When I worked for the Inland Revenue (UK), we had vast numbers of NT4 machines, both server and workstation being rolled out to replace the UNIX servers and Win311 workstations.
Because of the size of the order, and importance for confidentiality, we recieved a "custom" version of NT. It had a different build number, a replacement GINA, and some other security features added in. If microsoft are prepared to do that for the UK Tax man, I would have thought that the US Military would get full sourcecode to audit, and then build themselves. Any bugs would probably be fixed even after NT4 support officially ends.
At the end of the day Microsoft is still a business like any other. So long as what you want is legal, there will be a price at which you can get it.
I'd also say the reason they haven't upgraded, is because the systems will be fully audited, and well maintained. Upgrading to 2k3 and Vista will just open up potential security holes left right and center.
"This - if anyone was still wondering why a monopoly is so dangerous in the hands of an immoral company like MS."
Surely almost all companies are immoral, i.e. without morals. The laws and structures surrounding corporate entities are designed so that a company exists to benefit its stakeholders and morals do not come into it.
Where a company takes an "ethical" stance it is not for any moral reason, rather they wish to attract the custom of those who wish to deal with "ethical" companies.
In the UK there is a department store chain called John Lewis, which is structured so that each staff member after a certain period of employment becomes a partner of the business. This structure whilst held by many to be a socialist ideal was indeed itself just a form of self-preservation. The company was founded in britain shortly after the Russian revolution, so they hedged their bets. If there was to be a similar revolution in britain they felt it would give them the best chance of surviving intact.
I am a student, and occasionally need to ask root to do things, but my level of access at uni is I feel appropriate for any linux dev, namely user with no sudo whatsoever, but root will run commands I need run assuming they are reasonable, necessary, and authorised by my prof.
The last time I needed root to do something was when we prepared a group presentation then one of the group had his umask wrong, forgot to chmod, and failed to show as he was hungover, leaving the last copy of the presentation unreadable to any of the rest of us. A quick call from myself and the prof and root changed the permissions for us.
The admins exist to help others, but it does not help anyone if you just hand out root access. If there is a good reason for permissions to be changed, or packages installed etc then there needs to be a quick simple system to request the change, approve the change, make the change and log the change.
Seriously, is anyone rolling out OneTrueUnixware on new deployments? Frankly, I'd summarily fire anyone who suggested we use it for anything other than maintaining a legacy system.
No rational company would launch a new deployment of SCO products, as with all the FUD they are spreading about Linux, they are trying to point out that they are taking on IBM. If a small company was suing IBM, regardless of the merits of the case, I would await the outcome before handing over any cash, as IBM has the money, lawyers, and patents, to destroy almost any small company, be it through buying them out, patent counterclaims etc.
The income is almost certainly for expansion of existing systems, where SCO Unix is already in use, and a couple of new terminals need adding etc. It would be madness for it to be anything else.
If I had a large legacy SCO Unix installation, I would be looking medium to long term to replace it with something else, be it from IBM, Sun, HP, Microsoft, RedHat or whoever. In the short term though if they hire a few new guys there is more to be saved from maintaining a consistant environment than there is spent on a few new SCO Licenses
To address the general case: the issue of dynamic linking and the GPL has been debated at some length for several years. Here's my take on it, which is fairly similar to what GNU seems to feel.
The GPL doesn't discuss "executable files", it talks about "programs". It doesn't matter that the program is separated among multiple files, any more than it matters that it may have multiple code segments in an executable. You have to discuss the program as a whole.
If the libraries are intertwined with the program, so as to make them effectively a single unit, then it's a single program that happens to be in multiple files. To use your book analogy, consider a story that's in three volumes. The beginning of each sentence is in the first volume, the middle is in the second volume, and the end is in the third volume. To read the story, you have to switch between the volumes constantly. This is effectively a single book, despite being in three volumes; no volume is useful by itself.
On the other hand, a book which mentions another book is not the same story. I frequently am able to read and understand books without even looking at the bibliography. In this case, the book stands on its own.
This differs from your example of a proprietary program using a GPL'd library: the executable won't stand on its own without the library.
I don't deny that the program won't stand on its own, but distributing a program that relies on a library does not infringe the library's copyright. Distributing the library itself does, but not a executable that depends on it. Without it infringing the copyright there is no need to accept the GPL, and so the argument is moot.
Depending on the provisions under which the library is made availible, the end user may or may not infringe on the copyright, but the developer will not. I am being careful here to talk in terms of copyright and not GPL, as it is irrelevant what licenses the library may be under, if you don't need a license in the first place.
