How does the phrase "they don't distinguish between binary and text files" have nothing to do with text files??? Or are you saying DOS and Windows qualify as "most operating systems"? Or are you saying there are other systems which differentiate when switching between the text and binary modes of fopen? If so, please tell me which ones they are. The only one I've seen do it is DOS.
From the GNU text utilities man page, correct? If you read the texinfo document (like the man page suggests), you get more information:
`-b'
`--binary'
Treat all input files as binary. This option has no effect on Unix systems, since they don't distinguish between binary and text files. This option is useful on systems that have different internal and external character representations. On MS-DOS and MS-Windows, this is the default.
While ryanr's comment about files transferred between systems being modified is valid (used to be a big problem with ftp and binary files in the old days), the one saying most operating systems will mangle files on the fly is false. Microsoft is the only one who I recall have ever done that by default, and then only because DOS text files end with a special character.
Unless my roommate's poison made me lose more memory than I thought, there was no conversion of anything--all text mode would do is make the OS stop reading after the end of file character, even if there was more content in the file.
Yeah, there are systems which convert to their native cr/lf order, but to do so by default would create a big mess...especially considering how hard it is to accurately detect if a file is text or binary.
For example, Linux's FAT (MS filesystem) driver has options to assume everything is text and convert it, and also an option to try and autodetect by file extension, but the default is to assume everything is binary, because that is the most sane one. Under Linux fopen's text mode flag doesn't do anything, because fopen is implemented in libc not the kernel, so it has no way of knowing if the file is on a native filesystem or an alien one...
Ability to "lock" the scheduler, so that the game gets 100% CPU until it unlocks
Setting real time scheduling in linux more or less does this. man sched_setscheduler look at SCHED_FIFO. As I understand, it locks the system into only running that process (with few exceptions--necessary ones. Even DOS/BIOS takes over for hardware interrupts.)
RT priority does more than nice (aka SCHED_OTHER), but is dangerous (as others pointed out). The programmers of the game really need know what they are doing, and would need to design with the scheduling in mind.
Trademark was obviously not designed to allow someone to claim a word or phrase as their "property." It is an anti-fraud measure--a law against what has been termed identity theft. Its purpose is to keep con artists from selling shoddy, low quality wares using some respected company's name.
No one is going to think Joe Dumble is Michael Buffer just because Joe used the phrase "let's get ready to rumble." Using a catch phrase is hardly impersonating a business--unless they did something like say "I'm that guy on TV who always said 'lets get ready to rumble.' Remember me? Buy my stuff." Though I don't see how this should fall into the domain of trademark law--it is more along the lines of general fraud. If you take trademarks that far, you'll get to the point where everyone will trademark their face, and if you look anything like some already established businessperson, you'll be sued for "trademark infringement" because someone may possibly mistake you for someone else. Insane.
Merely using a catch phrase isn't impersonating someone, just like merely having a similar looking face isn't either.
If someone said they were from Lets Get Ready to Rumble Inc, and Mr. Buffer's company was called Lets Get Ready to Rumble, then it would be a valid trademark issue--someone was trying to impersonate his business. Just saying the words isn't.
Why you think this has anything to do with braindead overly broad patents is beyond me.
I can't speak for the other poster, but I think this has to do with overly broad patents because people (like you) have lumped patent, copyright, and trademark law into some sort of "intellectual property" category and use it to validate claims of ownership on basic ideas.
Interesting idea. Though wouldn't it work better if the funds went to pay musicians for creating and releasing music under a free license? If you used independants (not pop 40 divas), you could pay for a lot of music. Much more than RIAA companies could ever make. They spend most of their money on marketing, not music. Not only would you have music free of legal problems, but you'd also put the "recording industry" and their marketing drones out of business.
Oh, and I'm sure they can sue you a second time if you violate copyright law a second time, so paying off a settlement isn't a free ticket... In fact, they probably have some clause in the settlement which says if you are caught again, you owe them your life savings, your soul, and your first born child.
I see no cookies as an inconvenience. For example, I'd hate to have to log in to Slashdot every time I visited the site...
Media burner:... requires lots of RAM but that is not an issue
Maybe I'm rusty as to how cd burners work, but couldn't one be engineered to only burn small portions of the iso image at one time, so it wouldn't have to store the whole thing in RAM? Without a hard drive, doing it this way be a huge advantage.
Because permanent shared storage breaks the "console" model and will inevitably be used by software providers in the wrong way.
