I in no way misunderstood. Sentance one of that paragraph states "I work on a scientific project that is supossedly an "open source" project."
One would assume that the poster, being a bright scientist, knows what "Open Source" means and is using the nomenclature correctly. After all, why should I assume he's not that inteligent?
Next he details the failings of the management of the OSS project in question for several sentances.
The poster then closes with a summary sentance in which he states that the software development model being used is a failure and is no better than a closed source model.
I believe that I quite correctly pointed out how he could solve the problem to the benefit of all those people he claims are affected by the poor management of the project. A method, I might add, that is fundamental to the entire nature of Open Source software and perfectly in line with King Richards Software Manifesto or whatever the hell it's called. Either the guy doesn't really know how open source software works even though he's throwing the term around like he's all enlightened, or he's just another lazy fucker who'd rather bitch about a problem on slashdot than do anything to fix it.
No. That's not a right _Red_Hat_ grants to the user. It's a right the _author_ of the software (the copyright holder) granted when they licensed the software under the GPL (or other OSS licnese) in the first place. RH simply doesn't have the authority to stop you from aquiring and/or using any of the software in any of the Red Hat Linux distributions other than their own packages which they have released under the GPL making it a moot point.
If you choose to participate in the Red Hat Advanced Server service plan, then you must pay a fee for every box you deploy under the plan. If you try to weasel boxes into the service plan that you haven't paid for, they will fine you as per the agreement, or expire your service plan. If you don't care about Red Hat Network, and don't particularly need help-desk support, drop them like a bad habit and contract your support through a local RHCE for a much cheaper price tag.
Think about it for a second. RH would have to stand in front of a judge and try to convince him that restricting your ability to deploy Linux didn't violate the GPL under which they distribute it. If the judge sided with RH on the service plan contract, they would be lucky not to have every single software author revoke their license to use and distribute the software. You can bet that King Richard would pull their license to all the GNU stuff (kind of important, eh?) That would leave them in a pretty pickle indeed.
Oh, and FYI RHAS is not the same software as the standard edition RH distribution. The software itself is different. Different patch levels, versions, etc...
Please refer to this quote from Red Hat's website for clarification:
Advanced Server is sold through a one-year subscription and it does have a licensing agreement. But before you mention the "p"-word ("proprietary"), understand that the code is open and protected by the GPL license. It's not proprietary. We're licensing the services, not the software. The source code files can be downloaded by anyone, and you still have the right to use the software after the license and services expire.
Red Hat Advanced Server contains the same GPL'ed code as every other Red Hat Linux distribution. Unlike some vendors (who's names start with a 'C'), Everything you get from Red Hat in the basic distro is GPL'ed. They can't "...do the same audits as Microsoft..." because they can't change the licensing. You don't need to buy a Red Hat Advanced Server license for every machine you put the OS on. You only need to buy a support contract for every machine you expect support on. There's a big difference here. Red Hat is pushing the envelope on the chief means for income for an OSS company (give away the software, sell the support), but the code is still the same GPL code you could get from any other distribution. There's no such thing as the Red Hat equivalent of the BSA and there never can or will be.
I normally don't reply to trolls, but this disinformation really ticks me off. Assuming you don't already know all this and you aren't just a 100% blatant troll, you either have never read the GPL or have no idea whatsoever what is contained in RHAS. Either way, if you don't know what you're talking about, then keep your mouth shut.
I work on a scientific project that is supossedly an "open source" project. In reality, it is really shared source. What it comes down to is users from the community reporting bugs and even submitting patches that are never incorporated into the code. The "czar" of the project often refuses to apply these fixes or doesn't do so in a timely manner. It just doesn't work and is just about as pointless as not having the source at all...
It's open source, gonad. The whole point is that you can take the code, fork the project, manage it better that the other guy and have a better product so that the community as a whole benefits. If you continue to get stonewalled by the "owner" and simply give up on getting the code changed, then you really don't get the whole point of OSS in the first place so who the heck are you to say it doesn't work?