Taking your example of the three books where all the sentances were split across the books. Assuming they are by different authors and ignoring the question of why 3 authors would write such an abomination, there is no infringement by author 1 referencing author 2's book or author 2 referencing author 3's book etc. Without infringement there is no need for a license, GPL or otherwise.
Dynamically linking to a library does not, in my opinion, constitute making a derivative work of that library, thus knocking the GPL down to the LGPL.
Where the GPL has a weak point in my opinion is over the linking arguments
In this case there is the gettext library which is released under the GPL, not the LGPL. As the (L)GPL relies entirely on copyright anything which can be done without a license, can be done regardless of the intentions of the (L)GPL.
I would guess that to distribute the library, you must do so under the GPL as you have no other license to do so, but if you ask the end user to download the library you need not accept the GPL for that library.
The act then of dynamically linking to that library is then the other question, but I would say that that does not require a license either. Libraries by their definition are intended to be linked to, and thus dynamic linking is simply using the library and not copying it in any way.
Consider a scientific book. You may write a paper that "links" to the book to explain in more detail the background behind something. That is not copying the books contents, merely using them. I would say that is akin to dynamic linking of software. You need no license to say "See this book for details"
If dynamic linking was to be clearly seen as requiring a license, consider all the operating system libraries. In order to write a program for windows, you would need a license. In order to write one for the Mac you would need a license etc.In fact, you could even consider the act of running a program to require a license, as it depends on the operating system itself. In order to prevent the GPL collapsing into very nearly the LGPL, then such a ruling would be needed. The additional fallout from such is unthinkable
This of course opens up a loophole for anyone wishing to mis-use GPL'd code. You release all the code you need as a library under the GPL. You then release your closed source program, which links to the GPL'd library.
Anyone wishing to use your program must download both, yet you have managed to bend the GPL so that it is ineffective to a certain extent. The GPL code is still availible under the GPL, except you can get away with using it and not releasing your code, only the original code. In order for you to distribute the GPL'd code you must accept the GPL for that code. For that acceptance to have any binding on any other code you distribute would be too far reaching for the GPL to stand up in court, as you would be entering in to the realms of contract law, and not just simply copyright licenses. The GPL states quite clearly it is not a EULA, and unless that were to change, it cannot be reasonable for it to have any binding effect over other code you distribute.
From what I read in the article, Ludlow believe that as they registered the copyright in the 1950's then renewed it as necessary in the 1980s it is still protected.
What the EFF found is tha a copy was published in a 1945 songbook, so Guthrie appeared to have published it twice. Ludlow may not have known that he published it before in 1945. EFF therefore argued that the copyright started in 1945, expiring in 1973, some ten years before Ludlow renewed it. If Guthrie hadn't published twice there wouldn't be this confusion
Ludlow are unlikely to have known about this, otherwise they would have simply renewed in 1973
Probably yes. This is a contract case, not a copyright case. The MPAA claim they signed a contract preventing these suppliers from selling the chips to unlicensed manufacturers.
Using a gun analogy, if a gun maker signed a deal with the US Gov, so that they were to be the sole purchasers of a new gun the manufacturer had designed, this would be akin to the manufacturer then selling to another country on the side.
The MPAA claim they have exclusivity, not under the DMCA, not under old copyright law etc, but under a contract between them and the defendants. This is nothing more than that.
There was something in MSDN about writing a Pass-Thru GINA as MS called it. GINA basically provides all the Workstation Locked and Login and Ctrl+Alt+Del dialog boxes.
The article about the Pass-thru was how to chain them, so that you could tell Winlogon.exe that you were the GINA, but then delegate the dialogs back to the original MSGINA.dll. The point of this was so you could send credentials for authentication against "legacy" servers, or to facilitate Single-Sign on.
What I am talking about dates to NT4.0, but I am guessing they have not changed the functionality. There is no need to write a fancy password interception routine, Microsoft provide the code already!
"few terrorists with box cutters have got us to the state that the US government is now prepared to shoot down a commercial aircraft if its transponder and radio systems fail."
At the risk of going slightly offtopic, I don't think that risk is too high. If a commercial airliner has lost all radio contact they would not be able to get through to air traffic control at the airport, making the landing dangerous.