I don't think one should take away features just because some rogue developer may misuse it. If that is such a concern, why not just create a security model which lets the end user decide if he/she will allow the program to use the hard drive...
You have a point, but one does not need to create a bootable CD just to run software without installing it. Live CDs are great for trying out a new OS or for repairing a broken system or for running your OS on a friend's computer, but I don't see why anyone would want to use them just so they could run a specific application without installing it.
Running an applictation without installing is a great idea for some purposes (though one should still have the option of a full install). It can be done without a live cd. It's as simple as having an icon on the desktop (or whereever) which does a mount/mnt/cdrom; cd/mnt/cdrom;./runcd.linux
No need for an entire live cd. I don't think your idea for a computing console is bad, but there are plenty of people who will still want a system with a hard drive running their favorite os. Couldn't the base system be on ROM? For general application programs, I don't see the advantage to including an OS on the CD...
as a simple user I really find unmanageable the... "let's put some in/etc, some in/bin and some in/var" approaches...
There is a reason for that. If everything is just dumped on a single hard drive, then the single directory per program works fine. Once you get more complex, then it has problems.
What if you need a local admin to be able to edit the global config of a box, but don't want him/her to install programs? What if you have a thousand machines which will all have the same software (hosted on nfs), but need different config files?
What if you want to make a cdrom, but still allow the user to change the config (in/etc) and add more software (in/usr/local). What if a program on the cdrom needs to store and modify data, but it doesn't belong in a user's home directory nor/tmp? (such as/var/spool/mail or/var/spool/news or/var/log)
There are significant advantages in separating directories.
If nothing else this whole SCO fiasco shows that Linux needs a disciplined approach to keeping track of where things are coming from in order to avoid future problems.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am quite sure the Linux kernel developers keep good track of who commits what. They use a revision control system called BitKeeper. I haven't used it myself, but from what I hear, it is a great tool for keeping track of changes (and who contributed them). The kernel developers certainly seem to have a good grasp of who contributes a specific patch--from what I've seen anyway.
SCO was being deliberatly vague about what was in dispute. They said it was because they wanted to keep "trade secrets", but one has to wonder if they knew their claims were crap--especially considering how absurd they were. No amount of contribution tracking will be able to defend against parasite con-artists who just want to fleece a bunch of victims. They will say anything they can think of to obscure the truth so their "case" may have some sort of chance in court, and unfortunately the US court system doesn't seem to pay much attention to the truth these days.
The only plausable damage to an end-user is if they wanted to modify XFree86 and distribute the result to other users, and their modification was to add a large chunk of code that was GPL and not theirs and they could not find a way to achieve their results without using that code.
You mean something like a Linux distro? Most of them use lots of GPL code.
Programs that use X are unaffected.
Since they have to link with xlib, don't be so sure. I studied the issue with the GPL and linking, and the FSF certainly thinks linking (dynamic or static) (or more correctly, distributing binaries which are linked) with GPL code requires the other code be under a GPL-compatible license. Why do you think they created the LGPL? For their own entertainment?
From the GPL (version 2):
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.
The only saving clause for X is it may fall within the "major components of the operating system" clause (assuming a desktop system). So one could probably safely link a GPL program with xlib. (Though IANAL and use of the GPL has complex implications sometimes.)
I'd really not be surprise if Bill G. was thinking about using this technique. Software that only install once, after the CD is worthless.
What do you think Palladium/DRM are all about? Yeah, MS is going to do other things with it, but software which will only install once is one of the big ones.
The Dept of Labor still thinks 8 of the top 10 growth jobs are in IT and tech. Recent trends show this isn't happening. Newsweek (or Time?) last Nov. had an article that talked about how everyone still seems to think the job growth is in IT and tech. None of these reports take into account the recent offshoring trends.
Several years ago, when I was going for my degree in Electronics (graduated with an Associates, had the option of going for a BS in EE, but didn't bother), the Department of Labor was saying similar things for the electronics field. The Electronics Dept. at the school proudly displayed the articles. When I started looking for a job with my major, they just didn't seem to be there. The thing is, they weren't exactly wrong, just the jobs don't end up helping people who graduated with any sort of electronics or EE degree.
Many of the jobs (for the newer graduates) having to do with electronics are either low-skilled, need skills which have nothing to do with EE, or are just low paid. The only job I got with my major was a solder jockey (electronics assmbly). It paid less than the McDonald's a few blocks away. I bet they also count the jobs of people who distribute electronic products. (Worked in the shipping dept of a computer cable distributer too.) I worked in a printing company for a while, and they had a department which made little electrical dongles by printing conductive material onto sheets of plastic--you needed skill in printing, not electronics.
