To add more fuel to the "its only an engineering sample", check out the date on the processor itself.
Imagine, with nearly two years of time to improve on this piece of silicon just what is in store for the Clawhammer. Personally, i'm waiting for it so I can finally upgrade my Athlon 600.
While its not really kosher to bash an OS because of a single flaw, there is a fundamental difference in the case of this flaw and the previously announced IIS exploit: this one's not yet exploited. One thing that hurts FS/OSS on bug lists is that all *potential* exploits in open code will be listed as bugs, while many proprietary producst only disclose known, possibly exploited, bugs. Case in point, the IIS problem was exploited almost a week ago. The kernel problem was noticed, fixed, and no exploit exists. In fact, a previous poster on this board has posted his inability to trigger the *potential* exploit and asked for help.
I used WP 5.2-8 and always found them much more intuitive and useful than the equivalent MS Word products (6-97). The thing that was especially useful for me was the way that later versions of WP kept file compatability with older versions, something Word eschewed to grab more upgrades. I couldn't easily work on Word 95 at home and Word 97/2000 at school.
I think its a testament to WordPerfects former glory that I *still* see photocopies of the old keyboard commands on secretary's computers. Sigh. I miss my lil' ol' WP 5.2.
I cannot remember the name of the project, but two years ago a Chinese group published a paper where they used a Xilinx fpga on a custom circuit plugged into a pc SDRAM slot. The idea was to limit the communication bottlenecks of other pc busses and also to present a simple way to communicate with the fpga. All in/output to/from the fpga was done with simple mmap() routines. Their test application was a DES code breaker that could run as fast as the the memory subsystem could take it. Exciting stuff. And it has to be said: I wish I had a Beowulf cluster with these.
Its also important to realize that the methods being used to enforce the GPL in the kernel have been developed completely in the open. If binary-only module developers are having problems with this, have they spoken out, have they said anything, does this really affect them much? I've not seen much of a discussion of this on Kernel Traffic, except that the Linux kernel developers don't feel its their business to make concessions for binary-only modules.
As for arrogance, they're enforcing the license on their product. Microsoft would do the same for their products if your code massages their code without abiding by their license.
BTW, this sounds like an idea for Ask Slashdot. Get someone developing the Linux/BSD drivers from nVidia to answer questions about this and find out if it really is a problem, or if/. readers are just gettting huffy for no real reason.
Sorry, slip of the mind. However, a pretty interesting point. If you do not wish to abide by the GPL of software you modify then you cannot distribute your software to others. You can still use your non-compliant code.
I think the position the kernel developers are in is determining exactly what is a derivative work. In any other GPL piece of code, if you muddle with the inner workings of the code, then your code is a derivative work and must also be GPL if you release it. Well, according to this article, most modules fiddle with the inner workings of the kernel in a very intimate way. The logic follows that such code is a derivative work (i.e. it has to use kernel code to do such things) and must be GPL, which binary-only modules violate. This isn't about doing away with binary-only modules, its about clarifying the Linux kernel's license and enforcing it. Binary-only modules can still run, they are just restricted in what interfaces they can use to communicate with the kernel instead of being on intimate terms with GPL modules. Sounds fair. Furthermore, its the *legal* thing to do.
As other posters have already specified, you can distribute your own kernel or patch that doesn't enforce the GPL license, but in doing so you may indeed be violating the GPL yourself. Remember, the GPL is like any other license, you must abide by it or lose the privelidge of using the software.
Also, this does not break userspace (i.e. proprietary and binary-only applications), unless such software is dependent on a binary-only module.
I, for one, am curious to see how those people who really want to distribute binary modules will react. I think many have a market in Linux systems and will continue to provide their code. However, they may be well-served to develop a GPL module that provides very consistent interfaces for binary-only modules. The kernel developers don't want to do this, but if developers of binary-only modules develop it and apply it, well that's their business.
I know a really good way to use automount. Use it to auto mount your NFS shared partitions. Albeit, on a safe network. I've done this with clusters and it solves all the nastiness of a NFS-sharing server going away. The especially nice thing is if you try to access a missing NFS share the usual way, the NFS client stops after a set number of tries. With automounting on the client will try those times, then try later withouth totally dying or losing the connection until an admin comes around and does it by hand. A very useful trick.
