Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour?
Would you complain if a republican did it? Like a George Bush. I see complaints like this all the time, but it always goes against the person that they are against. I'm sure Reagan did do fundraisers that caused people havic in rush hour. But this is not an issue to me.
Better plainning, sure, but Ps and VPs do have tight schedules and to get something like a fundraiser out, you may have to inconvenience people.
First, I don't think it was childish that he would not respond to the term Open Source. There has been a bitter feud between the two, and a lot of people (as he stated) thinks he supports the Open Source Movement. He supports the "Free Software Movement" where it may seem similar to you, he wants the world to know that it is not and that he disagrees with the other. The only way to accomplish that is that he has to act (as you say) "childish". It's not childish to me, just "loud".
One wonders how he reconciles this with writing a gcc that supports closed source operating systems.
Please read why not to use the LGPL. He talks about this. It is also in line with the answer he gave at the end of this story. "If it will hurt Sony (for being closed source) than it may be of some use".
I had approval from upper management to go ahead and connect to the lan this way. But our IT is vendored out and I it took a long time to get anything done, so I needed to get around it to make dead lines. This would not have happend if I had a quicker response for those that control the network.
I'm here at work to get things done, not go wait around for others to fill out paper work. I've taken these types of gambles before, and the majority of the time, I have saved the project. I also have been recognized for doing this. That's probably why I stay out of trouble.
I personally would not publish under BSD, because I would like those that use my code to publish changes to it. I also would not publish under GPL, since I would like my code to interact with your code, but I don't want to force you to use my license. That's why my license of choice is the LGPL. Where you must always publish changes made to the LGPL code, but you may link to any other licensed code.
This is my personal opinion. I don't really "disagree" with BSD, I just would not choose to use it.
No, the support should be added for a forked kernel.
But for the development. I believe each new release should add only a few new features and then be release. Maybe only add one. It's not like a closed source system where you need to show/make rational for users to buy a new release. It's free. Make one update and release it as a new version. Then start the development on the next. Only have more than one feature where the two new features play off each other.
I want a fork. I don't want the OS on my single processor machine have any overload that is only there for a 64 processor machine.
You see forking is a good thing, especially in this case. My attitude is to have several versions for different purposes. You only need to download the one that fits you.
One shirt does not fit all, but the same style can be made in several sizes!
Yes, I feel for you. I'm one of those programmers that "illegally" installed Linux on my machine. But I was able to prove my productivity due to it.
But....
One day trying to set up a Lab NT machine to verify users to a global account through my Samba/Linux box, I tried a few configurations, and later gave up on it. But what I didn't realize is that I left "local master = yes" and work group equal to my companies domain. Opps!
It took our IT department three days to find my machine. ALL windows machines in my subnet were not able to access net drives or printers. I came in on a Monday morning to see a piece of paper on my machine that read:
ATTENTION: one of your machines is preventing all Windows machines on this floor from accessing the network. We have disabled your port. To be reconnected, call the help desk Lets just say, they don't like me very much;)
I don't agree with all that you say, but I do feel your pain!
You will probably only read this if you check your replys.
I have the same thoughts about Leberman as a jew, and the middle east conflicts.
But my main comment is on one of your last:
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour?
Funny, because tomorrow (its late so I can say today) several roads and highways are being shut down for the arrival of President Clinton, who is campaining here for Hillary (I live in NY). This is normal procedure for Presidents and VPs. In 1984 Reagan came and gave a speech at my highschool. I also live in the birth place of IBM and he was here to see IBM but since it was an election year, he gave a speech too. Well they shutdown the same (if not more) highways and roads.
So please, if you are a President or VP you will have this regardless of your party.
Look. I actually use linux because I like it. I also like Free BSD, but I don't agree with the license (and that is just my opinion, you may have your own, but I don't care either). I used linux before I ever heard of Linus Torvalds. Actually, I found out who he was a few months after first starting to play with Linux.
My point is... who cares what Linus thinks. I really believe that he doesn't care if Linux is big or not. It never was supposed to get this big. It just kind of happened. If everone in the world suddenly stopped using Linux, if he still kept his job, I don't think it would phase him much. Sure, he would be upset, but who cares?
I wrote a post earlier that states Linus hinting for a fork. I think we wants Linux to get away from him so he is not so much in the lime light. He has a family now so he probably has other things on his mind.
My point is: The GPL allows people to think differently. I for one want a kernel fork. Yes, lets try different ways to do the same thing. But we get to see how things work and really decide what's better.
But going to BSD just because you think Linus is a dick. I'm sure there are top developers at BSD that are even worse (no offense BSD, I'm just trying to make a point). Have a real reason for using a OS and use it for that. Steven Rostedt
Wow, I'm absolutely impressed with your comment. It has been the best thing I have read on/. for a long time.