Under the new provisions military jets would be scrambled and attempt to divert the plane to a secure airbase by all means necessary
It is my understanding that there are universal visual signals such as "follow me" and if a commercial jet was really in such a situation they would follow their military escort, be guarenteed a clear landing and after interviewing the passengers and crew they would all be sent on to their destination (probably by bus) The political fallout from shooting down a passenger jet without warning would be unthinkable, and being landed in a secure military base would not be any terrorists ideal outcome from a hijacking.
As long as the pilot follows the visual signals from the air force they will not fire on the passenger jet.
I have worked for 2 major UK companies in the last few years, and in both cases there were entire departments of 200-300 people all running heavily customised versions of Windows NT designed to lock down the desktop as much as possible. All the applications were stored telnet sessions back to a UNIX server somewhere. This is the environment where Linux will flourish. In one case NT was so badly hacked around with, you couldn't press Ctrl+Alt+Del once you were logged in or the customised GINA would crash. All the files were "Full Access" to group Everybody in the %WINNT%\system32 directory, including the GINA.
It is possible to admin Windows well. Its possible to make a complete mess of it. The same applies to Linux, Solaris et al. There are many cases where Windows is the best tool for the job. IMHO large corporations where all the desktops simply access a telnet session on a UNIX server are the perfect ground for moving away from Windows. Linux, *BSD, commercial UNIX would be suitable in such an environment.
P.S. Office was banned as there was a typing pool, and problems with the union!
I saw this on LKML about an hour ago, and it interested me then.
What I am wondering about is quite how stable it is possible to get something like this. We all know how Windows assumes it is the only OS installed, when dealing with things like disk partitions, MBR's etc. How does the Windows NT kernel like sharing Ring 0 with Linux?
Overall this is an excellent innovation for Linux to move forward. I suppose you could chart the increase of Linux "market share" as follows.
1.) Linus and his friends 2.) Early Distributions 3.) Redhat makes inroads 4.) Live CD's (Knoppix et al) 5.) CoLinux
You have gone from experimental boxes only, to dual booting to Live CD's to try Linux out (very slow...)
If this can come close to Linux alone in speed, then this is a major step forward. No more lengthy installs with dual booting etc.
If a linux fan wants to show a Windows user what its all about then they can hopefully download one EXE and go.
Pity I haven't got a windows partition so I can test it.
For whom, exactly, would this be a "Security enhancement"?
This is a major feature for corporations everywhere. Minimising 'leaks' of trade secrets etc. Anyway this is the SERVER version going gold. Its nothing to do with your precious MP3 collection. How many home users are likely to be running Windows Server 2003? Not enough for the RIAA et al to be concerned with.
What the GPL states is irrelavant! One of the main distinctions between the GPL and shrinkwrap licenses is that you *DON'T* have to accept the GPL to use the software, only to re-distribute it. If I was to write some proprietry app using GPL code I could do something like this:
1.) Take GPL code and re-hash into library 2.) Distribute source for this library 3.) Write proprietry app 4.) Distribute App as partially linked object code 5.) Ask end-user to download GPL library and the installer links it to the app for them.
Either the GPL has to be binding at stage 2, or 5 If stage 2 is considered legally binding then the GPL has to be re-written to affect all code written by you, which is probably an illegal and unenforceable term.
If stage 5 is considered binding then this is *NOT* the GPL binding it but copyright law. This is already considered binding by the GPL, its just whether the GPL can be enforced at this point. Assuming the end-user "refuses" the GPL then they are not bound by it. What RMS and the FSF are hoping is that the linking process is considered to be a "derivative" work, and the GPL must be accepted.
BUT:
If calling functions etc is considered creating a derivative work what about Microsoft? They own the copyright to a very large number of functions (API), and if their license terms were held binding on developers what then?
Is there any legal difference between calling CreateWindow() in USER32.EXE (Windows EULA) and strcpy() in/lib/libc.so.6.2.2 (LGPL)??
Although this year they have introduced a very broken web-mail app previously the official line was "All e-mails are locally accessible only!" This was mitigated by the fact that the UNIX boxen all came with pine. SSH to uni server.
[d?????@altair]$ pine
Instant, fast (well I was the wrong end of 56K) and globally available.
While others are posting about the relative merits of mutt / elm / mh / grep! etc, I think that its good that text based MUA's are still being developed.
I am currently taking a Win32 program with GUI and rewriting to make it run as a Solaris text based prog. This is to allow it to be run over SSH sessions. It has to run on a uni machine, and by allowing it to run text-mode it can be called up from home, without having to trek back to campus.