There are also jobs (yes, US jobs) working in semiconductor (aka computer chips) manufacturing plants. (At least as of a few years ago, but I haven't kept track) Those jobs are somewhat better paid, but mostly because workers are dealing with hazardous materials, and not because of any EE degree they may have. In fact, most of those jobs don't really need any sort of electronics degree at all.
Yes, outsourcing has taken some of those jobs, but that is not the only factor. (I haven't even gone into things like how patent parasites are ruining the system, among other things.)
Though, those with EE degrees and twenty or thirty years experience seem to be fine. They are still needed. The problem is they fill the market. (To the person who wrote the ask slashdot) If you go into EE now, then you'll have to wait until those guys retire until you'll even have a chance at a job. Do you really want to wait around a couple decades for a job? By then things may have changed so much, your degree will be useless. Everything my go optics or genetic sequencing or whatever. Think of someone who trained before the days of the transistor--most of the stuff was vacuum tubes and mechanical switches. Some of it would translate over, but you'd probably be overlooked as having outdated skills anyway.
I think the same thing is happening with the CS field. Those with several years of experience and really know what they are doing won't have too much trouble in the long term (I could be wrong). Everyone else won't be able to find a high paying job in "IT". To be able to make it in a technology industry, you have to get in on the leading edge of the wave.
Most of those IT jobs the dept of labor keeps talking about will most likely end up being unskilled install/retry/reboot admin drones, clueless tech support drones, and other jobs which have nothing to do with a CS degree.
If I were going for a college degree these days, and it just had to be in some tech area, I'd be looking for something on the leading edge. Say maybe nanotechnology or genetic engineering. Though such a thing would still be a gamble.
If you're looking for a profession to make a decent living, the old standbys are the best bet. Doctor, lawyer, management, etc.
I'd suggest the ask slashdot summitter look into getting a combined management degree (my school called it "Technology Management") or somesuch, then the CS classes won't be wasted. At the very least, you should be able to make somewhat decent money commanding the hordes of tech-support drones...
The violation of privacy comes where they are collecting and storing this information in the first place. In the story, the stores (and maybe the reporter) are trying to spin this as people objecting to giving out the information to the owner of the cards. This is absurd. Who would object to giving out information to those who already know it? The problem is they may use this information in questionable ways (like discriminatory pricing) or give it to people who shouldn't have it (such as the government--why should they know every little thing you buy? It can only lead to fascism.)
Take for example Ephedra.
The FDA apparently banned it because some people are too stupid to read directions.[1] I'm sure there are countless people who use it correctly and get significant value in their lives because of it. the store's data collection gives them an easy way to find people who are stockpiling it.
(OT Rant:) The dumbfucks don't even care if someone might need a medication to function or even survive. At this point, the FDA probably kills and incapacitates more people than they save. Some people do have legitimate illnesses where certain drugs would help greatly. FDA bans them anyway. They won't even let you have it with a prescription! Why should power hungry bureaucrats be allowed to take away things which people absolutely need. They obviously don't care about those people, they just want to tell everyone what they can and can't have.
Now let's fast forward several months into the future. A lot of people have stockpiled Ephedra, and the FDA is pissed about it, so they manage to convince the DEA to try and find the "illegal drugs." (With how wacko the government is, I don't think this is far fetched.) So they subpoena all the grocery store chains with discount cards and have a big list of people who bought lots of the drug. They raid houses, destroy property, and arrest a bunch of people.
Do you really want the fascist out of control government agencies to be able to do this? Take away products and harass people just because a few are too incompetent to accept the risks and conseqences (or even read the label) for using a given product? Everything carries risks. What is this? Preschool? It isn't, and when you take something away, the people who need it will suffer. We should not just hand over tools which allow "teacher" to "keep us safe."
[1] I haven't followed this story too closely, but it does appear to be one of the many idiotic decisions made by the FDA. I chose it because it is big in the news right now.
Thanks for clearing things up. Sorry for the confusion, I haven't used ports enough to tell the difference between that and a package...
I was just trying to explain one didn't have to spend several hours
compiling just to install FreeBSD. I got lots of useful info though. Thanks. B-)
No RPM hell. Just cd/usr/ports/multimedia/xmms ; make install clean. It downloads and compiles any dependencies from source.
