It looks like some people still didn't realize one fundamental thing -- everything that works, can fail, at least in some cases. And I am not talking about anti-ICBM missiles.
Once a manager asked me, why my program has abort() in it. The program had to be reliable, however I knew that if some, completely insane condition will happen, it will be more dangerous to keep it running than to kill it, let external script restart it, do whatever data recovery can be done and continue working while leaving core dump to get any idea, how such an "impossible" thing happened. Yet program was long, more than one person worked on it making not always well thought out changes, and in some case that abort() actually was called -- and it was good that it was abort() and not horrible corruption of data that would follow if it tried to continue instead. I could make it a goal of my life to make this program unable to fail, but it would take years of constant work and huge amount of checking of libraries that the program used for possible failure conditions such as buffer overflows. I could make the program hide definitely detected inconsistencies and risk all the data that it will process after such a failure. Instead I have chosen a point where nothing can be done within the program, and it should admit that it screwed up, restart everything and recover whatever is recoverable, minimizing the damage.
Things of the same kind happen in all areas. People at some point die, and no efforts of doctors can keep them alive. Banks can be robbed. Students can be killed at school by two seriously disturbed gunmen in trench coats or any other kind of clothes. Group of terrorists can nuke major cities of US, or any other countries. Some country despite all efforts for the opposite including massive military campaign by US, can refuse to release American prisoners that it holds. You can be hit by meteorite, or Earth can be evaporated in few seconds by some very fast moving large rock that happened not to be orbiting Sun and therefore never seen by astronomers. Combination of radioactive decay events in memory chips can produce exact pattern necessary to launch a nuke at Washington, DC. We may find out that Borg or something very close to it exist, and time travel doesn't.
All those situation, however wildly differs their probability, have one in common -- they can't be prevented, and not much can be done about them. If large part of resources of, say, this country, will be spent on development of immortality, the goal could be achieved -- after all, sufficiently modified organism (centuries of constant, heavily funded uninterrupted research!) can develop some form of at least physical regeneration, and something can be done to enhance brain to make it capable of dealing with changes in the culture over the year of life of such an immortal individual. But the fact that merely none of 6 billions-something people on Earth is happy to die, yet all of them at some point will, does not justify making lifes of those people much more miserable to achieve this goal in foreseeable future.
Banks security can be increased, yet it can reach the point when cost won't justify the benefit, and customers won't use such a bank because security measures will make it hard to use.
The same applies to schools plus since school should be suitable for learning, and disturbed gunmen are less concerned about their lives than robbers, the whole exercise can become pointless much sooner.
The only sure way to prevent terrorists from nuking a modern city is to nuke it before them.
American diplomacy and military power can fail, be abused, sabotaged or place US in the situation when every other country will be against it, and local citizens will be very unhappy, too.
A system capable of defending the Earth from small meteorits better than atmosphere already does, will be probably as big as atmosphere and its development will kill more people than ever was killed by meteorits in the whole history.
Large fast-flying rocks never seen by astronomers theoretically may exist, and no other solution than spreading humans across multiple star systems can make sure that mankind will survive an encounter with such a thing.
Increasing the reliability of military computers is definitely a good thing, however if "what-if"-based development won't stop at some point, such computer will cover all available surface without reaching the goal of being absolutely reliable and absolutely invulnerable, not to mention that life in the country completely covered by military computer's guts will be much worse than after a nuclear war.
And I will rather face the theoretical possibility of being assimilated by a race of baddies with cool spaceships than devote all my and all people of the Earth time to the development of the suitable defense against it, and have no life outside of that.
Why am I giving such a ridiculous examples? After-WWII history of arms race shown that US relied on its possible military superiority reach its political goals, yet consistently the most likely enemies managed to restore balance, including efforts made in pretty hard situation immediately after the war in Russia and despite Russian government not being the most efficient (or democratic, or whatever) thing possible. I see no reason why it won't happen again, except that in this case US not only tries to outdo possible opponents for some time, but tries to prevent thing that can't be prevented by any reasonable or unreasonable effort -- even if it will work, it means switching from missiles to planes, trucks, submarines or even horses and, who knows, even pigeons. Tried to prevent a threat that can't prevented, pissed half of the world off, broken treaties and lost credibility, spent huge amount of resources that desperately are needed locally (ex: education), and accomplished another lap in the race with no change in the score.
