I first thought the same thing, but then after rereading the article, the part
What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
stuck out to me. I believe that the/. lawyers are fighting on the grounds that is "how can you be hurt by this posting that you post to the public anyway!".
Actually, I was just stating that this works with IE 4 to show that it existed in previous versions. It was proven to work with IE 5 on Windows 98, but because of my firewall, and the way IE upgrades, I have yet to be able to get IE 5. So all I have to test with is IE 4.
I have never been one to say "It didn't work in this 'old' version". But this test was to state that it wasn't caused by any new features. It was there for a while, so if it was discovered before, it could have been exploited since then.
I had no idea about this little problem. But I still believe that the MS problem is much bigger, since you don't need the user to go to the site to get the cookie. It was pretty obvious that something was going on when I went to your site. But with IE you would have no idea that someone was stealing your cookies, unless you inspect all sites that have java script.
Still I'm impressed! You nailed both my user number and my password, Let those trolling comments of mine start pouring;-)
A user's Playboy.com cookie stores the fact that the user has visited Playboy.com -- which not every Playboy visitor would want the whole world to know. (Yeah, we know, you just wanted to read the Jesse Ventura interview)
Make sure you put a URL in that you have a cookie for. Like "slashdot.org".
I tried it with NT4SP3 IE4 and it worked. I usually do my browsing with Netscape on Linux, or Netscape on NT. But I had IE4 on my NT machine and started it up. I couldn't get it to work when it dawned on me that I don't browse with IE and had no cookies! So I started browsing a little, and went back, and sure enough it showed my cookies!
It matters what you are doing. Right now I support a project that people are using Word9X, Word Perfect, Interleaf and Frame Maker. The users have chosen the tool they prefer, but I have to be the one that does the file conversion. Mostly I try to convert everything into RTF since that seems to have the most common interface between those four tools. But you can imagine the pain I have, since none of them work well together.
Having everyone use just one tool is not an option, since these are different companies that are using them, and we don't have the pull to tell them to conform to one. It's in our contract that we will make the necessary conversions for each of the players. But it is understood that we are only converting content and not worrying too much about format (Thank God!).
So you can see, from my view point, why I would like to have a single file format and not care about the tools used to manipulate it. As long as they all work basically the same.
Say for an example you have 3 different Word Processors with the same file format.
If you had the same file format, you wouldn't need to support 3 different Word processors! Of course you need to make sure vendors stick to the rules of the file formats.
If you make a web page and only use the tags that are generic (No "extended" tags) then you don't have to worry too much about supporting the different types of browsers. At my site, we stick to the generic tags for that reason.
The problem with Microsoft is that it doesn't even stay compatible with itself. If you support Word, you need to support Word95, Word97 and Word2000. So I've been suggesting to my management NOT to support Word at all. But of course this is turned down since everyone knows you need to support it if you want to do business. But we keep getting in trouble with different versions. One of our projects has been spending the last three months trying to deliver a Word document with 6000 pages. Grant you, this has nothing to do with versioning, but it still is a problem.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is we need an open standard. XML is probably a good start as long as no-one (especially MS) doesn't "patent" any tags, which I've been told that Microsoft has tried to do in the past. If you have a standard and open API then you can allow for more competition, and this is what Microsoft tries very hard to let you think they are doing, but destroy it in the process. Kerberos anyone?
The virus spread because all it took was for people with the same set up and same "defaults" to open a file. If you have a standard, then the default of that standard is NOT to execute files with a simple double click. MS stated that this is what customers have asked for (executing code from mail), but I know I have never wanted it. If I want to execute a file, I rather have a different way of doing it, then just a "OPEN".
The big difference between the "For Dummies" and your example, is that "for dummies" is a normal phrase is the English language, where as "Coca-Cola" is not. This is the same reason you can't use "My Linux OS" as a trademark without permission from Linus Torvalds.
But, if this IS the case, then would you be able to write an OS and call it "My Windows OS"? Well there is "X Windows" and that is practically an operating system in itself (MS thinks a gui interface is an OS so I guess X Windows is too). So I guess you could come out with a "My Windows OS" without infringing on Microsoft's trademark "Windows".
I know that in the UK this means cigarette, but not everyone knows that here in the US.