What? I know the port system uses make, but I thought the packages
were binary. Indeed, looking at some on my FreeBSD Toolkit disc, they
are... Are some packages
source? Or do I just not know what I am talking about?
FreeBSD and its ports system are binary based, so you don't have
to compile everything--much like many Linux distros. FreeBSD doesn't
work like source based distros (such as Gentoo).
As I remember, KDE/GNOME are packages on the main disk,
though I haven't messed with installing them--not a big fan. Though
once I did accidently install GNOME. I didn't realize the "D" meant
dependency, I thought it meant deleted or something. Still a bit new
to FreeBSD.
Since you already bought it, then yes, but they will try to sue you for "trade secret violations." Then send out press releases saying you "stole" their code.;-)
If you buy something (even if it was directly from Caldera), then later they start doing immoral things, I don't see any reason to throw it away. There was no way you'd know what the company would do in the future. You can't get the money back, and there isn't anything wrong with DRDOS, so just use it.
Though from the other post, it looks like DRDOS isn't owned by Umbrell^W the SCO people anymore, so I suppose there shouldn't be any moral problems with buying new copies too. Some may say you shouldn't reward those people who paid so much money to Canopy, but I don't know...depends upon how many levels deep you want to go with retribution. Be careful though, you may end up nuking the planet.;-)
Errr...NNTP (Usenet) is peer to peer. How do you think all the
news servers get their feed? They are peers who pass the posts
between each other. Read rfc977. The IHAVE command shows
the most obvious proof the protocol was made to be P2P--it is
for transferring posts between servers (which are just dedicated
peers on the network). You send a post to one server, and it
ripples through the other servers--much like a search request on
the Gnutella network.
At least it used to work that way, with all
the consolidation, we may end up with one big ISP running only
one big Usenet server with rec.arts.music.britney.spears as the
only allowed group.;-)
So you are saying if Special Agent Identythief uses this law to gain
access to all your credit card, bank account, and SS numbers. Then
uses them to empty all your money from you account, max out your
cards, and takes out a bunch of loans in your name. You are saying he
didn't do anything illegal???
The United States's checks and balances were made because
no matter how intensive a screening process, there will always be some
police and public officals who abuse their power.
Arrgh! Not more people who just count the number of vulnerabilities!
I just skimmed that article, but it looks like crap to me. Standard Microsoft
trolling, nothing else.
Don't listen to anyone who claims something is more secure
based on the number of vulnerabilties. I bet if you look
at all the "vulnerabilities" counted for Debian, most of them were
for crap you'll never use (they seem to have every single little open
source project ever made) or something stupid like "users can
manipulate the high score file of some lame obsure video game."
You have to look at what the vulnerablilites are.
You should
also take into consideration whether or not the organization in
charge will disclose all vulnerabilities they know about. Debian is
very open, they probably couldn't keep such things a secret if they
wanted to. Also, I think Debian has far more packages than any other
Linux distro (certainly far more software than MS ever put out), so
obviously they are going to discover more problems.
When I hear someone say a MS product is more secure than
anything, my bullshit meter flies off the dial. Maybe
something written by a ten year old script-kiddie....or something
deliberately botched. I buy the statement something made by IBM or
HP would be more secure (especially considering those projects
are probably more mature), though obviously anything written by
that reporter can't be trusted, and merely listing the number
of disclosed vulnerabilities doesn't mean anything.
This is total crap (emphasis mine):
The other significant feature [talking about the
three most "secure"] of these operating
systems is the language in which they are written. The two from IBM are both written in
assembler...
C and similar languages that use pass-by-value techniques are
exceptionally prone to buffer overflow... Avoiding the use of these
languages at the most vulnerable points, namely user I/O and
network I/O, would appear to be wise. Linux, Unix and Windows
are almost entirely written in C, and most of their middleware and
application software is also in these vulnerable languages, so it
should come as no surprise that they are less secure than
OpenVMS, OS/400 and zOS.
Does this guy know what assembly language is???? It doesn't
have any sort of bounds or type checking at all---well unless it
is built into the processor design (I am not familiar with mainframe
CPUs), and if it is, a C compiler written
for that processor will most certainly use those features too.
Also, looking at the table, they included OS 9. Does that
version even have a filesystem permission system or a concept of
users? Why don't they just include Win98 too. That's like saying
"the building uses empty frames instead of doors. We didn't find any
problems with the locks, therefore the building must be secure."
There is a program which safely removes IE from Windows. I used
it in my Win98 days, and it was great. I think it's called Win98Lite.