Okay, I'm in the area with the sniper, so the fear here is no joke. Countstrike (yeah, I've played it a few times, fun game) cannot teach you how to shoot a gun. Clicking a mouse on a two dimensional character is not the same as pulling a trigger on a living, breathing being. However, Counterstrike and its ilk may be able to teach a few things outside of this. For instance, most people, when learning to fire at a target, do so in the presence of many other shooters. They all fire at once, as a group response. However, learning not to fire at the same time as anyone else (in the sniper's case, also to only fire once) is a more difficult skill. Secondly, there was a great article in the Washington Post last Saturday by a columnist who participates in sport sniping and sport fire arms competitions. His verdict, the sniper has a minimum of skill (clear view of still targets on windless days, shooting from a range in which he does not have to worry about bullet dropping or rotation of Earth), uses a caliber of weapon noone but a person training might use because its cheap to shoot, and he at least knows how to steady himself and probably knows rudimentary breathing exercises. Also, the criminal makeup of most serial killers is white male between 20 and 30 years of age with a touch of schizofrenia (spelling?). Of course, the sicker person is whoever is driving the van!
I've used ssh to rid myself of things like "su -l" and "sudo" before. I think the basic idea can be used to get rid of necessary suid/sgid programs with elevated permissions. The basic theory is each application is actually called by a wrapper using ssh. Public keys from the application's user or group (root, apache, wheel, etc.) are provided to a user with genuine need to access these apps and placed in the ~/.ssh/authorized_keys(2) file. Then the user's public key is provided to the application user's ~/.ssh/authorized_keys(2) file. When the user calls the application, they are allowed access using RSA key authentication. No need for blind SUID/SGUID apps as only those users who need to use it have the permission. Furthermore, these permissions can be easily revoked by a.)changing the app's private/public keypair without providing them to the user, or b) commenting/deleting the user from the authorized file. Additionally, with ssh-agent, keychain, and authorization forwarding, these priveledges can be locked down tight. I'm not sure if openssh authorization forwarding will allow the authorization to be okayed from a remote machine. Just a random thought that seems appropriate here. Let me know what you think.
--Wes
There has been a very long discussion on the comp.lang.fortran groups about a very similar question. Many people there can help you decide what your particular problem warrants as they use most of the languages described in the various comments here.
Quick link to this particular thread is below:
discussion at groups.google.com
--OoSync
Bravo, I applaud you. I'm forwarding your comments to the author of the editorial (I'm a GBLUG member). I believe you are quite right and these are the directions GBLUG is working towards. It cannot be stressed enough that people only like technology (Windows, Linux, VCRs, cameras, cars, etc.) when they are useful to them, at least more so than the lack of the technology. I don't own a car because its not useful to me, but I run Linux on my desktop because it has proven itself to be the most useful to me. Our goal in GBLUG is to demonstrate that Linux *IS* very useful for a broader range of people and to help them in finding out if it is true for themselves. Also, we want to make it fun.
There are a few web comics experimenting with voluntary micro donations: i.e. paying whatever you feel appropriate when you feel the site deserves it. The site I'm most familiar with is Penny Arcade http://www.penny-arcade.com (mind the hyphen, its important). They have a status bar at the bottom of the page and give a free hi-res wallpaper to those who donate. You could email Tycho and Gabe to find out how their system is working. With.5 million viewers, many of whom will honorably donate, keeping the site more free from the larger ads.
I also like the idea of a subscription system for OSDN, so that I can avoid ads in all OSDN sites. Of course, the economics and technology consideration may outweigh this possibility.
As has been iterated before (but never enough), I really like/. and I hope you guys have much continuing success. I'm hooked and I'll pay if necessary. Keep up the good work.
--Outta' Sync
Morality, the Ending, and David.
