This brings up a question. Is a store legally allowed to make you show your receipt or look through your bags? I mean, once you buy an item, it is yours and is officially your property, isn't it? If stores can look through a shopping bag does that mean that stores can look into personal bags, and even search your pockets and such? I would imagine not. I tend to get my back up with Fry's "final indignation" and blow through their requests to check my receipt on exit. The worse they've done so far is wish me a good day in a really loud voice (I suppose that's to alert their security and embarrass me in to submitting next time). I would suspect if Fry's had the right to search me, they would be much more aggressive in stopping me considering how aggressive they are with other policies in the store (much having to do with their own employees).
The fact that Fox News is so popular is indicative that the mainstream (non-Fox) media is, in fact, not as conservative as the majority of viewers want(ed) it to be. Since I think it's a fair assumption that most viewers want media that shares their own biases, we can say then, that the non-Fox MSM is more liberal than most viewers. I would imagine the overall network bias would be a selling point. But I'm also starting to think maybe its more about presentation. Flash. As FOX has been eating CNN's lunch, I've noticed CNN taking notes. CNN is trying on FOX's style. Flashy graphics. "Controversial" non-issues. Loud-mouthed talking heads. "Debates" where CNN's handler frames the issue and then starts to talk over guests if the guests actually make good points that shoot down the premise. Loud, brash flash. Is that the real secret to FOX's success?
I've been a power computer user for some years now, I built my own machine and know windows backwards, however linux confuses the heck out of me. You're a power WINDOWS user. Don't worry - it's a common mistake.;)
Seriously though... it seems to me that this is a core issue. People gain a certain familiarity with a particular system (according to marketshare, that's likely to be Windows) and then feel threatened when confronted with something entirely different.
Years ago, I did desktop support for a large organization. There was a small number of Macs out there... very few of my tech coworkers wanted to deal with them. Myself included. Unfortunately, I would get roped in to it since I was one of the lead techs. So I would find myself reluctantly sitting behind a desktop that I knew nothing about. More often than not it involved me feeling like an idiot... unable to do simple things. The fact that I could make Windows jump through hoops only hindered my ability (and / or willingness) to learn MacOS.
I got in to Linux because of a job opportunity administering a Unix workstation lab. I picked up Linux to get myself familiarized with the Unix way (queue BSD trolls). I expected to feel like an idiot (and wasn't disappointed). But I was highly motivated to learn the new environment. And I discovered that, indeed, Unix (and consequently Linux) was far, far different than Windows... down to a cultural level.
Don't get me wrong - Linux is imperfect. Linux environments can always use some improvement (and this particular effort does seem to be a good improvement - though one I haven't been particularly concerned with myself). Its simply that a lot of computer hobbiests seem to first touch Linux with absolutely no expectation for exactly how different a world it represents.
That's just it. Due to the GPL's viral nature, the BSD community cannot just "use it within the GPL limitations". Those "GPL limitations" would reportedly turn around and force the entire OpenBSD source base to be licensed under the GPL. I suppose this is possible. Devil's in the details. But I would point out that it isn't always a given. The "viral" nature of the GPL seems to get blown out of proportion. For example, this is a meme that Microsoft has often pushed despite the fact that they themselves use GPL code. Oddly enough, this has not forced the entire Windows source base to be licensed under the GPL.
The F/OSS people make themselves look like ninnies by whining over this. Capitalism is war for the most profit, by any means necessary that aren't illegal. This wasn't illegal. They won. Either change the rules, or stop complaining. Even if this is "war" what do you propose OOXML opponents (and its not just "F/OSS people") do? Sit back and take it? Shrug it off as a right of the Interest with the biggest available budget?
The first steps to countering these kinds of shennanigans is bringing them to light. Change the rules? Maybe. But definitely make sure everyone understands what is going on first. Let's call a spade a spade.
Microsoft will likely call it as some kind of standards mandate; justification for their work. Denial of their critics. We can sit back and accept that. Or we can let everyone know how Microsoft's interests subverted the process and, perhaps, not everything Microsoft claims is as it seems.
Meanwhile, those who own this process can review how a single interest subverted it and decide if the system is serving their interests or not. I like to think the ISO process is about technical review and standardization for the general good of the industry those they serve. But maybe it's not.
How do you license instructions for a computer?
Oh, wait, like this: http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
If you can license code, you can license instructions for humans as well This doesn't seem to be the same thing. A series of instructions for humans tend to be in the form of some published work - a book, pamphlet, eBook, etc. And just like a computer program, such published works fall under copyright. And just like a computer program, you can allow a customer to make their own copies of that work according to whatever license you want.