But on the other hand, if you aren't getting much air into your intake, but you have huge exhaust (which is usually the case with civics) you actually will lose performance. This is because you NEED some back pressure
I wish you people would stop with this backpressure myth. There is no reason that if you were having trouble getting fresh fuel and air into your engine you would need to push burnt gasses back up through the exhaust and into the cylinder to compensate. Come on. Use your head. The reason the huge exhaust hurts power is that the large diameter short runner combo increases flow at the expense of velocity which hurts scavenging and doesn't allow your engine to get all that burnt gas out. Backpressure == bad. Velocity == good.
This is a complete load of crap. Your engine doesn't need, nor want backpressure. If you change your exhaust and loose power it's because your exhaust isn't flow matched to your intake, heads, and cam. You've got primaries that are too big around or too short, and you're gaining peak flow at the expense of exhaust gas _VELOCITY_ which is required to produce good low-end torque. Your engine is an air pump, and backpressure, by definition, impedes its ability to do its job.
Most of the hobbyist drag racers I've known have also had to use their cars as a daily driver, so winning a race at any cost wasn't acceptable. They have to win the race and then drive the race car to work the next day. This adds an interesting variable to the race, actually.
Another thing to keep in mind, when you've pushed one component far enough that it will exceed the tolerances on another component (axleshafts break pretty easily), then you either replace the component before it breaks, or you replace it after it breaks. Or you just don't actually push it until you can replace the weak part. Over time, I've seen budget hobbying hot-rodders build shitty cars into pretty high-performance cars without ever having to catch a taxi to work. That takes a LOT of skill and brains.
Hear Hear! This is exactly right. I drive my car at the track (12-ish second car) and then drive it 40 miles EACH WAY to work every single day. When I knew my rear end was going to blow up, I had to plan the downtime, aquire the parts, fix the car and not miss a beat at the track OR at work. I'm at an interesting impasse right now because I know I'm never going to get 12.5 without decent tires, but I also know that if I get good tires I'm going to blow out either my clutch or another rear end (GM Ten bolts suck ass!) So I'm probably going to compromise with a modest tire to get me by until I can afford a clutch and a 12-bolt.
This, IMHO, is where the fun is. Not only knowing how to point your car in a straight line and mash the pedal, but also being able to think about the combination you're building and what you actually intend to do with it. I could go all out with a 5+:1 12-bolt rear, ET Streets, and swap out my six-speed for a TH400, but I need to keep my daily commute in mind. My goal is to hit 12 flat and still be able to drive it in the rain and get 25+MPG on the highway.
I'm glad _somebody_ else understands what we're doing out there.
You're absolutely one hundred percent fucking wrong. Speaking as a drag racer myself, I can tell you that you have it exactly backwards. A drag racer has to know his car very very well and has to be able to depend on it to be consistant, but the race is won and lost by the racer, not the car (explosions, broken driveshaves, etc... not withstanding)
The driver has to know how to time the light. He has to know how hard he can launch his car without breaking something or spinning the tires. He has to know how agressivly he can shift without risking a missed shift or losing traction. He has to pay close attention to his opponent to make sure he knows if he should let up on the throttle at the end of the track or not. and when he's not busy thinking about all that, he has to manage to keep the car going in a straight line and all of this happens in a couple blinks of an eye.
Drag racing isn't just "Point the car in a straight line, launch hard, and keep the throttle down until the end." You have to know in advance how fast your car is. Know how fast your opponent's car is, and time your run so that you get your car to the other end of the 1320 BEFORE your opponenent, but not before your specified time. Believe me. If it were just "Point it straight and hammer down" it would be a lot easier.
Top fuelers have to be just insane to try to race. I can't immagine the kind of reflexes you'd have to have to do that right.
Thank you! I've been asking that question for quite a while now, and nobody has an answer.
Seems like a pretty dumb idea to me. Gee, the good guys are just winning way too often and we have to do something about all this peace and prosperity. We need balance, damnit!
The Z06 makes 405HP from the factory naturally aspirated at a very reasonable 6k RPM.
405hp/346cid = 1.170hp/cid -- My point was not that tin-can econoboxes are shit and v8's rule. My point was that you can't simply say pushrod v8's are an old design and therefore inefficient. Just as there are shitty econobox engines (Geo Metro comes to mind) there are well engineered pushrod v8's (though no 5.0 litre examples that I can think of. *grin*).