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 3
[ sorry, plot spoilers discussed ]
Hello all, I rarely find myself necessitating a response to slashdot posts, but the shear number of mass attacks against the ending of this film truly disturbs me. Now, everyone has the priveledge to share and opinion, but I've seen far fewer true opinions and more intintual herd-whinings about the non-Kubrickness of the ending and how sap-happy it seems. Well, let's just think about it for a moment. For the moralists who claim the ending gives no resolution to the human moral issues of the film I say you are wrong. The opening arguement of the film is "what responsibility does a human have to a loving, emotionally-unique robot" (pardon my paraphrasing). However, beyond giving resolution and meaning to the desires of David's life, the ending and the temporary resurrection of the Mom answers this question, at least in part if not ultimately. The mother truly loves David, giving the answer to the philosophical moral issue of the film: David is every bit a human child, so the human Mother must owe him the same responsibility as she does her own flesh-born child. This is what the ending does, reveals and allowd humanity to be redeemed, or at least not damned as unempathetic and purely nihilistic. If the filmed ends with David's forlorn please to be a real boy then the revelation of the film is a nihilistic and meaningless moral destiny for humankind. My feelings and beliefs aside (damn, I'm even dicussing morality, me of all people), it is a much less powerful and meaningful ending to just damn humanity to unfettered distruction and emotional isolation from each other. One of the central issues of the film, especially when it involves the son, is that the family and humanity cannot and will not accept David as the human he so well desires to be. This smacks of Asimov's Bicentennial Man, Card's Piggies, Heinlein's Mycroft Holmes, and countless other varlese who know they are ramen. In fact, the evolutionanry path forged by David's emotional capacity is evident in the mere presence of the future machines. They are uncovering a past that enthralls them because they have lost its memory. They are resurrecting the memories and legacies of their creators, and they KNOW this. That they do not discard David as just another inferior relic of the ancient past, as is the case in so much technology-based fiction, they actually are quite impressed with this little boy robot, who "knew actual, living people". They seek to cater to his desires and wishes because he is their link to a forgotten past. By humoring David, they find a form of carthartic relief in reliving and seeing the forms of their past open up. Its the legacy of humanity passed on to our silicon offspring. I think the ending has its usefulness and demonstrates a much more profound and necessary conclusion to this story than the senseless waste of a human life, David. Of course, I think of David as a fellow human, albeit of different origin and design. So, is the ending perfect or the only possibility? No, but it is possibly much more insightful and meaningful than 99.9% of my peers are giving it credit. Think about it for a while. Let it eat you up inside a little. I mean, what have you got to lose in learning to be emotional about a fictional boy robot-come-human?
Resources for kids in these situations.
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 1
Hello, this is my first post as a new/. user (long-time reader). I would like to ask if there is any online resource for Sean and his countless peers to vent their anger and frustration? I remember being a nerd/geek/uncool/outcast student in highschool. That is only four short years in my past, but it still stings.
Sean, you are most definitely reading these posts. The most creative thing you can now do is to use your skills to help reach out to kids caught in similar situations. In school they tell us to be strong; they tell us that "snapping" is a weakness. In reality, it is not that easy. You know this.
Unfortunately, the few kids that harm others when they cannot handle the pressure are causing the pressure to build even more as school administrators and parents force the kids to take even more drastic measures to "fit in". Well, how do we help. Yes, we, the/. loving, technology enabled, brainiacs of the world. Is there a/. style forum for these kids so they can vent and maybe form online peer-help groups. I think this is something we, as/. readers, philanthropists, techo-geeks, and parents can do to help these kids. If not us, then who.
Unfortuately, I'm computer-savvy, but I don't have the skills to accomplish this task. If someone does, please contact me. I want this to be available if it is not already. Sean, your plight (though admittedly one-sidedly reported, but heartfelt nonetheless) is felt by many. Stay strong, you'll need it.
Slashdot Mirror
To add more fuel to the "its only an engineering sample", check out the date on the
processor itself.
Imagine, with nearly two years of time to improve on this piece of silicon just what is in store for the Clawhammer. Personally, i'm waiting for it so I can finally upgrade my Athlon 600.
While its not really kosher to bash an OS because of a single flaw, there is a fundamental difference in the case of this flaw and the previously announced IIS exploit: this one's not yet exploited. One thing that hurts FS/OSS on bug lists is that all *potential* exploits in open code will be listed as bugs, while many proprietary producst only disclose known, possibly exploited, bugs. Case in point, the IIS problem was exploited almost a week ago. The kernel problem was noticed, fixed, and no exploit exists. In fact, a previous poster on this board has posted his inability to trigger the *potential* exploit and asked for help.
I used WP 5.2-8 and always found them much more intuitive and useful than the equivalent MS Word products (6-97). The thing that was especially useful for me was the way that later versions of WP kept file compatability with older versions, something Word eschewed to grab more upgrades. I couldn't easily work on Word 95 at home and Word 97/2000 at school.
I think its a testament to WordPerfects former glory that I *still* see photocopies of the old keyboard commands on secretary's computers. Sigh. I miss my lil' ol' WP 5.2.
Well, everyone remember that he'll have another chance at the next Oscars for Return of the King.
I cannot remember the name of the project, but two years ago a Chinese group published a paper where they used a Xilinx fpga on a custom circuit plugged into a pc SDRAM slot. The idea was to limit the communication bottlenecks of other pc busses and also to present a simple way to communicate with the fpga. All in/output to/from the fpga was done with simple mmap() routines. Their test application was a DES code breaker that could run as fast as the the memory subsystem could take it. Exciting stuff. And it has to be said: I wish I had a Beowulf cluster with these.