Re:Matt's rant on scheduling, was Re:Exchange of i
on
CNN on Sendmail for NT
·
· Score: 1
1. You can replicate IMAP folders, too. 2. You can gate them to NNTP, but then you will lose user-level access control (just like with Exchange).
So, I guess I'm asking, perhaps there is actually a use to all this? You set up a paranoid unpleasant situation, give people the chance to screw each other over, and then as the arbiter (you the government) have psychological control over your subverted citizens.
It works well when government always acts as one force, and people can be easily threatened by minor embarrassing things (USSR, East Germany, etc.). While I don't consider US government as a whole disinterested in such things, running after people with loads of minor dirt looks almost as dumb as asking every presidential candidate questions about marijuana use in his distant past. OTOH, blatant misuse of such information if leaked or received by "co-spying" on unencrypted links (for everything from fraud and theft of trade secrets to "marketing research") is a real threat.
I suppose that one reason that capitalized neologisms might have become popular is that they would be clearly distinguished from ordinary typographical errors when embedded in ordinary speech.
Then it's still something unique. A lot of areas have odd-looking jargon, and none of them did this. There was time in Russian history when fad of making all kinds multiple-words abbreviations was very widespread (and it was kept for a long time in organizations names) yet only normal capitalization (or none) was used with those names. There is one exception -- "GULAG" was always all caps even though only first two of three words were reduced to one letter. Possibly because all related organizations had "normal" acronyms.
IMHO the problem is not that spies exist, or that someone is working on inventing and breaking codes -- those things are unavoidable. Just like there is no problem in the fact that people are trying to make money. Problems starts when the desire to have comfortable life turns into all-destroying passion to get all money and power in the world, obliterating everything that remotely looks like competition in the process (I believe, you know few examples of that) and reasonable concern about enemies' secrets turns into self-perpetuating activity with one goal -- to get all information that may exist, and find out everything it is related to. It becomes not about security -- it approaches logic like this: "we have found that some random guy went to the airport, and now can find all people who went to the airport -- we now must at any cost make it possible to determine why, and become able to do so for every guy who went to the airport. Or into a gun store. Or into any suspiciously-looking meeting".
No goals, no justifications, no restrictions -- just have to do because in theory we can. There are satellites that carry phone converstaions? We must pass everything through our listening stations, or our missions will be considered failed. There are internet backbones? We won't sleep well until we not only would be able to listen to any particular transmission -- we have to make it possible to listen to all transmissions, simultaneously, and with all possible kinds of filtering/searching/recording. (And there are two guys with smoke signals? We don't care if someone will die, but we must have all their messages). There are laws that forbid us from spying on our citizens? Sign agreement with some other spies to bypass those laws.
What for? Why infringe on people's privacy in cases when it's forbidden by law, and is absolutely pointless for national security, except for cases so rare and unusual that it can't possibly justify the damage caused by spying and especially spying-supporting measures, such as crypto restrictions? After all it damages exactly what it is supposed to protect -- society, its laws and economy.
I'm afraid, the answer is the same as in the case of money -- just like Bill Gates has no use for his billions, and keeps his world conquest efforts just to prove himself that he is not a loser (who he absolutely certainly is -- life of maniac is pretty miserable), "spook agencies" have no use for a lot of information, yet collect it to remain busy, and to be proud of being the largest waste of money in the world.
IMHO if they were rational, they would know that some things are worth spying, some aren't, and some shouldn't even though theoretically they can be of some use. No matter how well funded NSA or even FBI, or even ECHELON will be, they will have no chance against suicidal school shooter (ex: Columbine). And some well-developed technology plus a lot of "normal" intelligence activity will give more useful information to the army (like, location of buildings in hostile countries) than millions of hours of randomly recorded conversations, especially considering that ones that are really "interesting" are still very likely unbreakable in the time when they are still useful.