What's different here is that its not a matter of instructions, but iterations of following those instructions. Where do we limit how many times a set of instructions can be followed? I suppose something along the lines of user seat licensing might be comparable in the IT world. But do we have anything that compares for people?
I can understand the temptation to applying IT rules of so-called IP for humans. But I'm not sure there's any previous precedence that would imply that it is enforceable... or even a generally good idea to try.
You can write a manual on a particular technique and restrict copying of that manual. However, can you stop someone from learning from that manual and then repeating the method ad nauseum... or teaching the method to others... or even using that knowledge to write and publish their own manual?
For the same reason that it's perfectly legal for my private high school to "sell me the way" to solve second order differential equations, or for my violin teacher to "sell me the way" to play Bach... The difference being that your private high school doesn't put a limitation on how many differential equations you're allowed to solve or how often you're allowed to play a selection by Bach. This isn't simple teaching. This is something different.
It is a good thing the Linux mascot is a penguin and not a rabbit, or we would have had Elmer Fud singing 'Kill the Wabbit!' "Be vewwy, vewwy quiet... I'm huntin' pwengins... hwaah haah haah..." [throws a chair]
Of course, eventually you need to be producing everything people use and consuming all available resources. I'm looking forward to the iApple with not only a lickable, but crunchable interface.
So, no, I do not see how his initial intent was to "block anyone blocking ads" - he'd have to be doing something like what I suggested in my original reply, or blocking all browsers equally. IE has an add-on for blocking content and ads too, and it includes a pop-up blocker by default now as well. I base this on having followed his trail around various sites (his own site, comments on AdblockerPro's comments, comments made in an Adsense-oriented forum). I didn't record the links I followed so I don't have anything to offer you to back up my assertion. So you'll either have to try and poke around yourself (the trail isn't hard to pick up) or just trust me.;)
Don't get me wrong. I believe he's a raving kook. He's irrational and deluded. But you can clearly see the twisted path he follows - from "this is some PHP code to block theives that block your ads", to "don't upset a programmer" (forgetting that he's not the only coder in the mix), to "this is war" and his burnt-earth policy of attacking anything associated with Adblocker in any manner. It's a sad, twisty path.
People keep saying this is the year for the Linux desktop because of Vista's failures, when most people don't care because XP and 2003 run just fine for them. They aren't looking for change from Vista or Lunix or anything else for that matter. The only people who seem to be pushing this "year for the Linux desktop" meme seem to be trolls. Who really expects desktop Linux adoption to suddenly spring up among us like a field of mushrooms? The reality of these things is that they happen over time. Eventually a shift becomes so pervasive that it has happened before most realize it.
No, not other adblocking systems - that's my whole point - if so, he wouldn't be asking people to block Firefox using the HTTP headers. How is blocking Firefox (with or without adblock) affecting other browsers like IE or Opera which both have content/ad blockers? I invite you to go back and re-read what I wrote. His initial intent is to block anyone blocking ads... with some specific interest in the Adblock solution. He then noticed that AdblockPlus authors were modifying their work to counter his efforts. When he found that his bravado ("Never upset a programmer") wasn't panning out, he decided to make his point by blocking all Firefox users in some wrong-headed bid to punish the Mozilla Foundation for whatever support they give to Adblock (or more specifically AddblockPlus I'm guessing).
Whenever a corporation or corporate agent does something morally questionable, there's always apologists claiming it was necessary in order to show due diligence to the profitability of the company and interests of the share holders. I pitty those corporate officers who are unable to form an argument against sleezy behavior for fear of being run on a rail in to court. It must be tough for them. They should be quietly cheering this lawsuit. If successful, it'll make a great argument. When asked to something reprehensible, the cornered agent can note "look at what happened to HP - do we really want to take that kind of risk?" And voila - they're not putting morals above profit... they're being fiduciarily responsible.
Websites put up that annoying IE blocker which tells you the site is too geeky for you unless you run Firefox, and it's just helping the cause.
Websites put up content that blocks Firefox or content that Firefox cannot render due to plugins etc, it's the crime of the century. How common is this? I've run in to a lot more blocking because I'm not using IE6 than I ever have for using it. It seems to me you're painting a whole community / movement with a broad brush based on observations of a fringe element. Granted - this anti-Firefox guy is likely also a fringe element type (at least for his particular reasoning). But I don't see anyone saying all Adsense-using webmasters are represented by this self-proclaimed expert.
It seems the guy's a big fan of trying to foil Adblock (specifically) and maybe other adblocking systems. He then got annoyed when he found out Adblock was foiling his attempts. Since he's lost on that front, he's decided to open up another one.
