web, to post to
Anyway, this is good and bad. The ones that can make the best secured machine is usually the ones that are the best a breaking them. But most crackers have an ego. They will probably always leave a back entrance that is very difficult to find. Now I would trust them enough to analyze a system, and consult on how to make it better, but I don't know if I could trust them to work on the machines themselves. But then again, if they are now a company that relies on trust, then the may keep from doing it. But if this company gets big and starts to hire lots of people the trust may just go down. So, it's a good thing and it's a bad thing.
Funny, my company just got new filtering software and I no longer can look at www.l0pht.com or www.2600.com. They are filtered as "criminal activity" sites. But I use to read these sites to get the information on how to secure my systems better. But at least I can see these sites at home.
Steven Rostedt
-- The subject is just a saying, I'm not really calling anyone stupid!
;)
Larry Wall is a good writer, he is funny, and he holds your attention well. Unfortunately humour doesn't help with language design.
Actually I believe that a good programmer is good in any language. I never complain about a language for bad code. Although I do believe that different languages are better for different things, and there is no "end all" of languages. As for perl, I think it's great. As a heavy C programmer, I picked it up in a day, and started writing lots of useful code. But I only did it with small scripts. Later, I started using it for larger scripts, and found that I needed to document the code (lots of comments) to have a good idea of what is going on. I find that good documentation allows for the most cryptic code.
I also met Mr. Wall at Linux World Expo back in March. To paraphrase you I would have to say Larry Wall is a good writer, he is funny, and he holds your attention well. Unfortunately humour doesn't help with understanding language After thanking Mr. Wall for the great language that he created, I continued to criticize his book "Programming perl". Because I found that it jumped around a lot, and took a few reads to understand what he was trying to say. He answered me with "Yeah, I know, that's why I added all those jokes". We both laughed. Although I think it was those jokes that made things confusing in the first place
----
Larry Wall: China has now adapted perl as its National programming language.
Linus Torvalds: Yeah, that's because the are use to incomprehensible characters.
Steven Rostedt
you insult the person who thinks their password is 'asterisk asterisk asterisk',
Actually that strip didn't really have the user stupid, but rather clever.
When I make dumb mistakes, I laugh at myself. It's good to do so. I almost became a Darwin Award, by changing the Power Supply without unplugging the power cord (I was in a hurry). I look back and laugh. Noone got hurt, but it took a notch out of my pliers.
Funny too, is that when I call tech support, I usually find out that the person I'm talking to doesn't know any more than me. And thus tells me to do the things that I have already done, and does not believe me when I tell them "I did that already". I usually have to repeat the steps and give my diagnostics about the problem to get them to pass me on to someone who really knows what they are talking about. At work, I almost refuse to call tech support, because they usually frustrate me. And at the end, I have to figure every thing out myself.
I recently had my cable modem go down, and when I called tech support, I had to go through all the steps with the support guy, checking for conflicts with interrupts and such (which I did in the first place) before he would believe me that the modem was bad. Finally I got someone that knew what they were doing to bring me a new cable modem, and everything worked fine.
So relax, and if you don't think it's funny, then go off and read Family Circus!
Steven Rostedt
If DVD CCA doesn't point the finger at someone, then it must be their fault (which I believe it is). Just because you code and compile something, doesn't make it a trade secret. Someone else mentioned Coca Cola's secret formula. If you figure it out, you can use it. Reverse engineering is the same thing.
Didn't this once come up with a case of Ford against a Nissan or Honda. Where the Japanese company bought a Ford and dismantled it to find out how it worked. When Ford tried to sue, the judge ruled that they didn't do anything wrong. Since they bought the car, it was theirs to do what they pleased. I think this is the same thing.
Now as for linking. That is getting out of hand. If you do business on the Web, you should be prepared to be linked to. Altough, this is slightly different, But as for free speech, not being able to link to something is a definite form of censorship. Yes, you can complain about content, but how can you complain about someone else linking to them. IANAL, but if you hear someone that shows bootlegged movies, and tell someone about it, and if someone asks who is doing it, and you tell them, are you just as guilty at bootlegging the movie. Now you are not related in any way to that bootlegger, and did not profit in telling someone about it. You just shared information that you knew about.
Unfortunately, I'm in NY and won't be able to go. I would love to see this trial!
Steven Rostedt
I work for a large company, and when it came turn for me to place a patent, I wanted it to be open source. The company lawyer I talked to seemed very intelligent about the technical aspect of the patent utility. But he told me he is under special orders for the powers above, and can't do much of what I wanted. This of course made me not try so hard in making my stuff patentable. So it ended that the company actually suffered from this. For me to patent something, they will take a look at it, then after it goes off to the patent office, they will then decide what the rules shall be. By then, what I think doesn't matter any more.
