Fine points, but they don't relate to the issue I was discussing, which is that the article made claims based on insufficient research. My understanding is that the sort of backporting going on here is SOP for Debian.
So if I want to know the security level of each and every program in Debian, I have to read night and day and have to know
which patch adresses which flaw? It's ok (VERY ok) that those pathes are included, but it's also confusing (very confusing I
might say
The comments to which you are replying are directed at a journalist writing to inform others about security issues. If you're a journalist, yes, in fact you should read the CHANGELOG instead of simply thinking "hey, default apache 1.3.9 had security problems, therefore Debian's 1.3.9 must have them and running with that.
As a supplement to providing yourself with information, it's not like Debian's package maintainers don't use email, it sounds like the author simply went ahead with his 'scoop' without contacting the principals for their take on it. Such 'ambush' tactics are unprofessional, and obviously, in this case, they backfired.
It's no crime to call the author on this sloppy journalism.
Or, as has been the case, point out that the article was poorly researched... but then, that requires actually knowing how Debian does things, doesn't it? Obviously they spent all that time between releases doing something...
Yes, but this is a proposed law, so there's at least the potential for this law to render such clauses impotent. You can't cite current practice in this manner to show that certain bills can't become laws.
I think he means the manufacturer who claims to 'support Linux' and doesn't really.
Re:KDE *is* tainted, at least for me.
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
But *I* choose not to use KDE, specifically because the underlying toolkit is not Free. Period.
It's "Free" according to the Debian project (which, if I am not mistaken, is allied tightly with the Free Software Foundation, aka RMS' organization). Evidently you're using an even more stringent notion of "free" than they are.
KDE is not included with Debian because, as the Debian project officially understands things, it is illegal to link GPL binaries against the QT library (that's my understanding), not because the QPL is not Free according to the DFSG.
Is how be bashes Mr. de Icaza for wanting to make money off of GNOME, which, given his apparent familiarity with the Free Software / Open Source world makes it sound for all the world like he's deliberately trying to blur the difference between free (beer) and free (speech). It looks like a pretty direct attempt at character assassination, and even if it is based on a misunderstanding [ which it almost certainly isn't ], the author definitely needs to work harder on understanding the issues before he writes such an editorial.
No doubt he's generating lots of hits for his site, because he could be reasonably sure his editorial would get posted on Slashdot.
Heh... well,.con is appropriate for some members of congress. But political jokes aside, I can think of two reasons why this isn't the best proposal, one of which is specific to the proposed tld (and is thus trivial) ".con" is, on most keyboards, less than a centimetre away from ".com"
Secondly, It'd be easy enough to generate listings under the.gov domain for the various congressional districts (ny-dist12-houserep.gov) and you could, I suppose, route requests for bob-etheridge.gov to nc-dist5-houserep.gov so the folks who remember their house rep's name but not their district can find them. I like this because I think it should be explicit that these domains are for congressfolk in their official capacities.
Don't know if it's because the server is being slashdotted or what, but what I get for both Mosaic and IE 2 is a 500 error... which means that some things haven't changed *too* much =)
The developers working on it are doing so because they enjoy it and think it's a good thing for the future of free computing.
I thought (and this is not attempting to be cute, I'm really not sure) that many, if not most, of those developers are Netscape employees who are specifically paid to work on the Mozilla project.
Whether or not it's MPL/NPL, AOL/Netscape would be *nuts* in the eyes of their investors to put the future of the company in the hands of "the OSS community." The next release of Netscape depends on this project.
Getting calcium from non-meat sources can be tough, too; if you're a strict vegan, supplements won't do because most of them come from oyster shells (at least, so a vegan friend tells me). Despite this, I don't know any vegans with especially brittle bones.
B12 -> brewer's yeast. Ok, not so appealing, but it can be done and many grow to like it.
OK, the ol' sidekick was being a little flip there. Yes, obviously, for you to have any obligation to make the source available at all under the GPL, your code would have to have been modified from GPL'd code that you received under the terms of the GPL. i.e. the GPL covers primarily transfers of binaries and source. It sets the rules for those who receive code under its terms, NOT original authors. If RMS were to receive a blow to the head and decide that he wanted to release a modification of the first version of emacs under an MS-style EULA, I do believe that he could do so (assuming he's the only author; or maybe not, because probably the FSF owns the rights to the emacs code -- OK, then Linus Torvalds and the original kernel is a better case).
If you wrote the code yourself from scratch, then you are free to make the code available TO OTHERS under the GPL; as the original author, though, my understanding is that you would remain free to modify the code to your heart's content and release v. 2.0 of sodadispense under any license you please; anybody who got the source to sodadispense v. 1.0 from you under the GPL could not do so.
And of course (as you point out), if you just mangle the code on your own machine, you are under no obligation to release your source. Were you to copy your modded linux kernel and attempt to sell it (or even give it away, but I'm not sure), you would have to make at least your mods available.