Its wrong-headed and ultimately damaging. But I don't see it being all that effective. We've seen this kind of mentality before and its never lead anywhere.
The blocking that they seem to be advocating that others use is pretty standard "HTTP_USER_AGENT" querying using a PHP script, so it's not like it would be hard to get around. (Incidentally, I've always felt that the USER_AGENT header was something of a bad idea; maybe it's time to kill it, or at least disable replying to it by default?) He's also using some kind of javascript shenanigans to get around user agent switching. Noscript handles that. I should thank him for reminding me to install it.
"Jack Lewis" is a pseudonym. When I first began using the internet I found out that there were a lot of crazy people out there and wanted some anonymity. The name served it's purpose, but eventually people began to know me by that name alone. When I started setting up my own sites, I got JackLewis.net.
My background goes all over the place. I have a Bachelor degree in Broadcasting from John Brown University. I worked for a while in television as studio crew, then as a producer for a television ministry, and years later as a radio announcer at a local Christian station. Broadcasting jobs seemed too scarce so I picked up an Associate degree in Accounting, and another in Business Administration, but by the time I finished that, God called me to Seminary.
I attended South Western Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth for a year and a half, and left to get married. I eventually wound up working as an optician. Because we have two children with a rare congenital disorder, health insurance was hard to come by, so when a job opportunity to work for a national company with excellent insurance came along, I applied, but was turned down. My wife then applied and was accepted. So since then I've been a stay-at-home dad, homeschooling our four kids, and working on various projects on the internet.
In these past few years I've written a novel, and co-wrote the autobiography of a friend who runs an international ministry. I've also developed numerous sites like SpelChek.com, BytheFirePlace.com, phpBible.org, radioJesus.com and LookListenLearn.org. I also built and manage the most active site for the congenital condition my children have, helping hundreds of people world-wide communicate with others dealing with the same problems and worries.
While I abandoned any real effort at anonymity several years ago, I kept the pseudonym, because so many people knew me by that name. My dream is to write novels for a living. This blog is a means to that end. Besides giving me the opportunity to hone my writing skills, as it grows, my hope is to build a "following" of people who like my writing, therefore an initial target audience for whenever I can get published.
Technically speaking, if there was high pitched wailing every time a windows server got hacked (these were not Canonical servers they just pay for them for use and care by others), then nearby star systems would start complaining about the noise. Microsoft's own servers... not just random Windows-based servers. You might have some knowledge I don't have... but compromises of Microsoft's IT assets don't make the public news too often. Which isn't to say its not happening. I know other large well-known organizations who've had plenty of incidents that don't make the news. I wouldn't be surprised if the same applied to Microsoft. But as I don't have inside knowledge and it doesn't hit the news often... to say they have routine issues seems to be, at best, speculation.
Speaking of which, why don't you come out in the open and state specifically which Asian communist space-race competitor you are making a jab at? Its not commentary on an Asian communist space-race competitor. It's a commentary on an extraterrestrial space program. It's just that the Scientologists get really aggressive when you criticize their church.
Isn't that part of the Linux/Microsoft Double Standard? Now, if Microsoft this type of issue and had been less than totally open about the cause and methods, you know as well as I do that there would be a high-pitched wailing from the Slashdot World. I'm not so sure this is any kind of double standard. The last time Microsoft was compromised there wasn't a "high-pitched wailing from the Slashdot World" demanding details. Nobody really expected to hear any details. And we didn't get any. I'm sure there were some who would have been interested in them... and others who didn't care. And this is the situation we're in now.
Some people care about these details and some don't. The parent apparently thinks there's nothing to learn. I disagree. There might be something really interesting in this case. But even if its just a comedy of errors or highlights issues we've known about for years, there is still value. It serves as a reminder for why we take the additional effort to do things "right."
And so... typical to Slashdot and other public forums... I voice disagreement with the parent poster. It seems we don't have a single voice on the issue. Sorry if that disrupts your concept of Slashdot.
The result of this lawsuit is that Novell now holds the intellectual property that SCO claimed has been integrated into Linux. I wonder what it would take for them to use it for something? What makes you believe this? The only time SCO came up with some kind of "proof" to this claim, it was quickly shown that the code example was BSD code, under the BSD license, and completely acceptable to be in Linux. Granted - SCO made a lot of noise since then. They made it in the public media. They made it in court. And at no time did they ever produce anything to back up their claims.
Granted - that this perception exists is probably playing in to someone's strategy. And you can expect people with vested interests in derailing Linux (and Open Source) to try and leverage it... keep that meme going. But that doesn't mean there's any substance to the claim.