Text mode apps have their uses. Long live PINE!
Re:Why content filtering is not enough
on
As the Spam Turns
·
· Score: 1
Here is an entry for ElcomSoft LTD in Russia on ROSKO. Isn't this the same company that employed Skylarov. Were we all defending a mass Spammer?
Where would our loyalties lie if a russian spammer was arrested on trumped up DMCA violations?
Forbes is simply commentating that the FUD over TCO from MS has been seen straight through. Large businesses with custom apps, and the windows UI restricted off as much as possible via policies are simply seeing that they can contract in a guru to have everything EXACTLY as the company wants it for less money than it costs to license the copies of Windows. With windows you need experts to lock it down, and tweak it as much as is permitted by MS to make it more suitable for your environment. Linux and OpenSource in general allow the company to roll out a uniform, customised, reliable base for their users at a fraction of the cost. Despite what MS may say the FSF states that according to the GPL they do NOT have to release their changes either, as long as they stay in-house.
Also in the server room, say you have a file server to be accessed via SMB. The license is around $1000 PLUS Client Access Licenses. If your tech guys understand Linux, or are keen to learn, replacing 100 NT/2K servers rather than upgrading to.NET server will cause the dollar signs to flash around in everyones head except Bill!
Make no mistake, while this is definately very good publicity, the people to whom it is aimed at are interested, VERY interested in the free beer only. Don't expect any code back from these people, but I suppose if you can get a larger install base, then it is all good
"I would, however, prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet away. I won't miss."
Whether you miss or not, you will probably go through the hijacker, and through the fuselage. The de-pressurisation would possibly kill everyone anyway
The UK academic network (JANET) has three 2.5GBit/s links out of the UK. One is with Teleglobe UK, and two with KPNQwest
Teleglobe UK went into recievership on 20th May, and the connection will be cut as of 30th June. This links JANET, with American universities, and research networks (ESnet and Abilene).
Connectivity to the wider internet goes through one of two KPNQwest links.
Despite JANET investigating alternative connections, this is still worrying for the UK academic users.
I am currently at a UK university, and while not immediately disasterous for the students, our research credibility will decline if our professors are isolated from the wider academic community.
I can only hope that Internet2 extends from AmericanNET2 to be truly international.
I was pleasantly surprised in Maplin the other day In front of me was a man asking for a 100BaseT hub, two 10baseT ethernet cards, 100m of CAT5 the crimping tool, and a bag of RJ-45 plugs.
The sales guy asked him how many computers he had
"2"
"And are you looking to upgrade anytime soon?"
"No"
"Then you would be far better off with just the two cards and a crossover cable"
The sales guy saved this man over £100, when he could have just taken a fat profit for his store.
There already are restrictions. Prove me wrong by registering the following, replace mycorp with your "private industry's" name.
mycorp.gov mycorp.edu mycorp.mil
or if you are in the UK (as I am)
mycorp.gov.uk mycorp.ac.uk (Universities, academic, etc) mycorp.sch.uk (obvious) mycorp.police.uk mycorp.nhs.uk (National Health Service) mycorp.mod.uk (Ministry of defence (.mil))
Anyone can get.co.uk, but you must be an incorporated company to get.ltd.uk, and must be a publicly traded company to get.plc.uk
Until recently you couldn't get *.us (IIRC it had to be something like *.town.state.us)
There are lots of restrictions on DNS, and I feel that segregating the obvious sites into a.mature or whatever would be ideal. I left my secondary (high in us terms?) school last year, and we had internet in the school library. They had a content filter provided by the county. I was one of the first people to be caught out by it. You try being hauled up infront of the head to explain that Brass instruments contains the blocked word 'bra' As a music student at the time, it was fairly obvious that nothing I did broke their code of conduct, but it took me an hour to show them that. I was caught out, simply because I was in school early the day it was rolled out, so I was user #1, and caught the bugs head on.
If a separate TLD existed, then the school could fulfill their expectations with one line. The grey area can then be cleared up with further content filters, but your schools tech guy can know that kids aren't going to go to whitehouse.com to research details of the american presidency. (The first proper case of porn at school was defended by a mate of mine who deliberatly went to the site, but couldn't close the pop-ups in time before the teacher came round. He got away with it)
On the Mandrake 8.2 Box I am typing, the windows keys (plural!) have been mapped to changing tty. While not useful in X, when in runlevel 3 they are one of the best things I gained from upgrading. The left key takes you down a tty, the right up one.