Its also important to realize that the methods being used to enforce the GPL in the kernel have been developed completely in the open. If binary-only module developers are having problems with this, have they spoken out, have they said anything, does this really affect them much? I've not seen much of a discussion of this on Kernel Traffic, except that the Linux kernel developers don't feel its their business to make concessions for binary-only modules.
/. readers are just gettting huffy for no real reason.
As for arrogance, they're enforcing the license on their product. Microsoft would do the same for their products if your code massages their code without abiding by their license.
BTW, this sounds like an idea for Ask Slashdot. Get someone developing the Linux/BSD drivers from nVidia to answer questions about this and find out if it really is a problem, or if
Sorry, slip of the mind. However, a pretty interesting point. If you do not wish to abide by the GPL of software you modify then you cannot distribute your software to others. You can still use your non-compliant code.
As other posters have already specified, you can distribute your own kernel or patch that doesn't enforce the GPL license, but in doing so you may indeed be violating the GPL yourself. Remember, the GPL is like any other license, you must abide by it or lose the privelidge of using the software.
Also, this does not break userspace (i.e. proprietary and binary-only applications), unless such software is dependent on a binary-only module.
I, for one, am curious to see how those people who really want to distribute binary modules will react. I think many have a market in Linux systems and will continue to provide their code. However, they may be well-served to develop a GPL module that provides very consistent interfaces for binary-only modules. The kernel developers don't want to do this, but if developers of binary-only modules develop it and apply it, well that's their business.
$4e10/(200e6 avg. # taxpayers)/(19 years)/(365 days a year) ~= $0.03 per taxpayer per day.
The entire Apollo moon program was carried out for a nickle a day per US citizen.
Hello,
I know a really good way to use automount. Use it to auto mount your NFS shared partitions. Albeit, on a safe network. I've done this with clusters and it solves all the nastiness of a NFS-sharing server going away. The especially nice thing is if you try to access a missing NFS share the usual way, the NFS client stops after a set number of tries. With automounting on the client will try those times, then try later withouth totally dying or losing the connection until an admin comes around and does it by hand. A very useful trick.
I forget exactly what cluster fark caused this one. Its Linux kernel error message, works even for root:
You do not exist. Go away!
Okay, I'm in the area with the sniper, so the fear here is no joke. Countstrike (yeah, I've played it a few times, fun game) cannot teach you how to shoot a gun. Clicking a mouse on a two dimensional character is not the same as pulling a trigger on a living, breathing being. However, Counterstrike and its ilk may be able to teach a few things outside of this. For instance, most people, when learning to fire at a target, do so in the presence of many other shooters. They all fire at once, as a group response. However, learning not to fire at the same time as anyone else (in the sniper's case, also to only fire once) is a more difficult skill. Secondly, there was a great article in the Washington Post last Saturday by a columnist who participates in sport sniping and sport fire arms competitions. His verdict, the sniper has a minimum of skill (clear view of still targets on windless days, shooting from a range in which he does not have to worry about bullet dropping or rotation of Earth), uses a caliber of weapon noone but a person training might use because its cheap to shoot, and he at least knows how to steady himself and probably knows rudimentary breathing exercises. Also, the criminal makeup of most serial killers is white male between 20 and 30 years of age with a touch of schizofrenia (spelling?). Of course, the sicker person is whoever is driving the van!
I've used ssh to rid myself of things like "su -l" and "sudo" before. I think the basic idea can be used to get rid of necessary suid/sgid programs with elevated permissions. The basic theory is each application is actually called by a wrapper using ssh. Public keys from the application's user or group (root, apache, wheel, etc.) are provided to a user with genuine need to access these apps and placed in the ~/.ssh/authorized_keys(2) file. Then the user's public key is provided to the application user's ~/.ssh/authorized_keys(2) file. When the user calls the application, they are allowed access using RSA key authentication. No need for blind SUID/SGUID apps as only those users who need to use it have the permission. Furthermore, these permissions can be easily revoked by a.)changing the app's private/public keypair without providing them to the user, or b) commenting/deleting the user from the authorized file. Additionally, with ssh-agent, keychain, and authorization forwarding, these priveledges can be locked down tight. I'm not sure if openssh authorization forwarding will allow the authorization to be okayed from a remote machine. Just a random thought that seems appropriate here. Let me know what you think.