Sorry guys, Linux is good no doubt but I am telling you now, it will NEVER compete with Microsoft. I, as a Sysadmin for a Fortune 500 Company, can tell you that no SysAdmin wants to deal with recompiling kernels, writing scripts for hours on end when I can just install Microsoft, lock it down and forget about it.
...
BTW, here is the report on how linux has THREE times as many security holes as Microsoft:
I work for a major US Government organization. We also have a lot of Windows servers. We also have a lot of Unix systems. And as we deploy additional systems, it isn't uncommon for them to be Linux based. We're constantly asking vendors if they have Linux support. Most either do or are working on it.
We can take a Linux system, lock it down, and forget about it just like a Windows system. That is... if we want crappy infrastructure. Both systems require care and feeding. Both require more than a vendor is going to admit.
We have Unix / Linux folks who spend a good amount of time writing scripts and figuring out configurations for everyone else to follow. The same goes for the Windows side. I'm biased - I'm much more impressed with the extent of what we do on the Unix / Linux side of the house. But I am also occasionally surprised and impressed with what knowledgeable Windows admins come up with.
Of course, we also have aspects of our IT environment that are Windows-only who would never even dream of looking at anything that didn't come from Microsoft (or at least have Microsoft approval). But that doesn't mean Linux isn't making headway in our environment. And it doesn't mean that just because you're a Windows shop that others aren't.
By the way... I'd look a little closer at that report you're quoting. It's a much more complex story than those numbers would make it seem. There's the issue of how severe a flaw is. But even more basic is numbers that don't add up and flaws that are double-counted.
More or less. Make your code as free as possible. If you want to share it, why not maximize its sharing potential?
And don't give me the crap about 'well company X will lock it up and make it proprietary with their changes'... who cares! Your contribution is still free. They chose their path, you chose yours. I have complete respect for those who make such gifts. These kinds of things are the building blocks of modern society. Kudos to authors who contribute directly to the public domain and support an important historical resource.
However, such gifts do nothing to promote freedom of any given code base. The concern over code becoming proprietary and locked away is very much a part of the concerns for freedom. If you want to ensure ongoing free access and a level playing field then something akin to the GPL is the direction to go.
Freedom is not accidental. It requires careful consideration and diligent protection to maintain. It is a legacy beyond any simple gift.
In fairness, George Lucas scratching his fully-exposed balls would have been an improvement over the Prequels. It also might have given more sense to the term "Midichlorian". Of course... exactly what this would mean to the terms "pod race" and "Jedi duel" is best left unexplored.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though... it seems to me that this is a core issue. People gain a certain familiarity with a particular system (according to marketshare, that's likely to be Windows) and then feel threatened when confronted with something entirely different.
Years ago, I did desktop support for a large organization. There was a small number of Macs out there... very few of my tech coworkers wanted to deal with them. Myself included. Unfortunately, I would get roped in to it since I was one of the lead techs. So I would find myself reluctantly sitting behind a desktop that I knew nothing about. More often than not it involved me feeling like an idiot... unable to do simple things. The fact that I could make Windows jump through hoops only hindered my ability (and / or willingness) to learn MacOS.
I got in to Linux because of a job opportunity administering a Unix workstation lab. I picked up Linux to get myself familiarized with the Unix way (queue BSD trolls). I expected to feel like an idiot (and wasn't disappointed). But I was highly motivated to learn the new environment. And I discovered that, indeed, Unix (and consequently Linux) was far, far different than Windows... down to a cultural level.
Don't get me wrong - Linux is imperfect. Linux environments can always use some improvement (and this particular effort does seem to be a good improvement - though one I haven't been particularly concerned with myself). Its simply that a lot of computer hobbiests seem to first touch Linux with absolutely no expectation for exactly how different a world it represents.
The first steps to countering these kinds of shennanigans is bringing them to light. Change the rules? Maybe. But definitely make sure everyone understands what is going on first. Let's call a spade a spade.
Microsoft will likely call it as some kind of standards mandate; justification for their work. Denial of their critics. We can sit back and accept that. Or we can let everyone know how Microsoft's interests subverted the process and, perhaps, not everything Microsoft claims is as it seems.
Meanwhile, those who own this process can review how a single interest subverted it and decide if the system is serving their interests or not. I like to think the ISO process is about technical review and standardization for the general good of the industry those they serve. But maybe it's not.
Oh, wait, like this: http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
If you can license code, you can license instructions for humans as well This doesn't seem to be the same thing. A series of instructions for humans tend to be in the form of some published work - a book, pamphlet, eBook, etc. And just like a computer program, such published works fall under copyright. And just like a computer program, you can allow a customer to make their own copies of that work according to whatever license you want.