Reminds me of the time, me and a buddy of mine was down in the Underground and my friend lit up. A cop quickly came over and said "Hey, No fags allowed in the Underground!". My friend didn't know what "fags" meant in the UK and almost decked the Cop. I fell over laughing!
Steven Rostedt
Re:Dead? It's not, but it should be.
on
Motif's Not Dead
·
· Score: 1
There is nothing more painful than watching someone untrained in the zen of the Motif file selection box
LOL!!! I just got done showing someone how to use it!
I use to be (well, I actually still am) a Motif programmer. I was introduced to GTK+ three years ago when I saw it discussed on the LessTif mailing list. I picked it up in a day and have never turned back. I'm still having problems getting it to work on AIX (4.2 don't have money to upgrade to 4.3) and that is the only reason I'm still using Motif. I ported a complex app to GTK+ in about two weeks. So right now I'm supporting this app using GTK+ on Linux and Solaris, but I still have it in Motif on AIX. Thank god for X-Designer.
make World
Remember, there really wasn't a standard when this was made. I actually like Imake. At first it scared the hell out of me, but after reading Software Portability With Imake by Paul Dubois (ISBN: 1565922263) I really do like using it. In fact I'm currently using it on a database project I'm working on. Yes, Yes, I know I should use autoconf, but I haven't had the time to learn it yet, and I haven't found any good readings on how to use it. Ok I've been too lazy^H^H^H^Hbusy to find any documents for it.
The one main problem I see with this is how can you have a public trade secret? I would really like to see how Microsoft fights this in court.
A while back, my company had non-employees read proprietary documents that were left on desks, and used them outside the company. When my company went to court, they lost because the judge stated that the company made no effort to hide those documents. They were left out in the open where anyone can read it. I don't know if the laws have changed any, but publishing a spec on the internet with a lame license agreement doesn't sound like trying to protect their secret.
Does Microsoft have so much money that they can blow it away on so many court cases. Maybe the anti-trust case excites them and they like to go to court. MS Lawfirm!
"Lets see how many judges we can really piss off!" -- William Gates (Ok, I don't know if he did actually say that, but it certainly seems that way!)
The conspiracy theory doesn't hold if they break up Microsoft. If MS is broken up there will be no reason to make Office run worse on another OS. They would then be compared to Star Office, and Applixware. So it would actually be in their best interest to make a good effort to have Office on Linux (or whatever). As for them not writing good code on other operating systems, that I can't disagree with. And yes I have used IE on Solaris, and I laughed.
As for Emacs... I wouldn't switch anyways. I like my emacs/latex arrangement. But I have two machines at work, one for development of code (Linux) and the other to do administration crap (NT). I needed an NT workstation for some software that only runs on NT and for my mail, since my work insists on having MS exchange.
We all heard the rumors, but if this break up actually happens (two years from now?) How fast will they port MS Office to Linux. Rumor has it that it has already been ported, but we won't know for sure until there is a break up.
I've heard from people that actually been there, that it has been ported. But I don't know if they are sincere or just pulling my leg.
But I have heard from different sources that the different groups of workers at Microsoft compete heavily against each other, and a break up would obviously make it more so. So the Office people can finally say "Now we are free to go where we choose", be it Linux, Free BSD or whatever.
The GPL compels you to donate your labor back to me if you choose to use the fruits of my labor
No you don't. If you don't distribute the changes, you do not need to give the changes back to anyone. Even if you do distribute your product to someone else, you don't have to give the changes to the original author. You only need to give the code to the one you are distributing to. So you can give some GPL code to five different companies, and if those five different companies don't distribute the code (or binaries) then the original author will never see those changes. Nor will anyone else outside those companies and you.
This is how the GPL reads. I've confirmed this with a few Lawyers I know as well as with RMS himself. You only have to give the source to the one you distribute to and no one else.
Also, the changes you make are also under your copyright. This means that if I write code under the GPL and you modify it, I can't take that modification and put it into another product with a different license, although I was the original author.
As stated many times, the GPL is freedom for the code and not the programmer. If I give you GPL code, the only contract that we make is that if you choose to destribute that code, you must also deliver it, and all the code attached to it, under the GPL. There is no binding between you and me. You don't need to give me the fruits of your labor. Only to your customers.