I was talking to a vendor at my work (I won't say who they are, but you know them). They told me that they want kernel support for 64 processors. The CEO went to Linus himself, and ask him straight on to please let the official kernel have support for this. Linus replied that he wanted no such thing.
I replied to the vendor, that they should go ahead and support it themselves. Yes, I would actually love to see linux fork. And I have a hunch that so would Linus. This would really be a good thing.
I look back at some bad forks, and nothing sticks out more than the many Unix that were about. But the one thing that made it a bad fork, was that it was closed source. Each vendor trying to out due the other, making none of them pleasable. But just think if you have the same thing, but with the exception that you could incorporate code that looks good in one and place it in the other. Or a a enhancement. It may have its troubles, in maintenance, but this could be worked out.
Lets have several companies (HP, SGI, IBM, etc) go out and create a new kernel based off of Linux. But it would still need to be GPL, thus open for all to see and use for your pleasure.
In New York, I watch Linus Torvalds talk about having the same operating system run both your refrigerator and a mainframe. They may both be the same size, and have the same cooling system, but they have too entirely different tasks and that they should only share the same code that makes sense. If you browse the Internet from you fridge as well as from a mainframe, then maybe the TCP/IP stack could be the same. I totally agree with this statement.
I have no problem with the BSD fork, and think that Linux should have a similar fork but all need to have the same license (The BSD license is the only thing I don't agree with, but its better than other choices:) Also, it would need a different focus. I imagine that Linux may split in three directions. Small Medium and Large. Maybe Linux could have clothing labels! Have LinuxS, LinuxM, and LinuxL, and maybe even add LinuxXS and LinuxXL, and then go further LinuxXXS (for molecule programming) and LinuxXXL (for a future OS that runs like Seti).
I'm one of the biggest Linux advocates at my corporation and I am often asked about forking. My reply has always been (and still is) forking is good, when it is open, and in an open environment, forking only occurs when a need needs to be satisfied.
I'm glad Gtk/Gnome came about. (I know this is not technically a fork, because they never were "one") I never really liked the look and feel of KDE. Altough I just recommended KDE to a coworker because of his background, he seemed more the KDE type. And he is very happy with it. So, I say, "to each their own, live with it!" Steven Rostedt
You have given the first real intelligant argument for Bush that I heard/read from all other Bush supports that I have listen to. Most are like your first post where they talk about character and they talk about Tax cuts but not about what Bush will really do about it. Tax cuts are something that is nice, but what do we lose in the mean time. I don't believe we should talk about tax cuts utill we have entirely paid off the national dept. Yes, I was a Perot supporter, but now I believe that Gore will do more for this aim then Bush does.
As another poster said, we can't go by character because there's nothing to show that Bush has a better character than Gore. In fact, looking at their histories of when they were younger, I would say Gore has a better character. I believe that Gore really wants to benefit the country but has a charisma of a door knob. That and his flip flopping has hurt his image. During the debates, Gore would always say "Yes, I support that" or "No I don't" and I agree with most of what he does. But Bush never seem to give a straight answer.
I'm a strong believer in the saying of "I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". So I like to hear others views, but only if they actually give it some thought. Not just some blind thinking of "I like the way he/she talks". But if they actually listen and agree to views, with facts(or what seems to be the facts, since I know people will argue that), then great. Yes I hear the same stupid thoughts from the Dems as well.
Bush really does scare me. I'm afraid of what it will be like when (if elected) he goes over seas to talk to other world leaders. This is not because I don't agree with his ideas, but how intelligent he really is. I would be much more comfortable with the more conservative President like Dick Cheney. I disagree with most of Dick's views, but damn, he's smart. I much rather have a intelligent President then a charismatic one. With the exception of Reagan. The United States needed someone like Reagan at the time. But we had to pay later for what he did. But I agree, it was worth the cost. I disliked Bush Sr, since he seemed to carry the Reagan ways at a time it wasn't necessary.
As for/. leaning towards Gore. Hey, I listened to Gore go against Microsoft. He told them to their face that the government has a case against them. And these were likely voters as well as MS employees. So who do you think slashdot will go towards. Someone that stands up against MS, or someone that MS pours a lot of money to?
The only difference here is I sent the output to a temp file. Becareful to cut and paste it correctly otherwise it won't work. It's also easier to keep it all on one line.
Ok, there's a DOS that can be made to a Windows machine. But that's not going to hurt my data or be more dangerous than just unpluging from the net.
I'm not saying that DoS is not a problem, but as a home user, I'm not really afraid of that type of attack. It will only affect me going out to the web. This is not a service machine so DoS attacks are not going to harm that much.
I'm worried about someone breaking into my machine and causing harm to my data files. What's out there that can do that?
I don't know what ZoneAlarm does, so I can't comment on a Linux equivalent.