What's different here is that its not a matter of instructions, but iterations of following those instructions. Where do we limit how many times a set of instructions can be followed? I suppose something along the lines of user seat licensing might be comparable in the IT world. But do we have anything that compares for people?
I can understand the temptation to applying IT rules of so-called IP for humans. But I'm not sure there's any previous precedence that would imply that it is enforceable... or even a generally good idea to try.
You can write a manual on a particular technique and restrict copying of that manual. However, can you stop someone from learning from that manual and then repeating the method ad nauseum... or teaching the method to others... or even using that knowledge to write and publish their own manual?
Hmmm. It could still work.
Don't get me wrong. I believe he's a raving kook. He's irrational and deluded. But you can clearly see the twisted path he follows - from "this is some PHP code to block theives that block your ads", to "don't upset a programmer" (forgetting that he's not the only coder in the mix), to "this is war" and his burnt-earth policy of attacking anything associated with Adblocker in any manner. It's a sad, twisty path.
Whenever a corporation or corporate agent does something morally questionable, there's always apologists claiming it was necessary in order to show due diligence to the profitability of the company and interests of the share holders. I pitty those corporate officers who are unable to form an argument against sleezy behavior for fear of being run on a rail in to court. It must be tough for them. They should be quietly cheering this lawsuit. If successful, it'll make a great argument. When asked to something reprehensible, the cornered agent can note "look at what happened to HP - do we really want to take that kind of risk?" And voila - they're not putting morals above profit... they're being fiduciarily responsible.
Websites put up content that blocks Firefox or content that Firefox cannot render due to plugins etc, it's the crime of the century. How common is this? I've run in to a lot more blocking because I'm not using IE6 than I ever have for using it. It seems to me you're painting a whole community / movement with a broad brush based on observations of a fringe element. Granted - this anti-Firefox guy is likely also a fringe element type (at least for his particular reasoning). But I don't see anyone saying all Adsense-using webmasters are represented by this self-proclaimed expert.
It seems the guy's a big fan of trying to foil Adblock (specifically) and maybe other adblocking systems. He then got annoyed when he found out Adblock was foiling his attempts. Since he's lost on that front, he's decided to open up another one.
Its wrong-headed and ultimately damaging. But I don't see it being all that effective. We've seen this kind of mentality before and its never lead anywhere.
Oh my God... it's full of scams...
Go figure.
Some people care about these details and some don't. The parent apparently thinks there's nothing to learn. I disagree. There might be something really interesting in this case. But even if its just a comedy of errors or highlights issues we've known about for years, there is still value. It serves as a reminder for why we take the additional effort to do things "right."
And so... typical to Slashdot and other public forums... I voice disagreement with the parent poster. It seems we don't have a single voice on the issue. Sorry if that disrupts your concept of Slashdot.
Granted - that this perception exists is probably playing in to someone's strategy. And you can expect people with vested interests in derailing Linux (and Open Source) to try and leverage it... keep that meme going. But that doesn't mean there's any substance to the claim.
I work for a major US Government organization. We also have a lot of Windows servers. We also have a lot of Unix systems. And as we deploy additional systems, it isn't uncommon for them to be Linux based. We're constantly asking vendors if they have Linux support. Most either do or are working on it.BTW, here is the report on how linux has THREE times as many security holes as Microsoft:
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB2005.html
We can take a Linux system, lock it down, and forget about it just like a Windows system. That is... if we want crappy infrastructure. Both systems require care and feeding. Both require more than a vendor is going to admit.
We have Unix / Linux folks who spend a good amount of time writing scripts and figuring out configurations for everyone else to follow. The same goes for the Windows side. I'm biased - I'm much more impressed with the extent of what we do on the Unix / Linux side of the house. But I am also occasionally surprised and impressed with what knowledgeable Windows admins come up with.
Of course, we also have aspects of our IT environment that are Windows-only who would never even dream of looking at anything that didn't come from Microsoft (or at least have Microsoft approval). But that doesn't mean Linux isn't making headway in our environment. And it doesn't mean that just because you're a Windows shop that others aren't.
By the way... I'd look a little closer at that report you're quoting. It's a much more complex story than those numbers would make it seem. There's the issue of how severe a flaw is. But even more basic is numbers that don't add up and flaws that are double-counted.
And don't give me the crap about 'well company X will lock it up and make it proprietary with their changes'
However, such gifts do nothing to promote freedom of any given code base. The concern over code becoming proprietary and locked away is very much a part of the concerns for freedom. If you want to ensure ongoing free access and a level playing field then something akin to the GPL is the direction to go.
Freedom is not accidental. It requires careful consideration and diligent protection to maintain. It is a legacy beyond any simple gift.