This
may be the
XP version, though I'm not sure it is from the same guy and I'm not
sure if it is really free anymore (trial version????).
IEradicator's
description sounds like the program, but I'm certain the name was
somethingLite...
I used it a long
time ago, so I don't remember the name. Who knows what state it is
in now anyway. May be worth checking out though...I'm sure it is
better than just deleting the executable.
Unless, of course, you have a roommate who insists upon filling
the house with the smoke every morning while you sleep. Yeah,
you can kill the bloke, but that's not easy (especially in an country
"protected" by police). The police are no help, because they'll use
the absurd laws to take all your property. MJ is fun. Sometimes I like
to hump her leg while she chops off my...;-)
Maybe it is on there, but has a different name. If you scroll down
the document a bit, you'll see Resident Evil 4 referenced, but apparently
sold under the name "Biohazard 4" in Japan. I don't recognize some
of the names on the list (not a heavy gamer though), could one of those
be GTA? Anyone know what company distributes GTA in Japan (may
give a clue)?
Who knows. Maybe the list only contains games made by Japanese
companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything I'll need when I get there!
How does the phrase "they don't distinguish between binary and text files" have nothing to do with text files??? Or are you saying DOS and Windows qualify as "most operating systems"? Or are you saying there are other systems which differentiate when switching between the text and binary modes of fopen? If so, please tell me which ones they are. The only one I've seen do it is DOS.
From the GNU text utilities man page, correct? If you read the texinfo document (like the man page suggests), you get more information:
While ryanr's comment about files transferred between systems being modified is valid (used to be a big problem with ftp and binary files in the old days), the one saying most operating systems will mangle files on the fly is false. Microsoft is the only one who I recall have ever done that by default, and then only because DOS text files end with a special character.
Unless my roommate's poison made me lose more memory than I thought, there was no conversion of anything--all text mode would do is make the OS stop reading after the end of file character, even if there was more content in the file.
Yeah, there are systems which convert to their native cr/lf order, but to do so by default would create a big mess...especially considering how hard it is to accurately detect if a file is text or binary.
For example, Linux's FAT (MS filesystem) driver has options to assume everything is text and convert it, and also an option to try and autodetect by file extension, but the default is to assume everything is binary, because that is the most sane one. Under Linux fopen's text mode flag doesn't do anything, because fopen is implemented in libc not the kernel, so it has no way of knowing if the file is on a native filesystem or an alien one...
Setting real time scheduling in linux more or less does this. man sched_setscheduler look at SCHED_FIFO. As I understand, it locks the system into only running that process (with few exceptions--necessary ones. Even DOS/BIOS takes over for hardware interrupts.)
RT priority does more than nice (aka SCHED_OTHER), but is dangerous (as others pointed out). The programmers of the game really need know what they are doing, and would need to design with the scheduling in mind.
Trademark was obviously not designed to allow someone to claim a word or phrase as their "property." It is an anti-fraud measure--a law against what has been termed identity theft. Its purpose is to keep con artists from selling shoddy, low quality wares using some respected company's name.
No one is going to think Joe Dumble is Michael Buffer just because Joe used the phrase "let's get ready to rumble." Using a catch phrase is hardly impersonating a business--unless they did something like say "I'm that guy on TV who always said 'lets get ready to rumble.' Remember me? Buy my stuff." Though I don't see how this should fall into the domain of trademark law--it is more along the lines of general fraud. If you take trademarks that far, you'll get to the point where everyone will trademark their face, and if you look anything like some already established businessperson, you'll be sued for "trademark infringement" because someone may possibly mistake you for someone else. Insane.
Merely using a catch phrase isn't impersonating someone, just like merely having a similar looking face isn't either.
If someone said they were from Lets Get Ready to Rumble Inc, and Mr. Buffer's company was called Lets Get Ready to Rumble, then it would be a valid trademark issue--someone was trying to impersonate his business. Just saying the words isn't.
I can't speak for the other poster, but I think this has to do with overly broad patents because people (like you) have lumped patent, copyright, and trademark law into some sort of "intellectual property" category and use it to validate claims of ownership on basic ideas.
Interesting idea. Though wouldn't it work better if the funds went to pay musicians for creating and releasing music under a free license? If you used independants (not pop 40 divas), you could pay for a lot of music. Much more than RIAA companies could ever make. They spend most of their money on marketing, not music. Not only would you have music free of legal problems, but you'd also put the "recording industry" and their marketing drones out of business.