If standards compliance means using a striped-sky blue browser with awkward button positions,
Two points
Mozilla isn't finished yet. What you now see is not what you will necessarily get.
Mozilla is themeable. Some of the themes are quite beautful and functional; you don't just change the appearance of the buttons, you can customize your menus and buttons to your heart's content (a little of this functionality is already present in Netscape 4.x, via the preferences.js file)
Konqueror; it's quite nice and does such nifty things as use your QT widgets in rendering web pages (i.e. your web page will conform to your desktop theme -- KDE 1.91 can be made a lot prettier than previous versions, so expect 2.0 to be very good in this department)
The fact is, this is MS using its market power to attempt to bend the market into the shape advantageous to MS; now, as long as the browsers they produce are AT LEAST W3C standards compliant (mostly) it won't be a big deal as long as web page designers are smart.
The big issue, IMO, is that Mozilla isn't out yet, as nice and Opera and Konqueror might be, they're not in a position to capture anything like 20% of the market share. Since IE 5.5 is out, and will be a big player for the foreseeable future, the competition has a mountain to climb. In fact, at 86% of the market, it looks like they may have a monopoly here and...
Your experience has to do with the specific laws of Vancouver, not of the province; the "nobody under 18" law for arcades means that the arcades ended up getting located next to porno shops, which have the same age restrictions.
Lest BC sound like the land of the non-free (or is that land of the contrib?), you can drink when you're 19 =)
I grew up outside of Vancouver, and spent many an hour playing Defender, Donkey Kong, etc. in the local arcades which were populated with members of my age cohort
No, because building up your hopes excessively in one case turned out to be a bad idea, you might want to tone down your expectations and raise the chance that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Y'see, the pessimist is disappointed less often =)
Lessee, meeting one's nutritional needs and no more, living in what's likely to be substandard housing, having no savings, and so forth...
Well, that sure sounds like a life worth living =P
If the point was, you can cut some things out and live more cheaply and thus work less, well, then, sure. But extreme frugality not born of necessity strikes me as... well, not entirely healthy. Not that I'm saying this guy should be locked up "for his own safety."
The best evidence for the events of Total Recall being real is this: no fantasy-vacation business concern would sell fantasy vacations that cast doubt on their own integrity/competence/loyalty,
Nor, of course, would any software maker do the analogous thing with software...
That doesn't seem at all conclusive to me. The scenes where Arnie wasn't present could have been him imagining what's happening elsewhere.
Never mind that the image of the woman he contracts to meet in Recall, Inc. on Earth is excctly like the Melina he meets on Mars, he gets the blue skies on Mars, etc.
But I've got to agree with the others around here who say they don't want to know and the dude what said that it doesn't *matter* what Scott says now, the only question is whether the movie resolves it unambiguously.
Who knows, maybe next week Scott will say "Oh, I was just yanking your chain" =)
Yes! And the Supreme Court will simply disregard all the evidence presented to them and say "Well, if MS went to the trouble of collecting pledges of support from people we have no reason to believe have thought at all about the legal issues in this case, I suppose we'd better overturn Jackson's decision."
Seems to me that the crucial thing is how much bang you get for your buck. I propose, as a basic framework for "real world" benchmarking, that we give two teams $X and let them configure their own webservers (would it be cheating to force those with proprietary systems to include the cost of their software? >=) Yeah, OK, the value of vendor support; but then pit RH or SuSE against MS, and deduct the cost of the distro). Then we test them. Mano a mano, one team's knowhow and OS against another's. Because who's configuring it matters too.
Why? Because such a situation more accurately represents the factors that figure in real-world performance than the test situations. This is not to say that you don't get valuable data from benchmarks run under more tightly controlled conditions (obviously, RedHat's taken what they learned from Mindcraft and Mindcraft : the Return and used the knowledge thus gained to improve things); but if you want anything like a metric of "which OS is faster", then you have to make the test conditions as wide-open as the question itself.
Feel free to disregard me and my squirrely notions, I'm in a free-association kinda mood.
The hardware differences also make the tests not totally fair
I don't see this. While I agree with the general claim the thread-starter made (let's not let this benchmark have a free ride simply because "we" prefer Linux), I don't think the "let's give them the same equipment" type of test is the best indicator of real-world performance. Leaving other factors aside, what the speed-conscious webmaster wants to know is how much bang she can get for the buck.
Assume Mindcraft (third run around) is a "fair" result, in that both sides got the chance to tune their settings to their own satisfaction, etc. It would be a mistake to conclude, on the basis of those results, that one *ought* to use NT for one's website even if your only concern is speed (and that only with static content, etc.). Why? All Mindcraft showed was that NT beat Linux on a particular hardware configuration.