P.S This machine was previously Redhat 6.2 with a new kernel, upgraded RPM, and security patches.
Slashdot Mirror
When I worked for the Inland Revenue (UK), we had vast numbers of NT4 machines, both server and workstation being rolled out to replace the UNIX servers and Win311 workstations.
Because of the size of the order, and importance for confidentiality, we recieved a "custom" version of NT. It had a different build number, a replacement GINA, and some other security features added in. If microsoft are prepared to do that for the UK Tax man, I would have thought that the US Military would get full sourcecode to audit, and then build themselves. Any bugs would probably be fixed even after NT4 support officially ends.
At the end of the day Microsoft is still a business like any other. So long as what you want is legal, there will be a price at which you can get it.
I'd also say the reason they haven't upgraded, is because the systems will be fully audited, and well maintained. Upgrading to 2k3 and Vista will just open up potential security holes left right and center.
"This - if anyone was still wondering why a monopoly is so dangerous in the hands of an immoral company like MS."
Surely almost all companies are immoral, i.e. without morals. The laws and structures surrounding corporate entities are designed so that a company exists to benefit its stakeholders and morals do not come into it.
Where a company takes an "ethical" stance it is not for any moral reason, rather they wish to attract the custom of those who wish to deal with "ethical" companies.
In the UK there is a department store chain called John Lewis, which is structured so that each staff member after a certain period of employment becomes a partner of the business. This structure whilst held by many to be a socialist ideal was indeed itself just a form of self-preservation. The company was founded in britain shortly after the Russian revolution, so they hedged their bets. If there was to be a similar revolution in britain they felt it would give them the best chance of surviving intact.
I am a student, and occasionally need to ask root to do things, but my level of access at uni is I feel appropriate for any linux dev, namely user with no sudo whatsoever, but root will run commands I need run assuming they are reasonable, necessary, and authorised by my prof.
The last time I needed root to do something was when we prepared a group presentation then one of the group had his umask wrong, forgot to chmod, and failed to show as he was hungover, leaving the last copy of the presentation unreadable to any of the rest of us. A quick call from myself and the prof and root changed the permissions for us.
The admins exist to help others, but it does not help anyone if you just hand out root access. If there is a good reason for permissions to be changed, or packages installed etc then there needs to be a quick simple system to request the change, approve the change, make the change and log the change.
Seriously, is anyone rolling out OneTrueUnixware on new deployments? Frankly, I'd summarily fire anyone who suggested we use it for anything other than maintaining a legacy system.
No rational company would launch a new deployment of SCO products, as with all the FUD they are spreading about Linux, they are trying to point out that they are taking on IBM. If a small company was suing IBM, regardless of the merits of the case, I would await the outcome before handing over any cash, as IBM has the money, lawyers, and patents, to destroy almost any small company, be it through buying them out, patent counterclaims etc.
The income is almost certainly for expansion of existing systems, where SCO Unix is already in use, and a couple of new terminals need adding etc. It would be madness for it to be anything else.
If I had a large legacy SCO Unix installation, I would be looking medium to long term to replace it with something else, be it from IBM, Sun, HP, Microsoft, RedHat or whoever. In the short term though if they hire a few new guys there is more to be saved from maintaining a consistant environment than there is spent on a few new SCO Licenses
I don't deny that the program won't stand on its own, but distributing a program that relies on a library does not infringe the library's copyright.
Distributing the library itself does, but not a executable that depends on it. Without it infringing the copyright there is no need to accept the GPL, and so the argument is moot.
Depending on the provisions under which the library is made availible, the end user may or may not infringe on the copyright, but the developer will not. I am being careful here to talk in terms of copyright and not GPL, as it is irrelevant what licenses the library may be under, if you don't need a license in the first place.
Taking your example of the three books where all the sentances were split across the books. Assuming they are by different authors and ignoring the question of why 3 authors would write such an abomination, there is no infringement by author 1 referencing author 2's book or author 2 referencing author 3's book etc. Without infringement there is no need for a license, GPL or otherwise.
Dynamically linking to a library does not, in my opinion, constitute making a derivative work of that library, thus knocking the GPL down to the LGPL.
Where the GPL has a weak point in my opinion is over the linking arguments
In this case there is the gettext library which is released under the GPL, not the LGPL. As the (L)GPL relies entirely on copyright anything which can be done without a license, can be done regardless of the intentions of the (L)GPL.