I don't care for the viral affect the GPL has. But I don't like the way people can abuse the BSD as well. This is why my license of choice is LGPL. So you may link to my code with your proprietary code, but my code shall always be free!
Caldera sells Linux systems. Management of big companies are afraid of "non-proprietary" software. Caldera wants to sell Linux to these big companies. Caldera wants to convince these big companies that Linux is the same as their current operating systems.
This just seems to be a new twist in the game of marketing. Don't you realize that dictionary words are just things to mess with when you are trying to market something. Remember buzz words (or acronyms) like OO and now its B2B. I've gone to management to install Apache on our web server and they have actually told me that "We don't use free software. We only trust shrink wrapped and bought software". Of course I could just find someone that sells Apache and buy it from them. But this is just nuts!
First off, this happened years ago, but the consequences are still with us. We are even a new company and the rules still apply.
I believe the story went that the person that took the information was actually a vendor working for another project. There was an NDA for the information that the person was working on but not for the document he read. Although the laws may have changed since then, I believe you are responsible for keeping proprietary information locked up, otherwise you risk having to give the cleaning staff a NDA.
A good example agains this is internal coporate information.
I agree with the first poster. If you put it on the web then it is like posting it on the outside of your building. The Internet is a public forum, and all information (like it or not) on the Internet is public. If you want security, then use ssh and other secure utilities. Rules against deep linking is not sufficient to secure documents. If you need an internal way to communicate in your company, then set up an internal internet and hide it with a firewall. This is what we do at our company, as well as other companies.
We were nailed in court that even documents that are left out on the desk is open for other employees to use if they leave the company. Someone actually read proprietary documents that they were not responsible for and when they left the company they used the information that they gathered. When this was taken to court, the judge ruled that the documents where not secured and thus the person was free to look at them. Now we have to lock all proprietary documents up when they are not in use or it is a security violation. It is different in court if someone breaks into a desk and reads documents then if someone just reads the documents on top of your desk.
So I may contradict myself a little here. I believe that if you don't take any measures to secure your web pages, then they are free to be linked to by others. If you take "reasonable" steps (now that term could take lots of explaining itself) then those that try to link to the secured pages (via cgi or what not) are in violation.
Is there another "official" way to report feedback, or bugs to Netscape?
Ok After I posted, it occurred to me, that all I need to do is cut the path from the Netscape 6.0 feedback to my Netscape 4.7 window. But that didn't work quite right since it seems that selecting the url form Netscape 6.0 doesn't get copied into the X clipboard. But I was able to use the debug messages that spilled out to the screen. God forbid if I had to actually type it;-)
I was able to get it up and running on RedHat 6.2. But then again, that has all the latest and greatest libraries. I am behind a firewall that has an automated proxy, and although I set the setting to "auto:" and gave the same proxy that I did for N4.7, it doesn't get anything beyond our firewall. I have an internal web server that it displays fine, but I can't go beyond the firewall.
But it doesn't show anything in the window, and the window doesn't redraw if I place something over it.
I looked up how to send this in and saw this in their FAQ But unfortunately, the only way it seems to report something is if you can get outside the firewall. Nice catch 22!
Is there another "official" way to report feedback, or bugs to Netscape?
Yes, I agree that having a Giant Evil to wake up against every morning is motivational, and even Linus Torvalds said that he started on Linux because he didn't care for the operating systems he had available to him. But he said that about Minix too.
What about good old competition. Yeah, it's great to team up and fight the "Bad Guy". But I like it better when we are all on the same playing field and are trying to take that "Bad Guy" spot. As long as there are strict standards to follow, I believe it is healthy. What I mean of strict standards is that you must publish and follow all of your APIs. If you write a file that becomes a standard (as is MS Word) it too must be under a standard and published format that other tools may use.
I enjoyed it back when we had DOS and you can chose from Word, Word Perfect, Write, and Excel Lotus 1,2,3 and other applications. Let the apps fight for features, not file formats.
What I'm trying to say, is that the motivation will still be there. It doesn't just go away. Its the same argument that I give when I push for Open Source and Free Software. The response back is "why should I write something if I can't 'monopolize' on it". The answer is easy. You need to eat. You still come out with features, and support. Free Software does not prevent you from charging for products. I still buy Red Hat and I have a mirror of it. May sound silly, but I like the support.