I don't think that they really are listening to everything, so I may be exaggerating things, however the problem is, their goal is to be able to listen to everything all the time, no matter how useless it is.
There is one unusual thing that seems to be limited to their(?) jargon -- abbreviations (but not acronyms) or even complete words written in all caps -- "COMINT", "SIGINT", "COMSEC", "MOONPENNY".
Commercial companies use BiCapitalization with complete words, glued together (lack of creativity, insensitivity to ugliness, treatment of language as a playing field in grab-a-trademark game), government uses acronyms (sounds obscure and important, requires some "inside" knowledge to participate in an argument), but computers geeks language is different. In normal speech only acronyms are capitalized ("TCP/IP", "SMTP"), other kinds of abbreviations are rare and mostly one word (that however may be leaked from a programming language), or abbreviated (or otherwise odd) words in plural, converted to verb, etc.: "sig", "grep", "caps", "sigs", "ifdefs", "to grep". All caps are used in:
Old programming languages. This is more like a side effect of technical problem with terminals that only had caps, than tradition. I remember the use of capitalized words in normal speech ("FORMAT statement", "COMMON block", "FUNCTION statement", "between BEGIN and END"), however no one ever used those outside its meaning as something special, limited to programming language ("format" never was all-caps unless someone meant dreaded FORMAT statement in FORTRAN).
Some operating systems that enforced the use of caps in filenames -- I remember working with RT11 and RSX11M and inventing very odd-looking names for 6-characters and 8-characters filenames. I can understand that someone can come up with "SIGINT.TXT" and the like, however I never seen such things leaking into normal language.
Names of constants and enums (including SIGINT's namesake that is defined as 2). Again, they are confined to the meaning that they have in the language ("program received ENOENT") and never inspired invention of such things outside of it.
The word "STREAMS" (SysV ones). I have no freaking idea, how it was invented, however originally it was not capitalized, then capitalized, and only last version was in all caps. It's not a nice thing anyway.
I am not familiar with military jargon, it may be from there.
Re:Matt's rant on scheduling, was Re:Exchange of i
on
CNN on Sendmail for NT
·
· Score: 1
"Public folders" can be handled by any decent imap server -- say, cyrus. And Outlook can use them.
fhttpd FTP/HTTP server that I wrote has its own interface with php. It allows things like configuring sets of php scripts to run under different userids, make pools of processes that use some limited resources like database connections and some others. php3 is supported as a module, and I am porting the interface to php4, so at the time of php4 release it will be supported as a module, too.
So what ? You will be able to look at ita nd possibly learn (yes.. there are some things that NT does much better than Unix)
Nope. You will be unable to make any software based on anything in that source without giving it back to MS. And you will be under constant threat to be sued for anything if MS will think that it's derived from their source.
So... MS is giving NT Source Code to some Universities? Sounds like a move towards open source, and peer review. And here you are bitching about it! Can't you people decide what you want?
Have you seen, what license comes with that source?
Bill Gates neither likes nor knows computers -- all he has is a lot of money and arrogance, and this is a poor replacement for competence. Microsoft has as much chances of making decent OS as, say, Egypt.
The last thing, Linux needs is a competing system that has a policy of never competing in the technology.
Installing Windows 98 is not easier than Linux unless, of course, you have Windows 98 preinstalled, or bought hardware that does not support Linux.
...(a server that I wrote) should be nice for situation when resources are limited but load is high. There is a webcam module for it, however I still need to add the support for cameras other than parallel Quickcam -- the braindead design of their parallel interface (interrupt pin reused for data) wastes too much processor time on polling.
Seriosly, what you are suggesting is tantamount to hand delivering technology from the US to another nation.
Not everyone who lives in US is an US citizen, and a lot of programmers are not (me, for example), so formally the "technology" or "expertize" doesn't belong to US in the first place.