I would guess that to distribute the library, you must do so under the GPL as you have no other license to do so, but if you ask the end user to download the library you need not accept the GPL for that library.
The act then of dynamically linking to that library is then the other question, but I would say that that does not require a license either. Libraries by their definition are intended to be linked to, and thus dynamic linking is simply using the library and not copying it in any way.
Consider a scientific book. You may write a paper that "links" to the book to explain in more detail the background behind something. That is not copying the books contents, merely using them. I would say that is akin to dynamic linking of software. You need no license to say "See this book for details"
If dynamic linking was to be clearly seen as requiring a license, consider all the operating system libraries. In order to write a program for windows, you would need a license. In order to write one for the Mac you would need a license etc.In fact, you could even consider the act of running a program to require a license, as it depends on the operating system itself. In order to prevent the GPL collapsing into very nearly the LGPL, then such a ruling would be needed. The additional fallout from such is unthinkable
This of course opens up a loophole for anyone wishing to mis-use GPL'd code. You release all the code you need as a library under the GPL. You then release your closed source program, which links to the GPL'd library.
Anyone wishing to use your program must download both, yet you have managed to bend the GPL so that it is ineffective to a certain extent. The GPL code is still availible under the GPL, except you can get away with using it and not releasing your code, only the original code. In order for you to distribute the GPL'd code you must accept the GPL for that code. For that acceptance to have any binding on any other code you distribute would be too far reaching for the GPL to stand up in court, as you would be entering in to the realms of contract law, and not just simply copyright licenses. The GPL states quite clearly it is not a EULA, and unless that were to change, it cannot be reasonable for it to have any binding effect over other code you distribute.
From what I read in the article, Ludlow believe that as they registered the copyright in the 1950's then renewed it as necessary in the 1980s it is still protected.
What the EFF found is tha a copy was published in a 1945 songbook, so Guthrie appeared to have published it twice. Ludlow may not have known that he published it before in 1945. EFF therefore argued that the copyright started in 1945, expiring in 1973, some ten years before Ludlow renewed it. If Guthrie hadn't published twice there wouldn't be this confusion
Ludlow are unlikely to have known about this, otherwise they would have simply renewed in 1973
Probably yes. This is a contract case, not a copyright case. The MPAA claim they signed a contract preventing these suppliers from selling the chips to unlicensed manufacturers.
Using a gun analogy, if a gun maker signed a deal with the US Gov, so that they were to be the sole purchasers of a new gun the manufacturer had designed, this would be akin to the manufacturer then selling to another country on the side.
The MPAA claim they have exclusivity, not under the DMCA, not under old copyright law etc, but under a contract between them and the defendants. This is nothing more than that.
There was something in MSDN about writing a Pass-Thru GINA as MS called it. GINA basically provides all the Workstation Locked and Login and Ctrl+Alt+Del dialog boxes.
The article about the Pass-thru was how to chain them, so that you could tell Winlogon.exe that you were the GINA, but then delegate the dialogs back to the original MSGINA.dll. The point of this was so you could send credentials for authentication against "legacy" servers, or to facilitate Single-Sign on.
What I am talking about dates to NT4.0, but I am guessing they have not changed the functionality. There is no need to write a fancy password interception routine, Microsoft provide the code already!
At the risk of going slightly offtopic, I don't think that risk is too high. If a commercial airliner has lost all radio contact they would not be able to get through to air traffic control at the airport, making the landing dangerous. Under the new provisions military jets would be scrambled and attempt to divert the plane to a secure airbase by all means necessary
It is my understanding that there are universal visual signals such as "follow me" and if a commercial jet was really in such a situation they would follow their military escort, be guarenteed a clear landing and after interviewing the passengers and crew they would all be sent on to their destination (probably by bus) The political fallout from shooting down a passenger jet without warning would be unthinkable, and being landed in a secure military base would not be any terrorists ideal outcome from a hijacking.
As long as the pilot follows the visual signals from the air force they will not fire on the passenger jet.
I have worked for 2 major UK companies in the last few years, and in both cases there were entire departments of 200-300 people all running heavily customised versions of Windows NT designed to lock down the desktop as much as possible. All the applications were stored telnet sessions back to a UNIX server somewhere. This is the environment where Linux will flourish. In one case NT was so badly hacked around with, you couldn't press Ctrl+Alt+Del once you were logged in or the customised GINA would crash.
All the files were "Full Access" to group Everybody in the %WINNT%\system32 directory, including the GINA.