Companies and people alike will still fight hard to be innovative(TM) and productive, with or without the "Bad Guy".
I agree with you on the regulation of government. I actually wish that the case goes on longer, because it keeps MS from doing any of their little tricks. I have noticed that there has been a lot more innovation(tm) since MS has had its hands tied by the DOJ. That is innovation from other than Microsoft.
But my argument against yours is what you said about Opening the source code.
Please, also, don't demand MS release the source to their competitors in order to level the playing field.
This sounds nice, but then I ask you "what competitors?" If my startup want to do it's own Windows, will I be able to? Or will Sun be the only company allowed?
Also, if the Windows source is released, there is a good chance that the consumer applications market will suffer. Unix was forked, fragmented and has been permanently damaged. And Unix was a well designed system.
Linux may well be fragmented. It's only a matter of time until the kernel is forked. Then what? Sure, now we can say "No real Linux user would switch to the forked kernel."
But what if the forked kernel was good? I mean Real good. You'd switch if there was something in it for you. A faster server or some such.
First, if Windows opened its source, I can guarantee you that it would not be GPL. So there would be NO chance of a fork.
Second, it gives the office competitors a chance to compete. Since I'm sure that the OS has bias built in for MS Office, that others don't know about. How can people compete in the Office arena if one of the suppliers dictates the playing field?
Third, As Linus has stated in Linux World, forking is a good thing. A fork only happens when the maintainer of code does not listen to a large group of people that want to add something special. Then that group may make a fork. This is actually good. But if the demand for both systems still exist, then the two will eventually merge, creating a better product. I call this the fork and embrace technique. The reason this didn't work for Unix, is that you had proprietary systems which killed the embrace part of the equation, which is the important part. I have stated before that even KDE and GNOME are becoming friendlier as well as Free BSD and Linux. This is because each of these products still have a high demand, and it will be advantageous for each product to be compatible.
So in summary, I liked your argument but I disagree with your Open Source theory. It is obvious to me that you don't quite get the point of Open Source.
Although I didn't get from the article that Virus are not possible in Linux, but that Linux is a hostile environment for Virus. I agree that it is not impossible to write a virus, but would be difficult to do so. I also agree about that it's so non-homogenous that this makes it even more difficult to write virus. But what is a virus? Something that spreads via e-mail. Something that spreads by application. At work we have flame wars about what e-mail app to use. I like Netscape, others like pine, and others like star office. We all use RedHat 6.1 but it would still be hard for a virus since we all use different apps to view email.
I think that you will probably see some sort of worm before you see a virus. And Linux may even be more susceptible to a worm than Windows. Windows usually has difficulty with working as a remote system. Besides Back Orifice (or whatever that Windows thing was) most Linux boxes right out of the box has several services open for remote use. Now if a common service is known to have an error, someone might be clever enough to set off a worm to infect machine after machine by automatically searching the net to find the vulnerable machines.
I'm not saying this will happen, and I know that Open Source is fixed faster than closed source, but not everyone updates their machines when a patch comes out.
After I submitted this, I figured that someone would argue this point.
Actually, I agree that it is correct procedure to do that. The problem I have is that the documentation has plenty of errors. It seems that even the MS developers don't use the documentation. Mr. Lewis was mostly upset that it is common that the documentation is bad. Not that they fix it. But it shouldn't be as bad to begin with, that is the problem.
Sorry, but I should have been more clear up front.
Correction, after reading another post, I realized that I confused Jeremy with Andrew Trigdell. I never met Jeremy, it was Andrew that I met in NY. Sorry!
You are sooo right!! The two names are synonymous with me, that I posted once that I met Jeremy back in NY, and it was actually Andrew that I met. I have never met Jeremy, so please ignore my previous post! Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I first thought the same thing, but then after rereading the article, the part
/. lawyers are fighting on the grounds that is "how can you be hurt by this posting that you post to the public anyway!".
What measures has Microsoft taken to protect the trade secrecy of its Kerberos specification beyond the use of a click-wrap license agreement?
stuck out to me. I believe that the
Steven Rostedt
Late reply, but I just noticed your response.
Actually, I was just stating that this works with IE 4 to show that it existed in previous versions. It was proven to work with IE 5 on Windows 98, but because of my firewall, and the way IE upgrades, I have yet to be able to get IE 5. So all I have to test with is IE 4.