I still honestly don't know what is insecure about a Windows 9x box. As long as it doesn't share any drives. Besides email virus/worms/trojans, I don't know how to break into one. Usually a break is done by a bad service, but Windows doesn't have any services (with netbios turned off). I still have one machine (behind my firewall) that is a Windows 95 with no service packs. I would like to know how to break into it without an email backdoor. I can't telnet or ftp to the darn thing. As a server it seem completely useless to me.
So, I would really like someone to tell me or point to a link that shows how Windows is insecure on the network. Again, I'm not talking about email trojans. I'm talking about what would happen if I left my Windows box connected straight to the net and told everyone to try to break in. How would they do it. It has no ports ( and I don't use netbios).
Although I'm very bias towards Linux, I still think Windows is one of the most secure OS network wise (9x not NT) because it is too dumb to know about the network. Sure it's insecure if you are at the machine or accept emails, but how is it insecure via the network only? I've been told that Direct X/OLE/COM are open, but I don't know how they are.
Yesterday, a friend of mine found out (I told him) that he was hacked.
He first called me to ask me why he can no longer read his vfat filesystem after he mounts it. It seems that the functions (ls, cd,...) core dump after he access his vfat system. Then he ask (as a side note!) is it normal to have the Transfer and Receive lights of his cable modem flashing while he is not doing anything. This is where I became curious.
I asked him to do a netstat -a and he told me that he sees a connection to.ksu.edu on port 1025. Looks like he was currently being hacked. I did a nmap on his machine and it was a straight out-of-the-box version of RedHat 6.1, with everything from linuxconfd to webservers to finger open. He just told me he didn't care.
I helped him reinstall his whole system with only his mp3s stored and we whiped clean his harddrive and reinstalled. I showed him how to use ipchains and to turn off all daemons that he did not use. We also set up a system to perform check sums of his file system to compare it to a check sum on a cdrom.
With more and more users connecting to the Internet via cable modems and DSL and leaving their machines up 24 hours a day, things like this will happen unless you lock down your system.
I never said that I read every line of source code. I stated that it would be possible to do so. Of course I didn't say that I would nor do I have the time to. I've read a large amount of the Linux kernel as well as XFree. But I didn't read all of it or even close to all of it.
The point is that some one just might read you bad code! You really think that a spy program or dangerous code would last long in the Open Source world? If there are not many users of the said product, then sure, you might get a way with it. But if you are successful and have lots of users, you will have lots of lines. So if 1000 people read 50 lines of code, then you have aprx 50000 lines read. Of course that is assuming that the same lines have not been read.
I'm saying that I feel safer that code is not a problem if it is open. I'm not saying that it is safe. But as I mentioned, it takes alot more nerve to post code that has mischievious actions. But it doesn't take much for closed source to do so (!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN).
It's just common sense....
But common sense ain't too common! Steven Rostedt
They both frighten me. But I actually worry about big business more. Big goverment is easy to point out the leaders and those to fight against. But big business is not so easy. People usually think of them as just some enitity that is trying to make a buck. But that goal could cause problems for the rest of us.
I like the days when there were lots of small businesses that you can patronise. A corner deli, a newstand, etc. Now the only thing left in my area is Wallmart's Supper store. The thing is so big you can't find anything. It wasn't bad when it was smaller, and you could get things quickly. But now its impossible to find what you want. After looking around, I'm not the only one that is annoyed with them.
I believe that business can control government more than government can control business. You could use Microsoft as an example, because they seem pretty big and strong enough to win appeals, and I doubt that they will be broken up.
You forget that Business can grow bigger than governments. They are not limited to national borders, they can go across the world, in a global economy. I'm not against free trade, but we need to still have respect for the employees all over the world. Get rid of the sweatshops, and then trade.
Government and Business both have the same goals, and that is power. The more power the better. The more Big Business gets power, the less rights you will have. The suing that goes on is the power of the business. Sure there are cases that the layman gets there reward (old lady burnt by McDonalds coffee, and not to mention the Tobacco thingy). But try to fight business and you will loose! (DeCSS, RIAA, Patents, and DMCA).
Sorry, but the attitude of let the companies reign and do what they want will bring havoc to the rest of the world. Companies thrive on greed, and it can affect us all. Unfortunately the only way to control them is via government. So it all comes back to government being a neccessary evil.
I'm not against Capitolism, we just happen to be all short sited, and make decissions base on short term goals. If the aim is for long term then the world will be a better place. I always come back to the notion that if someone works hard they should be able to get ahead. If a company becomes too big, then no matter how hard you work, you can not get ahead, unless you bow down to the corporation. Whats the difference of being a slave to the government or a slave to a business? They both control your ass.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm tired and I want to go to bed!
I thought the same thing. Actually it goes to almost anything you use. Unless you have a sniffer, you don't know what a product is sending to someone if you are using a closed sourced application and are connected to the Internet. Sure you might be able to watch your modem lights blink, but that is not the best way of catching things like this. It's even more difficult with a web brouser, since you have valid packets being sent out over the Internet.