It is possible to admin Windows well. Its possible to make a complete mess of it. The same applies to Linux, Solaris et al.
There are many cases where Windows is the best tool for the job. IMHO large corporations where all the desktops simply access a telnet session on a UNIX server are the perfect ground for moving away from Windows. Linux, *BSD, commercial UNIX would be suitable in such an environment.
P.S. Office was banned as there was a typing pool, and problems with the union!
I saw this on LKML about an hour ago, and it interested me then.
What I am wondering about is quite how stable it is possible to get something like this.
We all know how Windows assumes it is the only OS installed, when dealing with things like disk partitions, MBR's etc. How does the Windows NT kernel like sharing Ring 0 with Linux?
Overall this is an excellent innovation for Linux to move forward. I suppose you could chart the increase of Linux "market share" as follows.
1.) Linus and his friends
2.) Early Distributions
3.) Redhat makes inroads
4.) Live CD's (Knoppix et al)
5.) CoLinux
You have gone from experimental boxes only, to dual booting to Live CD's to try Linux out (very slow...)
If this can come close to Linux alone in speed, then this is a major step forward.
No more lengthy installs with dual booting etc.
If a linux fan wants to show a Windows user what its all about then they can hopefully download one EXE and go.
Pity I haven't got a windows partition so I can test it.
This is a major feature for corporations everywhere. Minimising 'leaks' of trade secrets etc. Anyway this is the SERVER version going gold. Its nothing to do with your precious MP3 collection. How many home users are likely to be running Windows Server 2003? Not enough for the RIAA et al to be concerned with.
NO!
/lib/libc.so.6.2.2 (LGPL)??
What the GPL states is irrelavant! One of the main distinctions between the GPL and shrinkwrap licenses is that you *DON'T* have to accept the GPL to use the software, only to re-distribute it. If I was to write some proprietry app using GPL code I could do something like this:
1.) Take GPL code and re-hash into library
2.) Distribute source for this library
3.) Write proprietry app
4.) Distribute App as partially linked object code
5.) Ask end-user to download GPL library and the installer links it to the app for them.
Either the GPL has to be binding at stage 2, or 5
If stage 2 is considered legally binding then the GPL has to be re-written to affect all code written by you, which is probably an illegal and unenforceable term.
If stage 5 is considered binding then this is *NOT* the GPL binding it but copyright law. This is already considered binding by the GPL, its just whether the GPL can be enforced at this point. Assuming the end-user "refuses" the GPL then they are not bound by it.
What RMS and the FSF are hoping is that the linking process is considered to be a "derivative" work, and the GPL must be accepted.
BUT:
If calling functions etc is considered creating a derivative work what about Microsoft?
They own the copyright to a very large number of functions (API), and if their license terms were held binding on developers what then?
Is there any legal difference between calling CreateWindow() in USER32.EXE (Windows EULA) and strcpy() in
Although this year they have introduced a very broken web-mail app previously the official line was "All e-mails are locally accessible only!"
This was mitigated by the fact that the UNIX boxen all came with pine. SSH to uni server.
[d?????@altair]$ pine
Instant, fast (well I was the wrong end of 56K) and globally available.
While others are posting about the relative merits of mutt / elm / mh / grep! etc, I think that its good that text based MUA's are still being developed.
I am currently taking a Win32 program with GUI and rewriting to make it run as a Solaris text based prog. This is to allow it to be run over SSH sessions. It has to run on a uni machine, and by allowing it to run text-mode it can be called up from home, without having to trek back to campus.
Text mode apps have their uses. Long live PINE!
Here is an entry for ElcomSoft LTD in Russia on ROSKO. Isn't this the same company that employed Skylarov. Were we all defending a mass Spammer? Where would our loyalties lie if a russian spammer was arrested on trumped up DMCA violations?
Forbes is simply commentating that the FUD over TCO from MS has been seen straight through. Large businesses with custom apps, and the windows UI restricted off as much as possible via policies are simply seeing that they can contract in a guru to have everything EXACTLY as the company wants it for less money than it costs to license the copies of Windows.
.NET server will cause the dollar signs to flash around in everyones head except Bill!
With windows you need experts to lock it down, and tweak it as much as is permitted by MS to make it more suitable for your environment. Linux and OpenSource in general allow the company to roll out a uniform, customised, reliable base for their users at a fraction of the cost. Despite what MS may say the FSF states that according to the GPL they do NOT have to release their changes either, as long as they stay in-house.