Oh, and I'm sure they can sue you a second time if you violate copyright law a second time, so paying off a settlement isn't a free ticket... In fact, they probably have some clause in the settlement which says if you are caught again, you owe them your life savings, your soul, and your first born child.
I see no cookies as an inconvenience. For example, I'd hate to have to log in to Slashdot every time I visited the site...
Maybe I'm rusty as to how cd burners work, but couldn't one be engineered to only burn small portions of the iso image at one time, so it wouldn't have to store the whole thing in RAM? Without a hard drive, doing it this way be a huge advantage.
I don't think one should take away features just because some rogue developer may misuse it. If that is such a concern, why not just create a security model which lets the end user decide if he/she will allow the program to use the hard drive...
You have a point, but one does not need to create a bootable CD just to run software without installing it. Live CDs are great for trying out a new OS or for repairing a broken system or for running your OS on a friend's computer, but I don't see why anyone would want to use them just so they could run a specific application without installing it.
Running an applictation without installing is a great idea for some purposes (though one should still have the option of a full install). It can be done without a live cd. It's as simple as having an icon on the desktop (or whereever) which does a mount /mnt/cdrom; cd /mnt/cdrom; ./runcd.linux
No need for an entire live cd. I don't think your idea for a computing console is bad, but there are plenty of people who will still want a system with a hard drive running their favorite os. Couldn't the base system be on ROM? For general application programs, I don't see the advantage to including an OS on the CD...
There is a reason for that. If everything is just dumped on a single hard drive, then the single directory per program works fine. Once you get more complex, then it has problems.
What if you need a local admin to be able to edit the global config of a box, but don't want him/her to install programs? What if you have a thousand machines which will all have the same software (hosted on nfs), but need different config files?
What if you want to make a cdrom, but still allow the user to change the config (in /etc) and add more software (in /usr/local). What if a program on the cdrom needs to store and modify data, but it doesn't belong in a user's home directory nor /tmp? (such as /var/spool/mail or /var/spool/news or /var/log)
There are significant advantages in separating directories.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am quite sure the Linux kernel developers keep good track of who commits what. They use a revision control system called BitKeeper. I haven't used it myself, but from what I hear, it is a great tool for keeping track of changes (and who contributed them). The kernel developers certainly seem to have a good grasp of who contributes a specific patch--from what I've seen anyway.
SCO was being deliberatly vague about what was in dispute. They said it was because they wanted to keep "trade secrets", but one has to wonder if they knew their claims were crap--especially considering how absurd they were. No amount of contribution tracking will be able to defend against parasite con-artists who just want to fleece a bunch of victims. They will say anything they can think of to obscure the truth so their "case" may have some sort of chance in court, and unfortunately the US court system doesn't seem to pay much attention to the truth these days.
You mean something like a Linux distro? Most of them use lots of GPL code.
Since they have to link with xlib, don't be so sure. I studied the issue with the GPL and linking, and the FSF certainly thinks linking (dynamic or static) (or more correctly, distributing binaries which are linked) with GPL code requires the other code be under a GPL-compatible license. Why do you think they created the LGPL? For their own entertainment?
From the GPL (version 2):
The only saving clause for X is it may fall within the "major components of the operating system" clause (assuming a desktop system). So one could probably safely link a GPL program with xlib. (Though IANAL and use of the GPL has complex implications sometimes.)
What do you think Palladium/DRM are all about? Yeah, MS is going to do other things with it, but software which will only install once is one of the big ones.
Several years ago, when I was going for my degree in Electronics (graduated with an Associates, had the option of going for a BS in EE, but didn't bother), the Department of Labor was saying similar things for the electronics field. The Electronics Dept. at the school proudly displayed the articles. When I started looking for a job with my major, they just didn't seem to be there. The thing is, they weren't exactly wrong, just the jobs don't end up helping people who graduated with any sort of electronics or EE degree.
Many of the jobs (for the newer graduates) having to do with electronics are either low-skilled, need skills which have nothing to do with EE, or are just low paid. The only job I got with my major was a solder jockey (electronics assmbly). It paid less than the McDonald's a few blocks away. I bet they also count the jobs of people who distribute electronic products. (Worked in the shipping dept of a computer cable distributer too.) I worked in a printing company for a while, and they had a department which made little electrical dongles by printing conductive material onto sheets of plastic--you needed skill in printing, not electronics.