As for people's fears that some evil company will take BSDL code and proprietarize/commercialize it, and for their assertions that GPL prevents that, bah! If _I_ were an evil software company, I wouldn't *care* whether the code I stole was GPL'ed or QJX'ed or whatever. I would just steal it and meld it with my own code, with only a few trustworthy programmers having to know.
Why will you trust them if they have perfect material to blackmail you?
of course it can, you probably haven't done much java have you, here's one class test { public void main (String argv[]) { Object myObj = null; System.out.println(myObj.toString()); } }
There were other things, too -- such as plain segmentation faults.
Internet stocks rise is a bizzare side effect of perpetuum mobile, successfully(?) built in 1935. Mulder finds the author's granddaughter, she she shows him a glass bulb with something rotating within, and claims that this is the last device, left running for decades. When Scully meets author's granddaughter later, she finds the bulb motionless and has a long conversation with Mulder. Later Mulder finds his LCOS stock in a deep dive that started the day when he seen the device.
Pieces of FreeBSD -CURRENT and Linux odd-numbered kernels show strangely matching patterns of bugs being introduced and fixed in the same subsystem approximately at the same time. FreeBSD developers notice that and accuse Linux in stealing, Linux developers ignore that except having some minor flames at lkml, FreeBSD core team keeps itself out of this. Scully runs analysis of changes in FreeBSD CVS vs. Linux kernel patches (and makes some derogatory comments to Linux way of keeping the history). Mulder talks with jkh (in person) Linus (by email), Eric Allman and Paul Vixie (in person, both at the same time) and Theo de Raadt (also in person, Mulder meets him at some gloomy and desolate place). None of them make things any more clear than what we already know from them about bugs, however Paul Vixie suggests that bugs are obscure, and really anything can influence people to write them. Mulder talks to Scully, and she tries to match the moments of all kinds of significant events with moments when buggy code was written and fixed. Large amount of "events" fall into short timeframe after things like earthquakes, US military operations, mass shootings and other events, widely covered in the media, intensive flamewars in linux or freebsd mailing lists (however the effect is visible on both systems even if flamewar was limited to one list), and Jon Katz articles. However Scully fails to make any sense of relationship between subsystem affected and a kind of event -- say, TCP bugs to particular military operations, SMP cleanup to school shooting, drivers to media-related Katz articles, etc. Mulder suggests that it takes a non-human intelligence to understand the relation.
Sit down and think about it. The reality is that we have software patents and I believe we should at least support those companies who allow open sourced implementation of their patents so that the free world can benefit from them.
This "reality" exists only in US and maybe few other countries. Much more healthy environment can be achieved if we ju all move to Europe and create enough political noistse to prevent the adoption of software patents there -- after all it's Americans who are so fond of replying "if you don't like what our government does, move somewhere else" to any kind of criticism.
Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation.
Really? What percentage among those servers (ones that are visible from "the outside") runs on Windows? 0.1%? 0.01%? What percentage of them are even administered by people who have Apache for Windows elsewhere?
The only thing, Windows port of Apache did, was slowing down the development of Apache and its modules -- look at Apache or mod_perl source and count #ifdef'ed Windows-isms and various hacks made to deal with them. The same applies to almost eveyt other unix-project-ported-to-Windows.
My fhttpd with combination of MySQL and PHP can be considered, too -- it allows some configuration options and optimizations that Apache doesn't provide -- you can limit the number of connections to database, use separate userids for sets of scripts, etc. If you want even more performance, program in C or C++ can be written as its module, and the API is much easier to use than one of Apache.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like some people still didn't realize one fundamental thing -- everything that works, can fail, at least in some cases. And I am not talking about anti-ICBM missiles.
Once a manager asked me, why my program has abort() in it. The program had to be reliable, however I knew that if some, completely insane condition will happen, it will be more dangerous to keep it running than to kill it, let external script restart it, do whatever data recovery can be done and continue working while leaving core dump to get any idea, how such an "impossible" thing happened. Yet program was long, more than one person worked on it making not always well thought out changes, and in some case that abort() actually was called -- and it was good that it was abort() and not horrible corruption of data that would follow if it tried to continue instead. I could make it a goal of my life to make this program unable to fail, but it would take years of constant work and huge amount of checking of libraries that the program used for possible failure conditions such as buffer overflows. I could make the program hide definitely detected inconsistencies and risk all the data that it will process after such a failure. Instead I have chosen a point where nothing can be done within the program, and it should admit that it screwed up, restart everything and recover whatever is recoverable, minimizing the damage.