The parent poster made a blanket statement implying that these engines were dinosoar technology that was somehow inferior because the basic design was too old. IMHO, that was either an ignorant misunderstanding or a blatant troll. Unfortunately, the trolling method of posting incorect information as fact only leads to more ignorance if not answered.
Why is this marked "insightful?" Just because he used the phrase "pushrod v8?" Well, if that's insightful, I suppose I'll throw in the observation that the closest thing to a 5.0 is the mustang's 4.6L which is an overhead cam design. The pushrod beasts are the LS1/LS6 from GM and the HEMI from Mopar; Both of which are in the 5.7 and bigger range.
Of course, it's worth noting that from the factory, with no modifications, these engines are making far closer to one HP/CID than any of the tin-can econoboxes and doing so at reasonable (under 6k) RPM. Some of the performance crate motors are actually coming from the factory with >1HP/CID. Yes, that's right. The "dumb" old pushrod v8 design has been advancing technologicaly right along with the OHC/DOHC engines and is in many cases a more efficient engine.
Double the gearing on the cars that come with these engines so that they have the same "performance" as a Geo Metro or something and suddenly those "dumb" engines don't look so bad. The problem is, we _ARE_ enjoying them. We are using them in performance applications exactly for the reason that we enjoy them.
(quote)"Online companies don't use state services," he said. "If you're going to the store to buy something, you're going to be driving on the roads and the store will be using police protection or fire protection and other state services for which it would be appropriate that they charge a tax."(endquote)
What a load of crap!
Do the UPS trucks not run on public roads, and do the online stores not get billed for that? Or the trucks which bring goods to the warehouse? Speaking of the warehouse, does it not require police and fire protection?
China and other countries stop the open-air burning of toxic stuff like computer motherboards
Just as soon as the USA and other first world countries stop dumping them in China's lap in the first place
How exactly are we doing this? Are we flying over and tossing them from airplanes? How exactly are we "dumping them in China's lap" without them wanting the things?
If I understand RHN and up2date correctly, you need to log into RHN and tell it that your system needs the update then up2date will pick up the patch. Yes? No?
You think a state is going to let THEIR money (which is how they see tax dollars. It's THEIR money, they just haven't been able to pry your sticky fingers off it yet.) in YOUR bank account? You honestly don't think you would end up being forced to pay both and then fight for your money back (with no interest of course, because why should they give YOU interest on THEIR money?)
We are talking about state governments with dollar signs in their eyes here.
Most FTP servers make outbound connections. That's why most FTP clients don't like to work from behind firewalls. DNS servers transfer zones back and forth. Lots of portal websites use scripts to pull data and headlines (like slashdot headlines) off other servers for re-presentation. IRC servers connect to other IRC servers. NTP servers talk to each other. The list goes on and on.
Plus I don't agree with the previous poster's assumption that ssh only lives on servers. I have openssh on all of my workstations so that I can get into them from remote locations for various reasions (retrieving the previous night's work, fetching that MP3 I'm dying to hear, su-ing to root and shuting the box down when I see a thunderstorm on weather.com, etc...)
If he wants to make a broad generalization it might be that you shouldn't compile code on boxes you expect to be secure. I never compile anything on my firewall or my servers. I compile it on my workstation and rsync it over. Of course, even that could be defeated by this makefile trojan since usually the way to install what gets copied over is to make install as root. If this guy had trojaned the 'install' target he would have caught a lot more people with their pants down. Luckily he was either an idiot or only trying to prove a point.
Slashdot Mirror
I in no way misunderstood. Sentance one of that paragraph states "I work on a scientific project that is supossedly an "open source" project."
One would assume that the poster, being a bright scientist, knows what "Open Source" means and is using the nomenclature correctly. After all, why should I assume he's not that inteligent?
Next he details the failings of the management of the OSS project in question for several sentances.
The poster then closes with a summary sentance in which he states that the software development model being used is a failure and is no better than a closed source model.