There are also jobs (yes, US jobs) working in semiconductor (aka computer chips) manufacturing plants. (At least as of a few years ago, but I haven't kept track) Those jobs are somewhat better paid, but mostly because workers are dealing with hazardous materials, and not because of any EE degree they may have. In fact, most of those jobs don't really need any sort of electronics degree at all.
Yes, outsourcing has taken some of those jobs, but that is not the only factor. (I haven't even gone into things like how patent parasites are ruining the system, among other things.)
Though, those with EE degrees and twenty or thirty years experience seem to be fine. They are still needed. The problem is they fill the market. (To the person who wrote the ask slashdot) If you go into EE now, then you'll have to wait until those guys retire until you'll even have a chance at a job. Do you really want to wait around a couple decades for a job? By then things may have changed so much, your degree will be useless. Everything my go optics or genetic sequencing or whatever. Think of someone who trained before the days of the transistor--most of the stuff was vacuum tubes and mechanical switches. Some of it would translate over, but you'd probably be overlooked as having outdated skills anyway.
I think the same thing is happening with the CS field. Those with several years of experience and really know what they are doing won't have too much trouble in the long term (I could be wrong). Everyone else won't be able to find a high paying job in "IT". To be able to make it in a technology industry, you have to get in on the leading edge of the wave.
Most of those IT jobs the dept of labor keeps talking about will most likely end up being unskilled install/retry/reboot admin drones, clueless tech support drones, and other jobs which have nothing to do with a CS degree.
If I were going for a college degree these days, and it just had to be in some tech area, I'd be looking for something on the leading edge. Say maybe nanotechnology or genetic engineering. Though such a thing would still be a gamble.
If you're looking for a profession to make a decent living, the old standbys are the best bet. Doctor, lawyer, management, etc.
I'd suggest the ask slashdot summitter look into getting a combined management degree (my school called it "Technology Management") or somesuch, then the CS classes won't be wasted. At the very least, you should be able to make somewhat decent money commanding the hordes of tech-support drones...
The violation of privacy comes where they are collecting and storing this information in the first place. In the story, the stores (and maybe the reporter) are trying to spin this as people objecting to giving out the information to the owner of the cards. This is absurd. Who would object to giving out information to those who already know it? The problem is they may use this information in questionable ways (like discriminatory pricing) or give it to people who shouldn't have it (such as the government--why should they know every little thing you buy? It can only lead to fascism.)
Take for example Ephedra. The FDA apparently banned it because some people are too stupid to read directions.[1] I'm sure there are countless people who use it correctly and get significant value in their lives because of it. the store's data collection gives them an easy way to find people who are stockpiling it.
(OT Rant:) The dumbfucks don't even care if someone might need a medication to function or even survive. At this point, the FDA probably kills and incapacitates more people than they save. Some people do have legitimate illnesses where certain drugs would help greatly. FDA bans them anyway. They won't even let you have it with a prescription! Why should power hungry bureaucrats be allowed to take away things which people absolutely need. They obviously don't care about those people, they just want to tell everyone what they can and can't have.
Now let's fast forward several months into the future. A lot of people have stockpiled Ephedra, and the FDA is pissed about it, so they manage to convince the DEA to try and find the "illegal drugs." (With how wacko the government is, I don't think this is far fetched.) So they subpoena all the grocery store chains with discount cards and have a big list of people who bought lots of the drug. They raid houses, destroy property, and arrest a bunch of people.
Do you really want the fascist out of control government agencies to be able to do this? Take away products and harass people just because a few are too incompetent to accept the risks and conseqences (or even read the label) for using a given product? Everything carries risks. What is this? Preschool? It isn't, and when you take something away, the people who need it will suffer. We should not just hand over tools which allow "teacher" to "keep us safe."
[1] I haven't followed this story too closely, but it does appear to be one of the many idiotic decisions made by the FDA. I chose it because it is big in the news right now.
Thanks for clearing things up. Sorry for the confusion, I haven't used ports enough to tell the difference between that and a package... I was just trying to explain one didn't have to spend several hours compiling just to install FreeBSD. I got lots of useful info though. Thanks. B-)
What? I know the port system uses make, but I thought the packages were binary. Indeed, looking at some on my FreeBSD Toolkit disc, they are... Are some packages source? Or do I just not know what I am talking about?
FreeBSD and its ports system are binary based, so you don't have to compile everything--much like many Linux distros. FreeBSD doesn't work like source based distros (such as Gentoo).
As I remember, KDE/GNOME are packages on the main disk, though I haven't messed with installing them--not a big fan. Though once I did accidently install GNOME. I didn't realize the "D" meant dependency, I thought it meant deleted or something. Still a bit new to FreeBSD.