I have never been one to say "It didn't work in this 'old' version". But this test was to state that it wasn't caused by any new features. It was there for a while, so if it was discovered before, it could have been exploited since then.
Steven Rostedt
Wow! I'm pretty impressed.
;-)
I had no idea about this little problem. But I still believe that the MS problem is much bigger, since you don't need the user to go to the site to get the cookie. It was pretty obvious that something was going on when I went to your site. But with IE you would have no idea that someone was stealing your cookies, unless you inspect all sites that have java script.
Still I'm impressed! You nailed both my user number and my password, Let those trolling comments of mine start pouring
(I believe you that you don't collect the data)
Steven Rostedt
A user's Playboy.com cookie stores the fact that the user has visited Playboy.com -- which not every Playboy visitor would want the whole world to know. (Yeah, we know, you just wanted to read the Jesse Ventura interview)
Actually, I wanted read the articles about Linux.
Steven Rostedt
Make sure you put a URL in that you have a cookie for. Like "slashdot.org".
I tried it with NT4SP3 IE4 and it worked. I usually do my browsing with Netscape on Linux, or Netscape on NT. But I had IE4 on my NT machine and started it up. I couldn't get it to work when it dawned on me that I don't browse with IE and had no cookies! So I started browsing a little, and went back, and sure enough it showed my cookies!
Steven Rostedt
It matters what you are doing. Right now I support a project that people are using Word9X, Word Perfect, Interleaf and Frame Maker. The users have chosen the tool they prefer, but I have to be the one that does the file conversion. Mostly I try to convert everything into RTF since that seems to have the most common interface between those four tools. But you can imagine the pain I have, since none of them work well together.
Having everyone use just one tool is not an option, since these are different companies that are using them, and we don't have the pull to tell them to conform to one. It's in our contract that we will make the necessary conversions for each of the players. But it is understood that we are only converting content and not worrying too much about format (Thank God!).
So you can see, from my view point, why I would like to have a single file format and not care about the tools used to manipulate it. As long as they all work basically the same.
Steven Rostedt
Say for an example you have 3 different Word Processors with the same file format.
If you had the same file format, you wouldn't need to support 3 different Word processors! Of course you need to make sure vendors stick to the rules of the file formats.
If you make a web page and only use the tags that are generic (No "extended" tags) then you don't have to worry too much about supporting the different types of browsers. At my site, we stick to the generic tags for that reason.
The problem with Microsoft is that it doesn't even stay compatible with itself. If you support Word, you need to support Word95, Word97 and Word2000. So I've been suggesting to my management NOT to support Word at all. But of course this is turned down since everyone knows you need to support it if you want to do business. But we keep getting in trouble with different versions. One of our projects has been spending the last three months trying to deliver a Word document with 6000 pages. Grant you, this has nothing to do with versioning, but it still is a problem.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is we need an open standard. XML is probably a good start as long as no-one (especially MS) doesn't "patent" any tags, which I've been told that Microsoft has tried to do in the past. If you have a standard and open API then you can allow for more competition, and this is what Microsoft tries very hard to let you think they are doing, but destroy it in the process. Kerberos anyone?
The virus spread because all it took was for people with the same set up and same "defaults" to open a file. If you have a standard, then the default of that standard is NOT to execute files with a simple double click. MS stated that this is what customers have asked for (executing code from mail), but I know I have never wanted it. If I want to execute a file, I rather have a different way of doing it, then just a "OPEN".
Sorry for the rant
Steven Rostedt
"Coca-Cola Original"
The big difference between the "For Dummies" and your example, is that "for dummies" is a normal phrase is the English language, where as "Coca-Cola" is not. This is the same reason you can't use "My Linux OS" as a trademark without permission from Linus Torvalds.
But, if this IS the case, then would you be able to write an OS and call it "My Windows OS"? Well there is "X Windows" and that is practically an operating system in itself (MS thinks a gui interface is an OS so I guess X Windows is too). So I guess you could come out with a "My Windows OS" without infringing on Microsoft's trademark "Windows".
Steven Rostedt
wanting a fag
I know that in the UK this means cigarette, but not everyone knows that here in the US.