Yes the average person will not look at the code of some product to see if it is sending or storing devious information about the user. But I would certainly be more secure in knowing I CAN view the code if I desired. Someone would really have some nerve to put a backdoor of somekind in a product that the source is viewable.
Also note. A license that is not neccessarily open source can give you the same effect. As long as you have the full source, and can compile it yourself, this problem would not exist.
You sound like one of our "Process Group" people. But the underlining problem usually comes from the proposal group trying to win the bid. They are only responsible in winning the bid and not for the success of the project. This is where I find the problem. A proposal manager is rated well if they keep wining proposals, but it doesn't matter if each of the proposals that he/she won failed. That is the problem of the poor project manager that gets the proposal after they win it.
If a proposal manager does not win bids, because they took in account all of the actual costs, then that manager may be fired.
I have been lucky to see what goes on early, and I have been able to stay clear of the "doomed" projects. My company is basically the way it is straight out of the Dilbert comic.
Support for the idea that microwaves can trigger biochemical stress at low energies comes from a team led by Henry Lai at the University of Washington in Seattle. He claims that rats exposed to microwaves produce natural painkillers called endorphins and are more likely to binge on alcohol or react strongly to morphine and barbiturates.
Actually, the stress comes from the rats using the cell phones to make appointments, sell/buy stock, and to try and get a date for this saturday party with morphine and barbituates!
Actually, I don't trust Cell phones yet, and will wait a few more years to see how others have reacted to them. Luckly, being a programmer, I don't have to (or want to) be connected to people 24 hours a day.
Although the article never mentioned driving and cell phones, I think that's more dangerous than anything else. I've witnessed two people blow through red lights and one women run off the road all because they were too busy chatting on their phone instead of watching the road.
I'm not saying that the article is wrong. In fact I agree with everything the author states. But I want to add the issue of "speed" to get the product out.
My experience at work also shows that tight schedules also cause problems. We all have access to the code of our peers but when we are forced to ship the product quicker than as-soon-as-possible we don't take into account what the other programmer is doing. There are those that design the tool that are supposed to prevent this, but if the requirements are lacking, then programmers will do things one way that will cause problems when integrating it to a tool another way.
Another problem comes when requirements change. Just recently I was on a program that changed a few requirements near the end, and this caused a major design change. With the tight schedule it was impossible to completely test the change to what it should be done. But management seems to think things are some when you change a "simple" requirement and doesn't give a proper budget.
The open source world doesn't worry too much about schedule. It is willing to produce something better than get the PR of a quick product. I believe open source produces code quicker, but for the quality it seems slow, where closed source can produce quicker than the open source because it hides the things that should have been fixed before the shipment. So this is only a perception that the closed source version was produced quicker.
2.Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
Isn't this how Jesse Ventura got elected?
If everyone that doesn't vote got up and decided to vote for a third party, that third party might actually win! Voting for a third party does show the discuss you have with the two major parties.
Did you read my entire post, or just the first line?
My point was not that you preferred Transmeta because Linus works there, but you probably have heard about Transmeta because he works there!
Do you regularly read up on low-powered CPUs that run x86 software? I don't, but I've heard about Transmeta. The first time I've heard about them is in an interview with Linus. There were rumors that Transmeta was making some sort of low-powered chip, but no one really knew what they were doing because they were so secretive about their business. It certainly drew my attention. Linus was the reason I first wanted to know what they did, then their web site continued my curiosity, then the rumors fueled it more.
My point wasn't that you like to follow Linus around, but would you have known about Transmeta if Linus didn't work there? Would they have had the publicity that they have if Linus didn't work there? Would I be writing this if Linus didn't work there? No one knows...
Ok, if you keep up on all the chips out there that are competing for laptops and PDAs then you probably would have heard of them. Do you know of any other chip maker that is producing low powered x86 chips? If you do, then did you mention them to your father-in-law as well?
I have nothing against your scenario, I just was making a point that Transmeta used Linus to claim the spot light and that is how a lot of people have heard about them. So far I have yet to find someone that has heard about Transmeta and does not know who Linus Torvalds is! (well, your father-in-law now does, but that is because you told him!)
Slashdot Mirror
Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour?
Would you complain if a republican did it? Like a George Bush. I see complaints like this all the time, but it always goes against the person that they are against. I'm sure Reagan did do fundraisers that caused people havic in rush hour. But this is not an issue to me.
Better plainning, sure, but Ps and VPs do have tight schedules and to get something like a fundraiser out, you may have to inconvenience people.
Steven Rostedt
First, I don't think it was childish that he would not respond to the term Open Source. There has been a bitter feud between the two, and a lot of people (as he stated) thinks he supports the Open Source Movement. He supports the "Free Software Movement" where it may seem similar to you, he wants the world to know that it is not and that he disagrees with the other. The only way to accomplish that is that he has to act (as you say) "childish". It's not childish to me, just "loud".