Steven Rostedt
Although I am a strong Linux advocate, my first thought was about Open BSD as well. But to quote the article exactly:
Linux along with the open source model for software development as the most secure computer architecture available.
I took it as saying that Linux AND the open source model. So isn't Open BSD open sourced. Although I know there are differences in the license. So Linux is what stands out most in the view of the public. I believe that Linux is a stepping stone to the others (*BSD). Linux is more user friendly IMO.
So I believe this is more of comparing open source to closed source. So you *BSD people don't get alarmed. The more exposure that Linux receives, the more exposure the *BSDs do to. In fact, I never heared of the *BSDs (besides the original) before I started using Linux. Now I recommend Open BSD for those that need a tight secure system.
Steven Rostedt
Actually, I agree with him. I now own stock in ANDN and so I want the company to oblidge to customers requests. Although you may not see a
Ok, back on topic here.
I work for a large company that does embedded systems. Although I personally am not working on any such products, a few of my coworkers are. Some are looking for RT linux to run on a Power PC chip. Right now we are using VX Works and are having tons of problems with the system. We develop the tools on Linux, since Linux has a better interface for tool development then VX Works. We then port the code to VX Works and recompile. The things that go wrong are amazing.
One thing that VX Works does is put global variables into global space. That is, if one process has a global variable X, and another process states "extern X", it then has access to the previous process' X. This is not a security issue since it is an embedded OS, but it can cause crazy debugging if you are not careful and declare two globals with the same name. Although I will say it makes shared memory easier, and thus I believe that was Windrivers' rational.
Steven Rostedt
First I want to say that I mostly agree with you. I really like your statement of "Linux/GNU", and I try to tell RMS that the next time I see him. Although he may state that the GNU products were there before Linux.
What I got on discussing this with RMS before, is that every distro includes GNU products. He told me "I did NOT have invent Linux, that is completely Linus Torvalds. But I invented the products that run on top of it, and that every one uses with it" It would be hard to find those that use Linux without using GNU. I would argue that, I'm sure some embedded Linux may do without. But the majority uses it.
The reason GNU was ported to Linux is because of the availability of the source code. And that is primarily because of the GPL. I don't believe Linux would be as big as it is today without it. So I would like to give RMS some credit, and help him push the GNU agenda. But like I said, I think I prefer your "Linux/GNU" too. That way you don't get confused and think that Linux is a GNU product, because it ain't! (sorry... "because it is not!")
Steven Rostedt
At LinuxWorldExpo back in March. I watch several people come up to him and ask him to sign their book. RMS would look down at it and say "Not an O'Reilly! Find another book and I'll sign that". For that five minutes I was looking at the things in the FSF booth, I saw four people come up and ask him, and he gave the same answer each time.
I'm not sure what O'Reilly did, but I think it had to do something with Sendmail. Anyone know the details?
Steven Rostedt
I've met Mr. Stallman three times. Once at my college, and twice at Linux World Expo in San Jose back in March, where I was able to get into a lengthy discussion with him.
My experience with him is that he is very focused. That doesn't mean that he can't laugh. I thought he was actually a nice guy with strong beliefs. I don't 100% agree with him, but what I hear him say makes a lot of sense. I don't much like reading about him because all reports are bias in one way or another. What I recommend is to try to go to one of these Open Source/Linux/Free Software events that he will be attending and meet him for yourself. Keep an open mind, and forget all that you have read about him. Listen to what he says and then judge him as you like.
I believe he is a man before his time, and eventually, the world may be the way he wants. But for now it will take a lot to get there. Maybe GNU/Linux (or Linux, which ever you prefer. I really don't care) will help pave the path. Or better yet, try to get your college/work pay for him to come and give a lecture.
Steven Rostedt
It seems we all like to put Microsoft as one of those companies.
God how many of these are we going to see??? Ok, I'm a hypocrite, so here's mine.
"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's losers have conveyed to every Anonymous Coward with the
potential to smack in the Internet industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, Slashdot, Compaq, Microsoft, and
others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense bunnies to harm any firm
that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's geeky products.
Microsoft's past success in hurting such Trolls and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and nerds that
exhibit the potential to slash dot effect Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly crash
consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not reboot with Microsoft's First Post."
Steven Rostedt
I am also a parent of two very young children. And I could not see myself implanting them with chips, even though I would be devastated if they were ever taken. But the morality of implanting something does not seem to be the answer. I rather be extra careful with them. Its a major dilemma that I have yet been asked.
Look at it this way. Would you have been happy if your parents implanted something in you for this very reason?