Also in the server room, say you have a file server to be accessed via SMB. The license is around $1000 PLUS Client Access Licenses.
If your tech guys understand Linux, or are keen to learn, replacing 100 NT/2K servers rather than upgrading to
Make no mistake, while this is definately very good publicity, the people to whom it is aimed at are interested, VERY interested in the free beer only. Don't expect any code back from these people, but I suppose if you can get a larger install base, then it is all good
"I would, however, prefer to take a head shot from 25 feet away. I won't miss."
Whether you miss or not, you will probably go through the hijacker, and through the fuselage. The de-pressurisation would possibly kill everyone anyway
Wasn't it the elixir of life that gave you immortality?
Both philosiphers stone, and elixir of life were (unsucessfully) searched for by alchemists
The UK academic network (JANET) has three 2.5GBit/s links out of the UK. One is with Teleglobe UK, and two with KPNQwest
Teleglobe UK went into recievership on 20th May, and the connection will be cut as of 30th June. This links JANET, with American universities, and research networks (ESnet and Abilene). Connectivity to the wider internet goes through one of two KPNQwest links.
Despite JANET investigating alternative connections, this is still worrying for the UK academic users.
I am currently at a UK university, and while not immediately disasterous for the students, our research credibility will decline if our professors are isolated from the wider academic community.
I can only hope that Internet2 extends from AmericanNET2 to be truly international.
Source: http://www.ukerna.ac.uk/awareness/teleglobe.html
My place of work attempted to get some kind of compromise. How well these would stand up I don't quite know.
The system gave you three choices of password pseduo-randomly generated. This was the users entire creative input, choosing 1, 2, or 3.
They were all 9 characters long.
They were all lower case letters
They were three groups of constonant - vowel - constonant
e.g. yeglitpuk
(This has not been my password, nor will it ever be)
I personally prefer the wasp-sucker. It looks good, serves a purpose, and has the 'home-made' quality to it.
The marble gun seems dangerous, I can just imagine a kid understanding gun safety, yet building one of those
I DO NOT WANT TO START A DEBATE ON GUN-CONTROL
The Jenga thing however is stupid, as it makes you more likely to lose!
I was pleasantly surprised in Maplin the other day
In front of me was a man asking for a 100BaseT hub, two 10baseT ethernet cards, 100m of CAT5 the crimping tool, and a bag of RJ-45 plugs.
The sales guy asked him how many computers he had
"2"
"And are you looking to upgrade anytime soon?"
"No"
"Then you would be far better off with just the two cards and a crossover cable"
The sales guy saved this man over £100, when he could have just taken a fat profit for his store.
There already are restrictions. Prove me wrong by registering the following, replace mycorp with your "private industry's" name.
.co.uk, but you must be an incorporated company to get .ltd.uk, and must be a publicly traded company to get .plc.uk
.mature or whatever would be ideal. I left my secondary (high in us terms?) school last year, and we had internet in the school library. They had a content filter provided by the county. I was one of the first people to be caught out by it. You try being hauled up infront of the head to explain that Brass instruments contains the blocked word 'bra'
mycorp.gov
mycorp.edu
mycorp.mil
or if you are in the UK (as I am)
mycorp.gov.uk
mycorp.ac.uk (Universities, academic, etc)
mycorp.sch.uk (obvious)
mycorp.police.uk
mycorp.nhs.uk (National Health Service)
mycorp.mod.uk (Ministry of defence (.mil))
Anyone can get
Until recently you couldn't get *.us (IIRC it had to be something like *.town.state.us)
There are lots of restrictions on DNS, and I feel that segregating the obvious sites into a
As a music student at the time, it was fairly obvious that nothing I did broke their code of conduct, but it took me an hour to show them that. I was caught out, simply because I was in school early the day it was rolled out, so I was user #1, and caught the bugs head on.
If a separate TLD existed, then the school could fulfill their expectations with one line. The grey area can then be cleared up with further content filters, but your schools tech guy can know that kids aren't going to go to whitehouse.com to research details of the american presidency. (The first proper case of porn at school was defended by a mate of mine who deliberatly went to the site, but couldn't close the pop-ups in time before the teacher came round. He got away with it)
On the Mandrake 8.2 Box I am typing, the windows keys (plural!) have been mapped to changing tty. While not useful in X, when in runlevel 3 they are one of the best things I gained from upgrading.
The left key takes you down a tty, the right up one.
P.S
This machine was previously Redhat 6.2 with a new kernel, upgraded RPM, and security patches.