I believe that I quite correctly pointed out how he could solve the problem to the benefit of all those people he claims are affected by the poor management of the project. A method, I might add, that is fundamental to the entire nature of Open Source software and perfectly in line with King Richards Software Manifesto or whatever the hell it's called. Either the guy doesn't really know how open source software works even though he's throwing the term around like he's all enlightened, or he's just another lazy fucker who'd rather bitch about a problem on slashdot than do anything to fix it.
Either way he's a gonad.
No. That's not a right _Red_Hat_ grants to the user. It's a right the _author_ of the software (the copyright holder) granted when they licensed the software under the GPL (or other OSS licnese) in the first place. RH simply doesn't have the authority to stop you from aquiring and/or using any of the software in any of the Red Hat Linux distributions other than their own packages which they have released under the GPL making it a moot point.
If you choose to participate in the Red Hat Advanced Server service plan, then you must pay a fee for every box you deploy under the plan. If you try to weasel boxes into the service plan that you haven't paid for, they will fine you as per the agreement, or expire your service plan. If you don't care about Red Hat Network, and don't particularly need help-desk support, drop them like a bad habit and contract your support through a local RHCE for a much cheaper price tag.
Think about it for a second. RH would have to stand in front of a judge and try to convince him that restricting your ability to deploy Linux didn't violate the GPL under which they distribute it. If the judge sided with RH on the service plan contract, they would be lucky not to have every single software author revoke their license to use and distribute the software. You can bet that King Richard would pull their license to all the GNU stuff (kind of important, eh?) That would leave them in a pretty pickle indeed.
Oh, and FYI RHAS is not the same software as the standard edition RH distribution. The software itself is different. Different patch levels, versions, etc...
RHAS _IS_ a software distribution.
Please refer to this quote from Red Hat's website for clarification:
Advanced Server is sold through a one-year subscription and it does have a licensing agreement. But before you mention the "p"-word ("proprietary"), understand that the code is open and protected by the GPL license. It's not proprietary. We're licensing the services, not the software. The source code files can be downloaded by anyone, and you still have the right to use the software after the license and services expire.
Thank you. Please drive through.
"Then again, I suppose I shouldn't be giving marketting suggestions to Microsoft."
No offense, and I happen to agree with the sentiment, but I don't think Micros~1 would take marketing advice from anybody. *grin*
Red Hat Advanced Server contains the same GPL'ed code as every other Red Hat Linux distribution. Unlike some vendors (who's names start with a 'C'), Everything you get from Red Hat in the basic distro is GPL'ed. They can't "...do the same audits as Microsoft..." because they can't change the licensing. You don't need to buy a Red Hat Advanced Server license for every machine you put the OS on. You only need to buy a support contract for every machine you expect support on. There's a big difference here. Red Hat is pushing the envelope on the chief means for income for an OSS company (give away the software, sell the support), but the code is still the same GPL code you could get from any other distribution. There's no such thing as the Red Hat equivalent of the BSA and there never can or will be.
I normally don't reply to trolls, but this disinformation really ticks me off. Assuming you don't already know all this and you aren't just a 100% blatant troll, you either have never read the GPL or have no idea whatsoever what is contained in RHAS. Either way, if you don't know what you're talking about, then keep your mouth shut.
I work on a scientific project that is supossedly an "open source" project. In reality, it is really shared source. What it comes down to is users from the community reporting bugs and even submitting patches that are never incorporated into the code. The "czar" of the project often refuses to apply these fixes or doesn't do so in a timely manner. It just doesn't work and is just about as pointless as not having the source at all...
It's open source, gonad. The whole point is that you can take the code, fork the project, manage it better that the other guy and have a better product so that the community as a whole benefits. If you continue to get stonewalled by the "owner" and simply give up on getting the code changed, then you really don't get the whole point of OSS in the first place so who the heck are you to say it doesn't work?