Steven Rostedt
I think this type of technology can have some very valuable uses if used properly.
;)
This is your key statement. Unfortunately, as human history has shown, we never use things properly. Well we start doing so, but then someone takes advantage of it, and everyone else sees that they need to, otherwise they will be left behind in the dust. The same goes with patents themselves. They started as a good thing because they were used properly. But then companies saw that they could use them for a greater advantage, and other companies followed because of the fear of what could happen if they don't.
Implanting chips should be thought out in every way, and debated thoroughly. I personally don't like this idea, but I do have to say, my stock broker talked me into buying 100 shares of this company last week. So I have mixed emotions about this
Steven Rostedt
I completely agree with you. Although I tried to get in at 100 (fat chance) I think in a month or two I just might. 300 is WAY overpriced for VA Linux, and I think I myself contributed to that.
:(. I'll keep it though. I like saying that I own /. ;)
I was extremely impressed with who was employed there and I liked the way they did business. When RedHat came out I said to my broker, that I wanted to wait for VA Linux. Boy was that a mistake. But what I didn't know was that I started spreading the word about this company. And so did others. So with RedHat doing extremely well, it cause anything to do with Linux to go sky rocket. And with me being one of the "techs" in on the business for my broker, he started recommending this company without even knowing what it does. It also seams that anything to do with Linux is red hot and overpriced. This I believe is not a good thing. Although if we can use this money to improve things maybe it is a good thing.
My biggest fear was that VA will become so big it ceases to be a good company. The people involved won't know what to do with the cash. The only thing that I can think of is to follow RHAT and start buying other companies. This way you can actually aquire more revenue.
Anyway I also jumped the gun and bought ANDN (Andover.net) at the opening price (84.5) and it just dropped from there
Steven Rostedt
I'm sorry but I must disagree with you here.
Ok. You have a program, one situation is under GPL and the other one is under BSD. Lets say the owner now stops maintaining it. Under the BSD, someone else can take over. And lets say that this code is used by many and you are dependant on it. Now a company takes this code and starts maintaining it under a proprietary license. You use them because they may provide the best support. Then that company falls under and no longer can support you. Or they just don't think there's enough profit in maintaining it any longer, or they come out with a version that nolonger supports you. Now you are stuck with no one supporting this tool.
Lets look at this under GPL. It must remain open. Say that same company takes it over, but sells the support for that tool. Lets say that company makes many enhancements. All these enhancements must remain under GPL. This company now no longer supports it, it is easy to get someone else to support it, because it IS under GPL and anyone has access to the source.
BSD can promot forking more than GPL because you can license it under a proprietary license. Although the original code is still free, which is a good thing. I don't think we would have had the forks of the Unix if the original Unix code was under GPL.
A good article on this was posted on slashdot last month that points to the explaination of GPL and forking.
Like I said before, BSD is great when you take someone else's code. GPL is great when you make your own.
Steven Rostedt
Actually, you can make profit off of GPL too. Not just the obvious support of the code. Being author you are the most qualified individual to offer the support. If you write the code entirely and place it under GPL, there is nothing in the GPL that says you (the original owner) can't place that code under another license. Once you do so, it has basically been forked. That means that you CAN NOT place anyone elses enhancements made to the GPL version into your non GPL code. You can do what ever you want to the stuff you write. But nothing has to be forced under the GPL.
Now, if you take someone else's GPL code, you can't do this. Basically, the GPL says that anyone can use it and modify it but all versions that fork must remain free. But this does NOT apply to the owner of the code. Now if your not absolutely sure on this, you can state a clause that says: all of your code is owned by you, and may be used elsewhere by you, but anyone else must only use it under GPL.
This is also why you can take non GPL code that you own and place it under GPL. If you own it, you can do what ever you like with it.
I like the GPL because it is the only license that says the code I write and give to the community, shall always be free to the community. But I prefer the LGPL, because that way only the code that people use to change what I write, remains free, and not something that uses my code but does not effect my code.
Just a rant.
Steven Rostedt
This is probably the first time that a "First Post" is considered on-topic, non-flame bait, AND non-trollish. This is kinda funny!
;-)
Look at me, replying to a (Score:4) comment so I can be seen
Damn, Forgot to post anonymously!
Steven Rostedt
Being in the Southern Tier New York LUG, I guess that qualifies me to go. :-)
But I was just trying to talk my manager sending me for work. So do I go for work (harder to convice the managers I need to go, but they pay everything) or do I just go because of this invitation?
Steven Rostedt
I don't usually post at my given (Score: 2) rating, but I liked this response so much that I'm trying to get attention!
Steven Rostedt