Things of the same kind happen in all areas. People at some point die, and no efforts of doctors can keep them alive. Banks can be robbed. Students can be killed at school by two seriously disturbed gunmen in trench coats or any other kind of clothes. Group of terrorists can nuke major cities of US, or any other countries. Some country despite all efforts for the opposite including massive military campaign by US, can refuse to release American prisoners that it holds. You can be hit by meteorite, or Earth can be evaporated in few seconds by some very fast moving large rock that happened not to be orbiting Sun and therefore never seen by astronomers. Combination of radioactive decay events in memory chips can produce exact pattern necessary to launch a nuke at Washington, DC. We may find out that Borg or something very close to it exist, and time travel doesn't.
All those situation, however wildly differs their probability, have one in common -- they can't be prevented, and not much can be done about them. If large part of resources of, say, this country, will be spent on development of immortality, the goal could be achieved -- after all, sufficiently modified organism (centuries of constant, heavily funded uninterrupted research!) can develop some form of at least physical regeneration, and something can be done to enhance brain to make it capable of dealing with changes in the culture over the year of life of such an immortal individual. But the fact that merely none of 6 billions-something people on Earth is happy to die, yet all of them at some point will, does not justify making lifes of those people much more miserable to achieve this goal in foreseeable future.
Banks security can be increased, yet it can reach the point when cost won't justify the benefit, and customers won't use such a bank because security measures will make it hard to use.
The same applies to schools plus since school should be suitable for learning, and disturbed gunmen are less concerned about their lives than robbers, the whole exercise can become pointless much sooner.
The only sure way to prevent terrorists from nuking a modern city is to nuke it before them.
American diplomacy and military power can fail, be abused, sabotaged or place US in the situation when every other country will be against it, and local citizens will be very unhappy, too.
A system capable of defending the Earth from small meteorits better than atmosphere already does, will be probably as big as atmosphere and its development will kill more people than ever was killed by meteorits in the whole history.
Large fast-flying rocks never seen by astronomers theoretically may exist, and no other solution than spreading humans across multiple star systems can make sure that mankind will survive an encounter with such a thing.
Increasing the reliability of military computers is definitely a good thing, however if "what-if"-based development won't stop at some point, such computer will cover all available surface without reaching the goal of being absolutely reliable and absolutely invulnerable, not to mention that life in the country completely covered by military computer's guts will be much worse than after a nuclear war.
And I will rather face the theoretical possibility of being assimilated by a race of baddies with cool spaceships than devote all my and all people of the Earth time to the development of the suitable defense against it, and have no life outside of that.
Why am I giving such a ridiculous examples? After-WWII history of arms race shown that US relied on its possible military superiority reach its political goals, yet consistently the most likely enemies managed to restore balance, including efforts made in pretty hard situation immediately after the war in Russia and despite Russian government not being the most efficient (or democratic, or whatever) thing possible. I see no reason why it won't happen again, except that in this case US not only tries to outdo possible opponents for some time, but tries to prevent thing that can't be prevented by any reasonable or unreasonable effort -- even if it will work, it means switching from missiles to planes, trucks, submarines or even horses and, who knows, even pigeons. Tried to prevent a threat that can't prevented, pissed half of the world off, broken treaties and lost credibility, spent huge amount of resources that desperately are needed locally (ex: education), and accomplished another lap in the race with no change in the score.
1. You can replicate IMAP folders, too.
2. You can gate them to NNTP, but then you will lose user-level access control (just like with Exchange).
So, I guess I'm asking, perhaps there is actually a use to all this? You set up a paranoid unpleasant situation, give people the chance to screw each other over, and then as the arbiter (you the government) have psychological control over your subverted citizens.