But that's not nearly enough information to go on in choosing a server platform (again, assuming one's only consideration is speed), unless you're choosing exactly the HW Mindcraft used.
No test on identical machines can determine which OS is "better" or (if you like) which you should use. This is not IROC, where every driver gets (supposedly) an identical vehicle; it's more like Formula 1 or Indy racing, where each team gets to put together its best combination of driver and car. To make the analogy even closer to that with choosing platforms, we could add the provision that every team gets $X to spend. That's the kind of metric you really want.
If one OS beats another (on whatever metric you care to measure) on most or all hardware that is comparable in terms of price, availability, and support, that's a valuable piece of knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh ... I was creeped out by this selfsame fact. I think I have an explanation:
Fine points, but they don't relate to the issue I was discussing, which is that the article made claims based on insufficient research. My understanding is that the sort of backporting going on here is SOP for Debian.
The comments to which you are replying are directed at a journalist writing to inform others about security issues. If you're a journalist, yes, in fact you should read the CHANGELOG instead of simply thinking "hey, default apache 1.3.9 had security problems, therefore Debian's 1.3.9 must have them and running with that.
As a supplement to providing yourself with information, it's not like Debian's package maintainers don't use email, it sounds like the author simply went ahead with his 'scoop' without contacting the principals for their take on it. Such 'ambush' tactics are unprofessional, and obviously, in this case, they backfired.
It's no crime to call the author on this sloppy journalism.
Or, as has been the case, point out that the article was poorly researched ... but then, that requires actually knowing how Debian does things, doesn't it? Obviously they spent all that time between releases doing something ...
Yes, but this is a proposed law, so there's at least the potential for this law to render such clauses impotent. You can't cite current practice in this manner to show that certain bills can't become laws.
I think he means the manufacturer who claims to 'support Linux' and doesn't really.
It's "Free" according to the Debian project (which, if I am not mistaken, is allied tightly with the Free Software Foundation, aka RMS' organization). Evidently you're using an even more stringent notion of "free" than they are.
KDE is not included with Debian because, as the Debian project officially understands things, it is illegal to link GPL binaries against the QT library (that's my understanding), not because the QPL is not Free according to the DFSG.
Is how be bashes Mr. de Icaza for wanting to make money off of GNOME, which, given his apparent familiarity with the Free Software / Open Source world makes it sound for all the world like he's deliberately trying to blur the difference between free (beer) and free (speech). It looks like a pretty direct attempt at character assassination, and even if it is based on a misunderstanding [ which it almost certainly isn't ], the author definitely needs to work harder on understanding the issues before he writes such an editorial.
No doubt he's generating lots of hits for his site, because he could be reasonably sure his editorial would get posted on Slashdot.
Heh ... well, .con is appropriate for some members of congress. But political jokes aside, I can think of two reasons why this isn't the best proposal, one of which is specific to the proposed tld (and is thus trivial) ".con" is, on most keyboards, less than a centimetre away from ".com"
Secondly, It'd be easy enough to generate listings under the .gov domain for the various congressional districts (ny-dist12-houserep.gov) and you could, I suppose, route requests for bob-etheridge.gov to nc-dist5-houserep.gov so the folks who remember their house rep's name but not their district can find them. I like this because I think it should be explicit that these domains are for congressfolk in their official capacities.
Don't know if it's because the server is being slashdotted or what, but what I get for both Mosaic and IE 2 is a 500 error ... which means that some things haven't changed *too* much =)
I thought (and this is not attempting to be cute, I'm really not sure) that many, if not most, of those developers are Netscape employees who are specifically paid to work on the Mozilla project.
Whether or not it's MPL/NPL, AOL/Netscape would be *nuts* in the eyes of their investors to put the future of the company in the hands of "the OSS community." The next release of Netscape depends on this project.
One reason I use iron cookware =)
Getting calcium from non-meat sources can be tough, too; if you're a strict vegan, supplements won't do because most of them come from oyster shells (at least, so a vegan friend tells me). Despite this, I don't know any vegans with especially brittle bones.
B12 -> brewer's yeast. Ok, not so appealing, but it can be done and many grow to like it.
If you wrote the code yourself from scratch, then you are free to make the code available TO OTHERS under the GPL; as the original author, though, my understanding is that you would remain free to modify the code to your heart's content and release v. 2.0 of sodadispense under any license you please; anybody who got the source to sodadispense v. 1.0 from you under the GPL could not do so.
And of course (as you point out), if you just mangle the code on your own machine, you are under no obligation to release your source. Were you to copy your modded linux kernel and attempt to sell it (or even give it away, but I'm not sure), you would have to make at least your mods available.