But on the other hand, if you aren't getting much air into your intake, but you have huge exhaust (which is usually the case with civics) you actually will lose performance. This is because you NEED some back pressure
I wish you people would stop with this backpressure myth. There is no reason that if you were having trouble getting fresh fuel and air into your engine you would need to push burnt gasses back up through the exhaust and into the cylinder to compensate. Come on. Use your head. The reason the huge exhaust hurts power is that the large diameter short runner combo increases flow at the expense of velocity which hurts scavenging and doesn't allow your engine to get all that burnt gas out. Backpressure == bad. Velocity == good.
This is a complete load of crap. Your engine doesn't need, nor want backpressure. If you change your exhaust and loose power it's because your exhaust isn't flow matched to your intake, heads, and cam. You've got primaries that are too big around or too short, and you're gaining peak flow at the expense of exhaust gas _VELOCITY_ which is required to produce good low-end torque. Your engine is an air pump, and backpressure, by definition, impedes its ability to do its job.
Most of the hobbyist drag racers I've known have also had to use their cars as a daily driver, so winning a race at any cost wasn't acceptable. They have to win the race and then drive the race car to work the next day. This adds an interesting variable to the race, actually.
Another thing to keep in mind, when you've pushed one component far enough that it will exceed the tolerances on another component (axleshafts break pretty easily), then you either replace the component before it breaks, or you replace it after it breaks. Or you just don't actually push it until you can replace the weak part. Over time, I've seen budget hobbying hot-rodders build shitty cars into pretty high-performance cars without ever having to catch a taxi to work. That takes a LOT of skill and brains.
Hear Hear! This is exactly right. I drive my car at the track (12-ish second car) and then drive it 40 miles EACH WAY to work every single day. When I knew my rear end was going to blow up, I had to plan the downtime, aquire the parts, fix the car and not miss a beat at the track OR at work. I'm at an interesting impasse right now because I know I'm never going to get 12.5 without decent tires, but I also know that if I get good tires I'm going to blow out either my clutch or another rear end (GM Ten bolts suck ass!) So I'm probably going to compromise with a modest tire to get me by until I can afford a clutch and a 12-bolt.
This, IMHO, is where the fun is. Not only knowing how to point your car in a straight line and mash the pedal, but also being able to think about the combination you're building and what you actually intend to do with it. I could go all out with a 5+:1 12-bolt rear, ET Streets, and swap out my six-speed for a TH400, but I need to keep my daily commute in mind. My goal is to hit 12 flat and still be able to drive it in the rain and get 25+MPG on the highway.
I'm glad _somebody_ else understands what we're doing out there.
You're absolutely one hundred percent fucking wrong. Speaking as a drag racer myself, I can tell you that you have it exactly backwards. A drag racer has to know his car very very well and has to be able to depend on it to be consistant, but the race is won and lost by the racer, not the car (explosions, broken driveshaves, etc... not withstanding)
The driver has to know how to time the light. He has to know how hard he can launch his car without breaking something or spinning the tires. He has to know how agressivly he can shift without risking a missed shift or losing traction. He has to pay close attention to his opponent to make sure he knows if he should let up on the throttle at the end of the track or not. and when he's not busy thinking about all that, he has to manage to keep the car going in a straight line and all of this happens in a couple blinks of an eye.
Drag racing isn't just "Point the car in a straight line, launch hard, and keep the throttle down until the end." You have to know in advance how fast your car is. Know how fast your opponent's car is, and time your run so that you get your car to the other end of the 1320 BEFORE your opponenent, but not before your specified time. Believe me. If it were just "Point it straight and hammer down" it would be a lot easier.
Top fuelers have to be just insane to try to race. I can't immagine the kind of reflexes you'd have to have to do that right.
Thank you! I've been asking that question for quite a while now, and nobody has an answer.
Seems like a pretty dumb idea to me. Gee, the good guys are just winning way too often and we have to do something about all this peace and prosperity. We need balance, damnit!
The Z06 makes 405HP from the factory naturally aspirated at a very reasonable 6k RPM.
405hp/346cid = 1.170hp/cid -- My point was not that tin-can econoboxes are shit and v8's rule. My point was that you can't simply say pushrod v8's are an old design and therefore inefficient. Just as there are shitty econobox engines (Geo Metro comes to mind) there are well engineered pushrod v8's (though no 5.0 litre examples that I can think of. *grin*).