--Wes
There has been a very long discussion on the comp.lang.fortran groups about a very similar question. Many people there can help you decide what your particular problem warrants as they use most of the languages described in the various comments here. Quick link to this particular thread is below: discussion at groups.google.com --OoSync
Jim in Tokyo,
Bravo, I applaud you. I'm forwarding your comments to the author of the editorial (I'm a GBLUG member). I believe you are quite right and these are the directions GBLUG is working towards. It cannot be stressed enough that people only like technology (Windows, Linux, VCRs, cameras, cars, etc.) when they are useful to them, at least more so than the lack of the technology. I don't own a car because its not useful to me, but I run Linux on my desktop because it has proven itself to be the most useful to me. Our goal in GBLUG is to demonstrate that Linux *IS* very useful for a broader range of people and to help them in finding out if it is true for themselves. Also, we want to make it fun.
Thank you!
I also like the idea of a subscription system for OSDN, so that I can avoid ads in all OSDN sites. Of course, the economics and technology consideration may outweigh this possibility.
As has been iterated before (but never enough), I really like
--Outta' Sync
[ sorry, plot spoilers discussed ]
Hello all, I rarely find myself necessitating a response to slashdot posts, but the shear number of mass attacks against the ending of this film truly disturbs me. Now, everyone has the priveledge to share and opinion, but I've seen far fewer true opinions and more intintual herd-whinings about the non-Kubrickness of the ending and how sap-happy it seems. Well, let's just think about it for a moment. For the moralists who claim the ending gives no resolution to the human moral issues of the film I say you are wrong. The opening arguement of the film is "what responsibility does a human have to a loving, emotionally-unique robot" (pardon my paraphrasing). However, beyond giving resolution and meaning to the desires of David's life, the ending and the temporary resurrection of the Mom answers this question, at least in part if not ultimately. The mother truly loves David, giving the answer to the philosophical moral issue of the film: David is every bit a human child, so the human Mother must owe him the same responsibility as she does her own flesh-born child. This is what the ending does, reveals and allowd humanity to be redeemed, or at least not damned as unempathetic and purely nihilistic. If the filmed ends with David's forlorn please to be a real boy then the revelation of the film is a nihilistic and meaningless moral destiny for humankind. My feelings and beliefs aside (damn, I'm even dicussing morality, me of all people), it is a much less powerful and meaningful ending to just damn humanity to unfettered distruction and emotional isolation from each other. One of the central issues of the film, especially when it involves the son, is that the family and humanity cannot and will not accept David as the human he so well desires to be. This smacks of Asimov's Bicentennial Man, Card's Piggies, Heinlein's Mycroft Holmes, and countless other varlese who know they are ramen. In fact, the evolutionanry path forged by David's emotional capacity is evident in the mere presence of the future machines. They are uncovering a past that enthralls them because they have lost its memory. They are resurrecting the memories and legacies of their creators, and they KNOW this. That they do not discard David as just another inferior relic of the ancient past, as is the case in so much technology-based fiction, they actually are quite impressed with this little boy robot, who "knew actual, living people". They seek to cater to his desires and wishes because he is their link to a forgotten past. By humoring David, they find a form of carthartic relief in reliving and seeing the forms of their past open up. Its the legacy of humanity passed on to our silicon offspring. I think the ending has its usefulness and demonstrates a much more profound and necessary conclusion to this story than the senseless waste of a human life, David. Of course, I think of David as a fellow human, albeit of different origin and design. So, is the ending perfect or the only possibility? No, but it is possibly much more insightful and meaningful than 99.9% of my peers are giving it credit. Think about it for a while. Let it eat you up inside a little. I mean, what have you got to lose in learning to be emotional about a fictional boy robot-come-human?
Sean, you are most definitely reading these posts. The most creative thing you can now do is to use your skills to help reach out to kids caught in similar situations. In school they tell us to be strong; they tell us that "snapping" is a weakness. In reality, it is not that easy. You know this.
Unfortunately, the few kids that harm others when they cannot handle the pressure are causing the pressure to build even more as school administrators and parents force the kids to take even more drastic measures to "fit in". Well, how do we help. Yes, we, the /. loving, technology enabled, brainiacs of the world. Is there a /. style forum for these kids so they can vent and maybe form online peer-help groups. I think this is something we, as /. readers, philanthropists, techo-geeks, and parents can do to help these kids. If not us, then who.
Unfortuately, I'm computer-savvy, but I don't have the skills to accomplish this task. If someone does, please contact me. I want this to be available if it is not already. Sean, your plight (though admittedly one-sidedly reported, but heartfelt nonetheless) is felt by many. Stay strong, you'll need it.
Thanks, Wes