Reminds me of the time, me and a buddy of mine was down in the Underground and my friend lit up. A cop quickly came over and said "Hey, No fags allowed in the Underground!". My friend didn't know what "fags" meant in the UK and almost decked the Cop. I fell over laughing!
Steven Rostedt
There is nothing more painful than watching someone untrained in the zen of the Motif file selection box
LOL!!! I just got done showing someone how to use it!
I use to be (well, I actually still am) a Motif programmer. I was introduced to GTK+ three years ago when I saw it discussed on the LessTif mailing list. I picked it up in a day and have never turned back. I'm still having problems getting it to work on AIX (4.2 don't have money to upgrade to 4.3) and that is the only reason I'm still using Motif. I ported a complex app to GTK+ in about two weeks. So right now I'm supporting this app using GTK+ on Linux and Solaris, but I still have it in Motif on AIX. Thank god for X-Designer.
make World
Remember, there really wasn't a standard when this was made. I actually like Imake. At first it scared the hell out of me, but after reading Software Portability With Imake by Paul Dubois (ISBN: 1565922263) I really do like using it. In fact I'm currently using it on a database project I'm working on. Yes, Yes, I know I should use autoconf, but I haven't had the time to learn it yet, and I haven't found any good readings on how to use it. Ok I've been too lazy^H^H^H^Hbusy to find any documents for it.
Any recommendations?
Steven Rostedt
The one main problem I see with this is how can you have a public trade secret? I would really like to see how Microsoft fights this in court.
A while back, my company had non-employees read proprietary documents that were left on desks, and used them outside the company. When my company went to court, they lost because the judge stated that the company made no effort to hide those documents. They were left out in the open where anyone can read it. I don't know if the laws have changed any, but publishing a spec on the internet with a lame license agreement doesn't sound like trying to protect their secret.
Does Microsoft have so much money that they can blow it away on so many court cases. Maybe the anti-trust case excites them and they like to go to court. MS Lawfirm!
"Lets see how many judges we can really piss off!" -- William Gates
(Ok, I don't know if he did actually say that, but it certainly seems that way!)
Steven Rostedt
The conspiracy theory doesn't hold if they break up Microsoft. If MS is broken up there will be no reason to make Office run worse on another OS. They would then be compared to Star Office, and Applixware. So it would actually be in their best interest to make a good effort to have Office on Linux (or whatever). As for them not writing good code on other operating systems, that I can't disagree with. And yes I have used IE on Solaris, and I laughed.
As for Emacs... I wouldn't switch anyways. I like my emacs/latex arrangement. But I have two machines at work, one for development of code (Linux) and the other to do administration crap (NT). I needed an NT workstation for some software that only runs on NT and for my mail, since my work insists on having MS exchange.
Steven Rostedt
We all heard the rumors, but if this break up actually happens (two years from now?) How fast will they port MS Office to Linux. Rumor has it that it has already been ported, but we won't know for sure until there is a break up.
I've heard from people that actually been there, that it has been ported. But I don't know if they are sincere or just pulling my leg.
But I have heard from different sources that the different groups of workers at Microsoft compete heavily against each other, and a break up would obviously make it more so. So the Office people can finally say "Now we are free to go where we choose", be it Linux, Free BSD or whatever.
Steven Rostedt
The GPL compels you to donate your labor back to me if you choose to use the fruits of my labor
No you don't. If you don't distribute the changes, you do not need to give the changes back to anyone. Even if you do distribute your product to someone else, you don't have to give the changes to the original author. You only need to give the code to the one you are distributing to. So you can give some GPL code to five different companies, and if those five different companies don't distribute the code (or binaries) then the original author will never see those changes. Nor will anyone else outside those companies and you.
This is how the GPL reads. I've confirmed this with a few Lawyers I know as well as with RMS himself. You only have to give the source to the one you distribute to and no one else.
Also, the changes you make are also under your copyright. This means that if I write code under the GPL and you modify it, I can't take that modification and put it into another product with a different license, although I was the original author.
As stated many times, the GPL is freedom for the code and not the programmer. If I give you GPL code, the only contract that we make is that if you choose to destribute that code, you must also deliver it, and all the code attached to it, under the GPL. There is no binding between you and me. You don't need to give me the fruits of your labor. Only to your customers.