The parent poster made a blanket statement implying that these engines were dinosoar technology that was somehow inferior because the basic design was too old. IMHO, that was either an ignorant misunderstanding or a blatant troll. Unfortunately, the trolling method of posting incorect information as fact only leads to more ignorance if not answered.
Why is this marked "insightful?" Just because he used the phrase "pushrod v8?" Well, if that's insightful, I suppose I'll throw in the observation that the closest thing to a 5.0 is the mustang's 4.6L which is an overhead cam design. The pushrod beasts are the LS1/LS6 from GM and the HEMI from Mopar; Both of which are in the 5.7 and bigger range.
Of course, it's worth noting that from the factory, with no modifications, these engines are making far closer to one HP/CID than any of the tin-can econoboxes and doing so at reasonable (under 6k) RPM. Some of the performance crate motors are actually coming from the factory with >1HP/CID. Yes, that's right. The "dumb" old pushrod v8 design has been advancing technologicaly right along with the OHC/DOHC engines and is in many cases a more efficient engine.
Double the gearing on the cars that come with these engines so that they have the same "performance" as a Geo Metro or something and suddenly those "dumb" engines don't look so bad. The problem is, we _ARE_ enjoying them. We are using them in performance applications exactly for the reason that we enjoy them.
(quote)"Online companies don't use state services," he said. "If you're going to the store to buy something, you're going to be driving on the roads and the store will be using police protection or fire protection and other state services for which it would be appropriate that they charge a tax."(endquote)
What a load of crap!
Do the UPS trucks not run on public roads, and do the online stores not get billed for that? Or the trucks which bring goods to the warehouse? Speaking of the warehouse, does it not require police and fire protection?
In other words, okay, so it's empty. How do they insure that it *stays* empty?
Um... Launch rockets there. *grin*
China and other countries stop the open-air burning of toxic stuff like computer motherboards
Just as soon as the USA and other first world countries stop dumping them in China's lap in the first place
How exactly are we doing this? Are we flying over and tossing them from airplanes? How exactly are we "dumping them in China's lap" without them wanting the things?
Alan Greenspan has precisely zero to do with banking regulations.
If I understand RHN and up2date correctly, you need to log into RHN and tell it that your system needs the update then up2date will pick up the patch. Yes? No?
I tried to get in touch with my inner female. She filed a restraining order against me for it.
You mean the glass is flowing UP?!?!?
Now _THERE_ is a story!
of the change from the Wahroonga postcode to the Turramurra
Come on... You're making that up.
I would suddenly have to start paying income tax. Will the world end? No. In fact, I would prefer it.
Well go ahead then. What's stopping you? Send the government a check. I'm sure they'll cash it.
You think a state is going to let THEIR money (which is how they see tax dollars. It's THEIR money, they just haven't been able to pry your sticky fingers off it yet.) in YOUR bank account? You honestly don't think you would end up being forced to pay both and then fight for your money back (with no interest of course, because why should they give YOU interest on THEIR money?)
We are talking about state governments with dollar signs in their eyes here.
Most FTP servers make outbound connections. That's why most FTP clients don't like to work from behind firewalls. DNS servers transfer zones back and forth. Lots of portal websites use scripts to pull data and headlines (like slashdot headlines) off other servers for re-presentation. IRC servers connect to other IRC servers. NTP servers talk to each other. The list goes on and on.
Plus I don't agree with the previous poster's assumption that ssh only lives on servers. I have openssh on all of my workstations so that I can get into them from remote locations for various reasions (retrieving the previous night's work, fetching that MP3 I'm dying to hear, su-ing to root and shuting the box down when I see a thunderstorm on weather.com, etc...)
If he wants to make a broad generalization it might be that you shouldn't compile code on boxes you expect to be secure. I never compile anything on my firewall or my servers. I compile it on my workstation and rsync it over. Of course, even that could be defeated by this makefile trojan since usually the way to install what gets copied over is to make install as root. If this guy had trojaned the 'install' target he would have caught a lot more people with their pants down. Luckily he was either an idiot or only trying to prove a point.