One wonders how he reconciles this with writing a gcc that supports closed source operating systems.
Please read why not to use the LGPL. He talks about this. It is also in line with the answer he gave at the end of this story. "If it will hurt Sony (for being closed source) than it may be of some use".
Steven Rostedt
wink wink nudge nudge....
;-)
Steven Rostedt
Actually there is more to the story.
;-)
I had approval from upper management to go ahead and connect to the lan this way. But our IT is vendored out and I it took a long time to get anything done, so I needed to get around it to make dead lines. This would not have happend if I had a quicker response for those that control the network.
I'm here at work to get things done, not go wait around for others to fill out paper work. I've taken these types of gambles before, and the majority of the time, I have saved the project. I also have been recognized for doing this. That's probably why I stay out of trouble.
I just thought it a funny story
Steven Rostedt
Wrong choice of words on my part.
I personally would not publish under BSD, because I would like those that use my code to publish changes to it. I also would not publish under GPL, since I would like my code to interact with your code, but I don't want to force you to use my license. That's why my license of choice is the LGPL. Where you must always publish changes made to the LGPL code, but you may link to any other licensed code.
This is my personal opinion. I don't really "disagree" with BSD, I just would not choose to use it.
Steven Rostedt
But we should add support for 64 cpus, right?
Wrong!
No, the support should be added for a forked kernel.
But for the development. I believe each new release should add only a few new features and then be release. Maybe only add one. It's not like a closed source system where you need to show/make rational for users to buy a new release. It's free. Make one update and release it as a new version. Then start the development on the next. Only have more than one feature where the two new features play off each other.
Steven Rostedt
This is my point exactly!!!!!
I want a fork. I don't want the OS on my single processor machine have any overload that is only there for a 64 processor machine.
You see forking is a good thing, especially in this case. My attitude is to have several versions for different purposes. You only need to download the one that fits you.
One shirt does not fit all, but the same style can be made in several sizes!
Steven Rostedt
Sorry, I just got done watching Forest Gump.
;)
Yes, I feel for you. I'm one of those programmers that "illegally" installed Linux on my machine. But I was able to prove my productivity due to it.
But....
One day trying to set up a Lab NT machine to verify users to a global account through my Samba/Linux box, I tried a few configurations, and later gave up on it. But what I didn't realize is that I left "local master = yes" and work group equal to my companies domain. Opps!
It took our IT department three days to find my machine. ALL windows machines in my subnet were not able to access net drives or printers. I came in on a Monday morning to see a piece of paper on my machine that read:
ATTENTION: one of your machines is preventing all Windows machines on this floor from accessing the network. We have disabled your port. To be reconnected, call the help desk
Lets just say, they don't like me very much
I don't agree with all that you say, but I do feel your pain!
Steven Rostedt
You will probably only read this if you check your replys.
I have the same thoughts about Leberman as a jew, and the middle east conflicts.
But my main comment is on one of your last:
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour?
Funny, because tomorrow (its late so I can say today) several roads and highways are being shut down for the arrival of President Clinton, who is campaining here for Hillary (I live in NY). This is normal procedure for Presidents and VPs. In 1984 Reagan came and gave a speech at my highschool. I also live in the birth place of IBM and he was here to see IBM but since it was an election year, he gave a speech too. Well they shutdown the same (if not more) highways and roads.
So please, if you are a President or VP you will have this regardless of your party.
Steven Rostedt
Look. I actually use linux because I like it. I also like Free BSD, but I don't agree with the license (and that is just my opinion, you may have your own, but I don't care either). I used linux before I ever heard of Linus Torvalds. Actually, I found out who he was a few months after first starting to play with Linux.
My point is... who cares what Linus thinks. I really believe that he doesn't care if Linux is big or not. It never was supposed to get this big. It just kind of happened. If everone in the world suddenly stopped using Linux, if he still kept his job, I don't think it would phase him much. Sure, he would be upset, but who cares?
I wrote a post earlier that states Linus hinting for a fork. I think we wants Linux to get away from him so he is not so much in the lime light. He has a family now so he probably has other things on his mind.
My point is: The GPL allows people to think differently. I for one want a kernel fork. Yes, lets try different ways to do the same thing. But we get to see how things work and really decide what's better.
But going to BSD just because you think Linus is a dick. I'm sure there are top developers at BSD that are even worse (no offense BSD, I'm just trying to make a point). Have a real reason for using a OS and use it for that.
Steven Rostedt
Wow, I'm absolutely impressed with your comment. It has been the best thing I have read on /. for a long time.
:) Also, it would need a different focus. I imagine that Linux may split in three directions. Small Medium and Large. Maybe Linux could have clothing labels! Have LinuxS, LinuxM, and LinuxL, and maybe even add LinuxXS and LinuxXL, and then go further LinuxXXS (for molecule programming) and LinuxXXL (for a future OS that runs like Seti).