It works well when government always acts as one force, and people can be easily threatened by minor embarrassing things (USSR, East Germany, etc.). While I don't consider US government as a whole disinterested in such things, running after people with loads of minor dirt looks almost as dumb as asking every presidential candidate questions about marijuana use in his distant past. OTOH, blatant misuse of such information if leaked or received by "co-spying" on unencrypted links (for everything from fraud and theft of trade secrets to "marketing research") is a real threat.
I suppose that one reason that capitalized neologisms might have become popular is that they would be clearly distinguished from ordinary typographical errors when embedded in ordinary speech.
Then it's still something unique. A lot of areas have odd-looking jargon, and none of them did this. There was time in Russian history when fad of making all kinds multiple-words abbreviations was very widespread (and it was kept for a long time in organizations names) yet only normal capitalization (or none) was used with those names. There is one exception -- "GULAG" was always all caps even though only first two of three words were reduced to one letter. Possibly because all related organizations had "normal" acronyms.
IMHO the problem is not that spies exist, or that someone is working on inventing and breaking codes -- those things are unavoidable. Just like there is no problem in the fact that people are trying to make money. Problems starts when the desire to have comfortable life turns into all-destroying passion to get all money and power in the world, obliterating everything that remotely looks like competition in the process (I believe, you know few examples of that) and reasonable concern about enemies' secrets turns into self-perpetuating activity with one goal -- to get all information that may exist, and find out everything it is related to. It becomes not about security -- it approaches logic like this: "we have found that some random guy went to the airport, and now can find all people who went to the airport -- we now must at any cost make it possible to determine why, and become able to do so for every guy who went to the airport. Or into a gun store. Or into any suspiciously-looking meeting".
No goals, no justifications, no restrictions -- just have to do because in theory we can. There are satellites that carry phone converstaions? We must pass everything through our listening stations, or our missions will be considered failed. There are internet backbones? We won't sleep well until we not only would be able to listen to any particular transmission -- we have to make it possible to listen to all transmissions, simultaneously, and with all possible kinds of filtering/searching/recording. (And there are two guys with smoke signals? We don't care if someone will die, but we must have all their messages). There are laws that forbid us from spying on our citizens? Sign agreement with some other spies to bypass those laws.
What for? Why infringe on people's privacy in cases when it's forbidden by law, and is absolutely pointless for national security, except for cases so rare and unusual that it can't possibly justify the damage caused by spying and especially spying-supporting measures, such as crypto restrictions? After all it damages exactly what it is supposed to protect -- society, its laws and economy.
I'm afraid, the answer is the same as in the case of money -- just like Bill Gates has no use for his billions, and keeps his world conquest efforts just to prove himself that he is not a loser (who he absolutely certainly is -- life of maniac is pretty miserable), "spook agencies" have no use for a lot of information, yet collect it to remain busy, and to be proud of being the largest waste of money in the world.
IMHO if they were rational, they would know that some things are worth spying, some aren't, and some shouldn't even though theoretically they can be of some use. No matter how well funded NSA or even FBI, or even ECHELON will be, they will have no chance against suicidal school shooter (ex: Columbine). And some well-developed technology plus a lot of "normal" intelligence activity will give more useful information to the army (like, location of buildings in hostile countries) than millions of hours of randomly recorded conversations, especially considering that ones that are really "interesting" are still very likely unbreakable in the time when they are still useful.
I don't think that they really are listening to everything, so I may be exaggerating things, however the problem is, their goal is to be able to listen to everything all the time, no matter how useless it is.
There is one unusual thing that seems to be limited to their(?) jargon -- abbreviations (but not acronyms) or even complete words written in all caps -- "COMINT", "SIGINT", "COMSEC", "MOONPENNY".
Commercial companies use BiCapitalization with complete words, glued together (lack of creativity, insensitivity to ugliness, treatment of language as a playing field in grab-a-trademark game), government uses acronyms (sounds obscure and important, requires some "inside" knowledge to participate in an argument), but computers geeks language is different. In normal speech only acronyms are capitalized ("TCP/IP", "SMTP"), other kinds of abbreviations are rare and mostly one word (that however may be leaked from a programming language), or abbreviated (or otherwise odd) words in plural, converted to verb, etc.: "sig", "grep", "caps", "sigs", "ifdefs", "to grep". All caps are used in:
I am not familiar with military jargon, it may be from there.