I don't care for the viral affect the GPL has. But I don't like the way people can abuse the BSD as well. This is why my license of choice is LGPL. So you may link to my code with your proprietary code, but my code shall always be free!
Steven Rostedt
Lets see here...
Caldera sells Linux systems.
Management of big companies are afraid of "non-proprietary" software.
Caldera wants to sell Linux to these big companies.
Caldera wants to convince these big companies that Linux is the same as their current operating systems.
This just seems to be a new twist in the game of marketing. Don't you realize that dictionary words are just things to mess with when you are trying to market something. Remember buzz words (or acronyms) like OO and now its B2B.
I've gone to management to install Apache on our web server and they have actually told me that "We don't use free software. We only trust shrink wrapped and bought software". Of course I could just find someone that sells Apache and buy it from them. But this is just nuts!
Steven Rostedt
First off, this happened years ago, but the consequences are still with us. We are even a new company and the rules still apply.
I believe the story went that the person that took the information was actually a vendor working for another project. There was an NDA for the information that the person was working on but not for the document he read. Although the laws may have changed since then, I believe you are responsible for keeping proprietary information locked up, otherwise you risk having to give the cleaning staff a NDA.
Steven Rostedt
A good example agains this is internal coporate information.
I agree with the first poster. If you put it on the web then it is like posting it on the outside of your building. The Internet is a public forum, and all information (like it or not) on the Internet is public. If you want security, then use ssh and other secure utilities. Rules against deep linking is not sufficient to secure documents. If you need an internal way to communicate in your company, then set up an internal internet and hide it with a firewall. This is what we do at our company, as well as other companies.
We were nailed in court that even documents that are left out on the desk is open for other employees to use if they leave the company. Someone actually read proprietary documents that they were not responsible for and when they left the company they used the information that they gathered. When this was taken to court, the judge ruled that the documents where not secured and thus the person was free to look at them. Now we have to lock all proprietary documents up when they are not in use or it is a security violation. It is different in court if someone breaks into a desk and reads documents then if someone just reads the documents on top of your desk.
So I may contradict myself a little here. I believe that if you don't take any measures to secure your web pages, then they are free to be linked to by others. If you take "reasonable" steps (now that term could take lots of explaining itself) then those that try to link to the secured pages (via cgi or what not) are in violation.
Steven Rostedt
Is there another "official" way to report feedback, or bugs to Netscape?
Ok After I posted, it occurred to me, that all I need to do is cut the path from the Netscape 6.0 feedback to my Netscape 4.7 window. But that didn't work quite right since it seems that selecting the url form Netscape 6.0 doesn't get copied into the X clipboard. But I was able to use the debug messages that spilled out to the screen. God forbid if I had to actually type it
Steven Rostedt
I was able to get it up and running on RedHat 6.2. But then again, that has all the latest and greatest libraries. I am behind a firewall that has an automated proxy, and although I set the setting to "auto:" and gave the same proxy that I did for N4.7, it doesn't get anything beyond our firewall. I have an internal web server that it displays fine, but I can't go beyond the firewall.
The debug message shows:
FindShortcut: in='http://www.netscape.com' out='null'
Document http://www.netscape.com loaded successfully
Document: Done (0.375 secs)
But it doesn't show anything in the window, and the window doesn't redraw if I place something over it.
I looked up how to send this in and saw this in their FAQ But unfortunately, the only way it seems to report something is if you can get outside the firewall. Nice catch 22!
Is there another "official" way to report feedback, or bugs to Netscape?
Steven Rostedt
Yes, I agree that having a Giant Evil to wake up against every morning is motivational, and even Linus Torvalds said that he started on Linux because he didn't care for the operating systems he had available to him. But he said that about Minix too.
What about good old competition. Yeah, it's great to team up and fight the "Bad Guy". But I like it better when we are all on the same playing field and are trying to take that "Bad Guy" spot. As long as there are strict standards to follow, I believe it is healthy. What I mean of strict standards is that you must publish and follow all of your APIs. If you write a file that becomes a standard (as is MS Word) it too must be under a standard and published format that other tools may use.
I enjoyed it back when we had DOS and you can chose from Word, Word Perfect, Write, and Excel Lotus 1,2,3 and other applications. Let the apps fight for features, not file formats.