I was talking to a vendor at my work (I won't say who they are, but you know them). They told me that they want kernel support for 64 processors. The CEO went to Linus himself, and ask him straight on to please let the official kernel have support for this. Linus replied that he wanted no such thing.
I replied to the vendor, that they should go ahead and support it themselves. Yes, I would actually love to see linux fork. And I have a hunch that so would Linus. This would really be a good thing.
I look back at some bad forks, and nothing sticks out more than the many Unix that were about. But the one thing that made it a bad fork, was that it was closed source. Each vendor trying to out due the other, making none of them pleasable. But just think if you have the same thing, but with the exception that you could incorporate code that looks good in one and place it in the other. Or a a enhancement. It may have its troubles, in maintenance, but this could be worked out.
Lets have several companies (HP, SGI, IBM, etc) go out and create a new kernel based off of Linux. But it would still need to be GPL, thus open for all to see and use for your pleasure.
In New York, I watch Linus Torvalds talk about having the same operating system run both your refrigerator and a mainframe. They may both be the same size, and have the same cooling system, but they have too entirely different tasks and that they should only share the same code that makes sense. If you browse the Internet from you fridge as well as from a mainframe, then maybe the TCP/IP stack could be the same. I totally agree with this statement.
I have no problem with the BSD fork, and think that Linux should have a similar fork but all need to have the same license (The BSD license is the only thing I don't agree with, but its better than other choices
I'm one of the biggest Linux advocates at my corporation and I am often asked about forking. My reply has always been (and still is) forking is good, when it is open, and in an open environment, forking only occurs when a need needs to be satisfied.
I'm glad Gtk/Gnome came about. (I know this is not technically a fork, because they never were "one") I never really liked the look and feel of KDE. Altough I just recommended KDE to a coworker because of his background, he seemed more the KDE type. And he is very happy with it. So, I say, "to each their own, live with it!"
Steven Rostedt
You have given the first real intelligant argument for Bush that I heard/read from all other Bush supports that I have listen to. Most are like your first post where they talk about character and they talk about Tax cuts but not about what Bush will really do about it. Tax cuts are something that is nice, but what do we lose in the mean time. I don't believe we should talk about tax cuts utill we have entirely paid off the national dept. Yes, I was a Perot supporter, but now I believe that Gore will do more for this aim then Bush does.
/. leaning towards Gore. Hey, I listened to Gore go against Microsoft. He told them to their face that the government has a case against them. And these were likely voters as well as MS employees. So who do you think slashdot will go towards. Someone that stands up against MS, or someone that MS pours a lot of money to?
:-)
As another poster said, we can't go by character because there's nothing to show that Bush has a better character than Gore. In fact, looking at their histories of when they were younger, I would say Gore has a better character. I believe that Gore really wants to benefit the country but has a charisma of a door knob. That and his flip flopping has hurt his image. During the debates, Gore would always say "Yes, I support that" or "No I don't" and I agree with most of what he does. But Bush never seem to give a straight answer.
I'm a strong believer in the saying of "I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". So I like to hear others views, but only if they actually give it some thought. Not just some blind thinking of "I like the way he/she talks". But if they actually listen and agree to views, with facts(or what seems to be the facts, since I know people will argue that), then great. Yes I hear the same stupid thoughts from the Dems as well.
Bush really does scare me. I'm afraid of what it will be like when (if elected) he goes over seas to talk to other world leaders. This is not because I don't agree with his ideas, but how intelligent he really is. I would be much more comfortable with the more conservative President like Dick Cheney. I disagree with most of Dick's views, but damn, he's smart. I much rather have a intelligent President then a charismatic one. With the exception of Reagan. The United States needed someone like Reagan at the time. But we had to pay later for what he did. But I agree, it was worth the cost. I disliked Bush Sr, since he seemed to carry the Reagan ways at a time it wasn't necessary.
As for
Not to mention "Gore invented the Internet"
Steven Rostedt
I remember one cow that would disagree. I believe he was in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Cheers,
Steven Rostedt
I got it to work with:
/tmp/p2
/tmp/p2
dig @138.195.138.195 goret.org. axfr | grep '^c....*A'|sort|cut -b5-36|perl -e 'while(<>){print pack("H32",$_)}' |gzip -d >
The only difference here is I sent the output to a temp file. Becareful to cut and paste it correctly otherwise it won't work. It's also easier to keep it all on one line.
Then I did...
chmod +x
/tmp/p2
And the DeCSS code appeared!
Steven Rostedt
Ok, there's a DOS that can be made to a Windows machine. But that's not going to hurt my data or be more dangerous than just unpluging from the net.
I'm not saying that DoS is not a problem, but as a home user, I'm not really afraid of that type of attack. It will only affect me going out to the web. This is not a service machine so DoS attacks are not going to harm that much.