Two points
Konqueror; it's quite nice and does such nifty things as use your QT widgets in rendering web pages (i.e. your web page will conform to your desktop theme -- KDE 1.91 can be made a lot prettier than previous versions, so expect 2.0 to be very good in this department)
The fact is, this is MS using its market power to attempt to bend the market into the shape advantageous to MS; now, as long as the browsers they produce are AT LEAST W3C standards compliant (mostly) it won't be a big deal as long as web page designers are smart.
The big issue, IMO, is that Mozilla isn't out yet, as nice and Opera and Konqueror might be, they're not in a position to capture anything like 20% of the market share. Since IE 5.5 is out, and will be a big player for the foreseeable future, the competition has a mountain to climb. In fact, at 86% of the market, it looks like they may have a monopoly here and ...
Somebody better tell Carl Lewis then. To think he's been eating an unhealthy diet all these years.
But you must have a port in the side of the machine to allow people to download your soda-dispensing software to their laptops =)
Your experience has to do with the specific laws of Vancouver, not of the province; the "nobody under 18" law for arcades means that the arcades ended up getting located next to porno shops, which have the same age restrictions.
Lest BC sound like the land of the non-free (or is that land of the contrib?), you can drink when you're 19 =)
I grew up outside of Vancouver, and spent many an hour playing Defender, Donkey Kong, etc. in the local arcades which were populated with members of my age cohort
No, because building up your hopes excessively in one case turned out to be a bad idea, you might want to tone down your expectations and raise the chance that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Y'see, the pessimist is disappointed less often =)
Lessee, meeting one's nutritional needs and no more, living in what's likely to be substandard housing, having no savings, and so forth ...
Well, that sure sounds like a life worth living =P
If the point was, you can cut some things out and live more cheaply and thus work less, well, then, sure. But extreme frugality not born of necessity strikes me as ... well, not entirely healthy. Not that I'm saying this guy should be locked up "for his own safety."
Nor, of course, would any software maker do the analogous thing with software ...
That doesn't seem at all conclusive to me. The scenes where Arnie wasn't present could have been him imagining what's happening elsewhere.
Never mind that the image of the woman he contracts to meet in Recall, Inc. on Earth is excctly like the Melina he meets on Mars, he gets the blue skies on Mars, etc.
But I've got to agree with the others around here who say they don't want to know and the dude what said that it doesn't *matter* what Scott says now, the only question is whether the movie resolves it unambiguously.
Who knows, maybe next week Scott will say "Oh, I was just yanking your chain" =)
Yes! And the Supreme Court will simply disregard all the evidence presented to them and say "Well, if MS went to the trouble of collecting pledges of support from people we have no reason to believe have thought at all about the legal issues in this case, I suppose we'd better overturn Jackson's decision."
I don't think so.
Seems to me that the crucial thing is how much bang you get for your buck. I propose, as a basic framework for "real world" benchmarking, that we give two teams $X and let them configure their own webservers (would it be cheating to force those with proprietary systems to include the cost of their software? >=) Yeah, OK, the value of vendor support; but then pit RH or SuSE against MS, and deduct the cost of the distro). Then we test them. Mano a mano, one team's knowhow and OS against another's. Because who's configuring it matters too.
Why? Because such a situation more accurately represents the factors that figure in real-world performance than the test situations. This is not to say that you don't get valuable data from benchmarks run under more tightly controlled conditions (obviously, RedHat's taken what they learned from Mindcraft and Mindcraft : the Return and used the knowledge thus gained to improve things); but if you want anything like a metric of "which OS is faster", then you have to make the test conditions as wide-open as the question itself.
Feel free to disregard me and my squirrely notions, I'm in a free-association kinda mood.
I don't see this. While I agree with the general claim the thread-starter made (let's not let this benchmark have a free ride simply because "we" prefer Linux), I don't think the "let's give them the same equipment" type of test is the best indicator of real-world performance. Leaving other factors aside, what the speed-conscious webmaster wants to know is how much bang she can get for the buck.
Assume Mindcraft (third run around) is a "fair" result, in that both sides got the chance to tune their settings to their own satisfaction, etc. It would be a mistake to conclude, on the basis of those results, that one *ought* to use NT for one's website even if your only concern is speed (and that only with static content, etc.). Why? All Mindcraft showed was that NT beat Linux on a particular hardware configuration.
But that's not nearly enough information to go on in choosing a server platform (again, assuming one's only consideration is speed), unless you're choosing exactly the HW Mindcraft used.
No test on identical machines can determine which OS is "better" or (if you like) which you should use. This is not IROC, where every driver gets (supposedly) an identical vehicle; it's more like Formula 1 or Indy racing, where each team gets to put together its best combination of driver and car. To make the analogy even closer to that with choosing platforms, we could add the provision that every team gets $X to spend. That's the kind of metric you really want.
If one OS beats another (on whatever metric you care to measure) on most or all hardware that is comparable in terms of price, availability, and support, that's a valuable piece of knowledge.