What I'm trying to say, is that the motivation will still be there. It doesn't just go away. Its the same argument that I give when I push for Open Source and Free Software. The response back is "why should I write something if I can't 'monopolize' on it". The answer is easy. You need to eat. You still come out with features, and support. Free Software does not prevent you from charging for products. I still buy Red Hat and I have a mirror of it. May sound silly, but I like the support.
Companies and people alike will still fight hard to be innovative(TM) and productive, with or without the "Bad Guy".
Steven Rostedt
I agree with you on the regulation of government. I actually wish that the case goes on longer, because it keeps MS from doing any of their little tricks. I have noticed that there has been a lot more innovation(tm) since MS has had its hands tied by the DOJ. That is innovation from other than Microsoft.
But my argument against yours is what you said about Opening the source code.
Please, also, don't demand MS release the source to their competitors in order to level the playing field.
This sounds nice, but then I ask you "what competitors?" If my startup want to do it's own Windows, will I be able to? Or will Sun be the only company allowed?
Also, if the Windows source is released, there is a good chance that the consumer applications market will suffer. Unix was forked, fragmented and has been permanently damaged. And Unix was a well designed system.
Linux may well be fragmented. It's only a matter of time until the kernel is forked. Then what? Sure, now we can say "No real Linux user would switch to the forked kernel."
But what if the forked kernel was good? I mean Real good. You'd switch if there was something in it for you. A faster server or some such.
First, if Windows opened its source, I can guarantee you that it would not be GPL. So there would be NO chance of a fork.
Second, it gives the office competitors a chance to compete. Since I'm sure that the OS has bias built in for MS Office, that others don't know about. How can people compete in the Office arena if one of the suppliers dictates the playing field?
Third, As Linus has stated in Linux World, forking is a good thing. A fork only happens when the maintainer of code does not listen to a large group of people that want to add something special. Then that group may make a fork. This is actually good. But if the demand for both systems still exist, then the two will eventually merge, creating a better product. I call this the fork and embrace technique. The reason this didn't work for Unix, is that you had proprietary systems which killed the embrace part of the equation, which is the important part. I have stated before that even KDE and GNOME are becoming friendlier as well as Free BSD and Linux. This is because each of these products still have a high demand, and it will be advantageous for each product to be compatible.
So in summary, I liked your argument but I disagree with your Open Source theory. It is obvious to me that you don't quite get the point of Open Source.
Steven Rostedt
Although I didn't get from the article that Virus are not possible in Linux, but that Linux is a hostile environment for Virus. I agree that it is not impossible to write a virus, but would be difficult to do so. I also agree about that it's so non-homogenous that this makes it even more difficult to write virus. But what is a virus? Something that spreads via e-mail. Something that spreads by application. At work we have flame wars about what e-mail app to use. I like Netscape, others like pine, and others like star office. We all use RedHat 6.1 but it would still be hard for a virus since we all use different apps to view email.
I think that you will probably see some sort of worm before you see a virus. And Linux may even be more susceptible to a worm than Windows. Windows usually has difficulty with working as a remote system. Besides Back Orifice (or whatever that Windows thing was) most Linux boxes right out of the box has several services open for remote use. Now if a common service is known to have an error, someone might be clever enough to set off a worm to infect machine after machine by automatically searching the net to find the vulnerable machines.
I'm not saying this will happen, and I know that Open Source is fixed faster than closed source, but not everyone updates their machines when a patch comes out.
Steven Rostedt
After I submitted this, I figured that someone would argue this point.
Actually, I agree that it is correct procedure to do that. The problem I have is that the documentation has plenty of errors. It seems that even the MS developers don't use the documentation. Mr. Lewis was mostly upset that it is common that the documentation is bad. Not that they fix it. But it shouldn't be as bad to begin with, that is the problem.
Sorry, but I should have been more clear up front.
Steven Rostedt
Correction, after reading another post, I realized that I confused Jeremy with Andrew Trigdell. I never met Jeremy, it was Andrew that I met in NY. Sorry!
Steven Rostedt
You are sooo right!! The two names are synonymous with me, that I posted once that I met Jeremy back in NY, and it was actually Andrew that I met. I have never met Jeremy, so please ignore my previous post! Thank you.
Steven Rostedt