"Public folders" can be handled by any decent imap server -- say, cyrus. And Outlook can use them.
fhttpd FTP/HTTP server that I wrote has its own interface with php. It allows things like configuring sets of php scripts to run under different userids, make pools of processes that use some limited resources like database connections and some others. php3 is supported as a module, and I am porting the interface to php4, so at the time of php4 release it will be supported as a module, too.
The databases, you are talking about, are not available to the public -- they are secret and therefore have completely different kind of protection.
I have yet to see any compelling applications runnning under Unix w/ X
Because the best Unix application don't need X.
So what ? You will be able to look at ita nd possibly learn (yes .. there are some things that NT does much better than Unix)
Nope. You will be unable to make any software based on anything in that source without giving it back to MS. And you will be under constant threat to be sued for anything if MS will think that it's derived from their source.
So... MS is giving NT Source Code to some Universities? Sounds like a move towards open source, and peer review. And here you are bitching about it! Can't you people decide what you want?
Have you seen, what license comes with that source?
...is here: http://phobos.illtel.denv er.co.us/~abelits/apartment.php3.
blah, that solotrek one looks like one of the characters from quake2 (you know the one with the two spinning fans raised slightly above his head)
Icarus.
...(a server that I wrote) should be nice for situation when resources are limited but load is high. There is a webcam module for it, however I still need to add the support for cameras other than parallel Quickcam -- the braindead design of their parallel interface (interrupt pin reused for data) wastes too much processor time on polling.
Because ElGammal isn't an IETF specified algorithm for DNSSEC. ISC tries to conform to the RFCs as much as possible.
Specs can be changed. All it takes is publication of draft and going through usual process until it becomes RFC.
What's wrong with rich white men? Which part offends you? The rich part or the white part?
The "few" part.
Seriosly, what you are suggesting is tantamount to hand delivering technology from the US to another nation.
Not everyone who lives in US is an US citizen, and a lot of programmers are not (me, for example), so formally the "technology" or "expertize" doesn't belong to US in the first place.
As for people's fears that some evil company will take BSDL code and proprietarize/commercialize it, and for their assertions that GPL prevents that, bah! If _I_ were an evil software company, I wouldn't *care* whether the code I stole was GPL'ed or QJX'ed or whatever. I would just steal it and meld it with my own code, with only a few trustworthy programmers having to know.
Why will you trust them if they have perfect material to blackmail you?
of course it can, you probably haven't done much java have you, here's one class test { public void main (String argv[]) { Object myObj = null; System.out.println(myObj.toString()); } }
There were other things, too -- such as plain segmentation faults.
Sit down and think about it. The reality is that we have software patents and I believe we should at least support those companies who allow open sourced implementation of their patents so that the free world can benefit from them.
This "reality" exists only in US and maybe few other countries. Much more healthy environment can be achieved if we ju all move to Europe and create enough political noistse to prevent the adoption of software patents there -- after all it's Americans who are so fond of replying "if you don't like what our government does, move somewhere else" to any kind of criticism.
Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation.
Really? What percentage among those servers (ones that are visible from "the outside") runs on Windows? 0.1%? 0.01%? What percentage of them are even administered by people who have Apache for Windows elsewhere?
The only thing, Windows port of Apache did, was slowing down the development of Apache and its modules -- look at Apache or mod_perl source and count #ifdef'ed Windows-isms and various hacks made to deal with them. The same applies to almost eveyt other unix-project-ported-to-Windows.
My fhttpd with combination of MySQL and PHP can be considered, too -- it allows some configuration options and optimizations that Apache doesn't provide -- you can limit the number of connections to database, use separate userids for sets of scripts, etc. If you want even more performance, program in C or C++ can be written as its module, and the API is much easier to use than one of Apache.