I'm worried about someone breaking into my machine and causing harm to my data files. What's out there that can do that?
I don't know what ZoneAlarm does, so I can't comment on a Linux equivalent.
Steven Rostedt
I still honestly don't know what is insecure about a Windows 9x box. As long as it doesn't share any drives. Besides email virus/worms/trojans, I don't know how to break into one. Usually a break is done by a bad service, but Windows doesn't have any services (with netbios turned off). I still have one machine (behind my firewall) that is a Windows 95 with no service packs. I would like to know how to break into it without an email backdoor. I can't telnet or ftp to the darn thing. As a server it seem completely useless to me.
So, I would really like someone to tell me or point to a link that shows how Windows is insecure on the network. Again, I'm not talking about email trojans. I'm talking about what would happen if I left my Windows box connected straight to the net and told everyone to try to break in. How would they do it. It has no ports ( and I don't use netbios).
Although I'm very bias towards Linux, I still think Windows is one of the most secure OS network wise (9x not NT) because it is too dumb to know about the network. Sure it's insecure if you are at the machine or accept emails, but how is it insecure via the network only? I've been told that Direct X/OLE/COM are open, but I don't know how they are.
Steven Rostedt
Yesterday, a friend of mine found out (I told him) that he was hacked.
...) core dump after he access his vfat system. Then he ask (as a side note!) is it normal to have the Transfer and Receive lights of his cable modem flashing while he is not doing anything. This is where I became curious.
.ksu.edu on port 1025. Looks like he was currently being hacked. I did a nmap on his machine and it was a straight out-of-the-box version of RedHat 6.1, with everything from linuxconfd to webservers to finger open. He just told me he didn't care.
He first called me to ask me why he can no longer read his vfat filesystem after he mounts it. It seems that the functions (ls, cd,
I asked him to do a netstat -a and he told me that he sees a connection to
I helped him reinstall his whole system with only his mp3s stored and we whiped clean his harddrive and reinstalled. I showed him how to use ipchains and to turn off all daemons that he did not use. We also set up a system to perform check sums of his file system to compare it to a check sum on a cdrom.
With more and more users connecting to the Internet via cable modems and DSL and leaving their machines up 24 hours a day, things like this will happen unless you lock down your system.
I have to mail him this.
Steven Rostedt
I never said that I read every line of source code. I stated that it would be possible to do so. Of course I didn't say that I would nor do I have the time to. I've read a large amount of the Linux kernel as well as XFree. But I didn't read all of it or even close to all of it.
The point is that some one just might read you bad code! You really think that a spy program or dangerous code would last long in the Open Source world? If there are not many users of the said product, then sure, you might get a way with it. But if you are successful and have lots of users, you will have lots of lines. So if 1000 people read 50 lines of code, then you have aprx 50000 lines read. Of course that is assuming that the same lines have not been read.
I'm saying that I feel safer that code is not a problem if it is open. I'm not saying that it is safe. But as I mentioned, it takes alot more nerve to post code that has mischievious actions. But it doesn't take much for closed source to do so (!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN).
It's just common sense....
But common sense ain't too common!
Steven Rostedt
They both frighten me. But I actually worry about big business more. Big goverment is easy to point out the leaders and those to fight against. But big business is not so easy. People usually think of them as just some enitity that is trying to make a buck. But that goal could cause problems for the rest of us.
I like the days when there were lots of small businesses that you can patronise. A corner deli, a newstand, etc. Now the only thing left in my area is Wallmart's Supper store. The thing is so big you can't find anything. It wasn't bad when it was smaller, and you could get things quickly. But now its impossible to find what you want. After looking around, I'm not the only one that is annoyed with them.
I believe that business can control government more than government can control business. You could use Microsoft as an example, because they seem pretty big and strong enough to win appeals, and I doubt that they will be broken up.
You forget that Business can grow bigger than governments. They are not limited to national borders, they can go across the world, in a global economy. I'm not against free trade, but we need to still have respect for the employees all over the world. Get rid of the sweatshops, and then trade.
Government and Business both have the same goals, and that is power. The more power the better. The more Big Business gets power, the less rights you will have. The suing that goes on is the power of the business. Sure there are cases that the layman gets there reward (old lady burnt by McDonalds coffee, and not to mention the Tobacco thingy). But try to fight business and you will loose! (DeCSS, RIAA, Patents, and DMCA).
Sorry, but the attitude of let the companies reign and do what they want will bring havoc to the rest of the world. Companies thrive on greed, and it can affect us all. Unfortunately the only way to control them is via government. So it all comes back to government being a neccessary evil.
I'm not against Capitolism, we just happen to be all short sited, and make decissions base on short term goals. If the aim is for long term then the world will be a better place. I always come back to the notion that if someone works hard they should be able to get ahead. If a company becomes too big, then no matter how hard you work, you can not get ahead, unless you bow down to the corporation. Whats the difference of being a slave to the government or a slave to a business? They both control your ass.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm tired and I want to go to bed!