Since you already bought it, then yes, but they will try to sue you for "trade secret violations." Then send out press releases saying you "stole" their code. ;-)
If you buy something (even if it was directly from Caldera), then later they start doing immoral things, I don't see any reason to throw it away. There was no way you'd know what the company would do in the future. You can't get the money back, and there isn't anything wrong with DRDOS, so just use it.
Though from the other post, it looks like DRDOS isn't owned by Umbrell^W the SCO people anymore, so I suppose there shouldn't be any moral problems with buying new copies too. Some may say you shouldn't reward those people who paid so much money to Canopy, but I don't know...depends upon how many levels deep you want to go with retribution. Be careful though, you may end up nuking the planet. ;-)
Errr...NNTP (Usenet) is peer to peer. How do you think all the news servers get their feed? They are peers who pass the posts between each other. Read rfc977. The IHAVE command shows the most obvious proof the protocol was made to be P2P--it is for transferring posts between servers (which are just dedicated peers on the network). You send a post to one server, and it ripples through the other servers--much like a search request on the Gnutella network.
At least it used to work that way, with all the consolidation, we may end up with one big ISP running only one big Usenet server with rec.arts.music.britney.spears as the only allowed group. ;-)
So you are saying if Special Agent Identythief uses this law to gain access to all your credit card, bank account, and SS numbers. Then uses them to empty all your money from you account, max out your cards, and takes out a bunch of loans in your name. You are saying he didn't do anything illegal???
The United States's checks and balances were made because no matter how intensive a screening process, there will always be some police and public officals who abuse their power.
Arrgh! Not more people who just count the number of vulnerabilities! I just skimmed that article, but it looks like crap to me. Standard Microsoft trolling, nothing else.
Don't listen to anyone who claims something is more secure based on the number of vulnerabilties. I bet if you look at all the "vulnerabilities" counted for Debian, most of them were for crap you'll never use (they seem to have every single little open source project ever made) or something stupid like "users can manipulate the high score file of some lame obsure video game." You have to look at what the vulnerablilites are.
You should also take into consideration whether or not the organization in charge will disclose all vulnerabilities they know about. Debian is very open, they probably couldn't keep such things a secret if they wanted to. Also, I think Debian has far more packages than any other Linux distro (certainly far more software than MS ever put out), so obviously they are going to discover more problems.
When I hear someone say a MS product is more secure than anything, my bullshit meter flies off the dial. Maybe something written by a ten year old script-kiddie. ...or something
deliberately botched. I buy the statement something made by IBM or
HP would be more secure (especially considering those projects
are probably more mature), though obviously anything written by
that reporter can't be trusted, and merely listing the number
of disclosed vulnerabilities doesn't mean anything.
This is total crap (emphasis mine):
Does this guy know what assembly language is???? It doesn't have any sort of bounds or type checking at all---well unless it is built into the processor design (I am not familiar with mainframe CPUs), and if it is, a C compiler written for that processor will most certainly use those features too.
Also, looking at the table, they included OS 9. Does that version even have a filesystem permission system or a concept of users? Why don't they just include Win98 too. That's like saying "the building uses empty frames instead of doors. We didn't find any problems with the locks, therefore the building must be secure."
Compulsary licensing. The money is funneled through the RIAA no matter who's songs play on the radio.
There is a program which safely removes IE from Windows. I used it in my Win98 days, and it was great. I think it's called Win98Lite. This may be the XP version, though I'm not sure it is from the same guy and I'm not sure if it is really free anymore (trial version????). IEradicator's description sounds like the program, but I'm certain the name was somethingLite...
I used it a long time ago, so I don't remember the name. Who knows what state it is in now anyway. May be worth checking out though...I'm sure it is better than just deleting the executable.
Unless, of course, you have a roommate who insists upon filling the house with the smoke every morning while you sleep. Yeah, you can kill the bloke, but that's not easy (especially in an country "protected" by police). The police are no help, because they'll use the absurd laws to take all your property. MJ is fun. Sometimes I like to hump her leg while she chops off my... ;-)
Maybe it is on there, but has a different name. If you scroll down the document a bit, you'll see Resident Evil 4 referenced, but apparently sold under the name "Biohazard 4" in Japan. I don't recognize some of the names on the list (not a heavy gamer though), could one of those be GTA? Anyone know what company distributes GTA in Japan (may give a clue)?
Who knows. Maybe the list only contains games made by Japanese companies.