Steven Rostedt
I thought the same thing. Actually it goes to almost anything you use. Unless you have a sniffer, you don't know what a product is sending to someone if you are using a closed sourced application and are connected to the Internet. Sure you might be able to watch your modem lights blink, but that is not the best way of catching things like this. It's even more difficult with a web brouser, since you have valid packets being sent out over the Internet.
Yes the average person will not look at the code of some product to see if it is sending or storing devious information about the user. But I would certainly be more secure in knowing I CAN view the code if I desired. Someone would really have some nerve to put a backdoor of somekind in a product that the source is viewable.
Also note. A license that is not neccessarily open source can give you the same effect. As long as you have the full source, and can compile it yourself, this problem would not exist.
Steven Rostedt
This is late, so I don't expect you to see this.
You sound like one of our "Process Group" people. But the underlining problem usually comes from the proposal group trying to win the bid. They are only responsible in winning the bid and not for the success of the project. This is where I find the problem. A proposal manager is rated well if they keep wining proposals, but it doesn't matter if each of the proposals that he/she won failed. That is the problem of the poor project manager that gets the proposal after they win it.
If a proposal manager does not win bids, because they took in account all of the actual costs, then that manager may be fired.
I have been lucky to see what goes on early, and I have been able to stay clear of the "doomed" projects. My company is basically the way it is straight out of the Dilbert comic.
Steven Rostedt
Support for the idea that microwaves can trigger biochemical stress at low energies comes from a team led by Henry Lai at the University of Washington in Seattle. He claims that rats exposed to microwaves produce natural painkillers called endorphins and are more likely to binge on alcohol or react strongly to morphine and barbiturates.
Actually, the stress comes from the rats using the cell phones to make appointments, sell/buy stock, and to try and get a date for this saturday party with morphine and barbituates!
Actually, I don't trust Cell phones yet, and will wait a few more years to see how others have reacted to them. Luckly, being a programmer, I don't have to (or want to) be connected to people 24 hours a day.
Although the article never mentioned driving and cell phones, I think that's more dangerous than anything else. I've witnessed two people blow through red lights and one women run off the road all because they were too busy chatting on their phone instead of watching the road.
Steven Rostedt
I'm not saying that the article is wrong. In fact I agree with everything the author states. But I want to add the issue of "speed" to get the product out.
My experience at work also shows that tight schedules also cause problems. We all have access to the code of our peers but when we are forced to ship the product quicker than as-soon-as-possible we don't take into account what the other programmer is doing. There are those that design the tool that are supposed to prevent this, but if the requirements are lacking, then programmers will do things one way that will cause problems when integrating it to a tool another way.
Another problem comes when requirements change. Just recently I was on a program that changed a few requirements near the end, and this caused a major design change. With the tight schedule it was impossible to completely test the change to what it should be done. But management seems to think things are some when you change a "simple" requirement and doesn't give a proper budget.
The open source world doesn't worry too much about schedule. It is willing to produce something better than get the PR of a quick product. I believe open source produces code quicker, but for the quality it seems slow, where closed source can produce quicker than the open source because it hides the things that should have been fixed before the shipment. So this is only a perception that the closed source version was produced quicker.
Steven Rostedt
2.Pick an irrelevant candidate (any third party, write in, whatever)
Isn't this how Jesse Ventura got elected?
If everyone that doesn't vote got up and decided to vote for a third party, that third party might actually win! Voting for a third party does show the discuss you have with the two major parties.
Steven Rostedt
Did you read my entire post, or just the first line?
My point was not that you preferred Transmeta because Linus works there, but you probably have heard about Transmeta because he works there!
Do you regularly read up on low-powered CPUs that run x86 software? I don't, but I've heard about Transmeta. The first time I've heard about them is in an interview with Linus. There were rumors that Transmeta was making some sort of low-powered chip, but no one really knew what they were doing because they were so secretive about their business. It certainly drew my attention. Linus was the reason I first wanted to know what they did, then their web site continued my curiosity, then the rumors fueled it more.
My point wasn't that you like to follow Linus around, but would you have known about Transmeta if Linus didn't work there? Would they have had the publicity that they have if Linus didn't work there? Would I be writing this if Linus didn't work there? No one knows...
Ok, if you keep up on all the chips out there that are competing for laptops and PDAs then you probably would have heard of them. Do you know of any other chip maker that is producing low powered x86 chips? If you do, then did you mention them to your father-in-law as well?
I have nothing against your scenario, I just was making a point that Transmeta used Linus to claim the spot light and that is how a lot of people have heard about them. So far I have yet to find someone that has heard about Transmeta and does not know who Linus Torvalds is! (well, your father-in-law now does, but that is because you told him!)
Steven Rostedt