The best part? Well, besides the transparent web proxy, I really like how you can have an internal-only network and a seperate DMZ network to hang your web services off of.
That's just peachy, but if he's not doing any of that, then who cares? This is spoken as someone who has something similar (but I just started with OpenBSD and my own custom rulesets). I've also built similar boxes for people who wanted 4-leg networks (hacked box isolation and diagnosis, etc.). For a relatively simple user the only real question may be: How many simultaneous connections can that pretty white box handle when you've got 4 people doing bittorrent downloads?
If the answer is 'enough', then who cares about doing things that he doesn't want to do? It's like the difference between a cargo van and an austin mini -- if all you're doing is hauling groceries for two, the cargo vans capabilities are overkill, and the extra gas bill is a waste.
Even though I've got the pieces to build 3 or 4 more 'interesting' firewalls, I'm still happy to recommend a small box router to most of my friends who don't see the value of dedicating an entire shelf to the same ( for them) functionality.
But I still would like to get rid of some of these boxes....
user@localhost>make o'reilly
No rule to make target 'o'reilly'. Stop.
Lucky you: I just got a greater-than sign that wouldn't go away, no matter how many times I hit 'enter. . I had to enter the command again, then I got this:
[darkonc@me projects]$ make o'reilly > > > make o'reilly make: *** No rule to make target `oreilly
Because half the fun in trying out cool stuff is thinking up the idea yourself,..... This magazine would take out all the fun.
Not at all.. The magazine lets you see what other people are doing. This gives you some interesting ideas for:
1: Things you might want to do that are (slightly or completely) different
2: Ways of getting unusual things done on a budget not signed by the NSA.
The guys that were the technical advisors to one of the second world war escape movies ("The Great Escape", I think) considered the possibility that it might give future jailers ideas about preventing those same tactics from being used again, then decided that what was most importat was teaching the committment to thinking up ingenious methods and diversions that was most important, while the specific tactics were all but irrelevent.
I think of apt-get being for prepackaged and (nearly) complete builds.
If you're in the DIY mode, you're more likely to be using Make. Once you have a (semi) complete product then you'd be making it available to the apt-get crowd.
Modified code is not (required to be) licensed under the GPL until and unless you distribute it. Now, if Connelly was distributing copies of Mambo containing the code that he now claims to be his, then He's the one who is now in violation of the GPL, has lost all rights to use Mambo and is now (properly) subject to copyright complaints. He'd still have the rights to his own portions of Mambo, but he'd now have to rewrite the rest of Mambo to be able to use it.
Proprietary use of GPL code on a website opens up a bit of a hole in the GPL, which effectively allows it. There might be room for a modified WebGPL that explicitly defines such use of the code for public performance as triggering the distribution clause.
Be aware, however, that -- even though this would be far less viral than most proprietary EULAs, it steps onto ground that I think the FSF avoided for a reason.
it doesn't matter if he distributes it or not; it's GPL, period.
The GPL simply states that IF you distribute the derivative software, you must do so under the GPL (give them the sourde code and the right to distribute it under the GPL). There is no absolute requirement for public distribution. Quite to the contrary, it explicitly allows you to keep any changes within your organization.
That having been said, if it was a work for hire, then there are a couple of questions -- the first being who ended up with a copy of the original software. If it was the contractor, then he's actually got full rights to redistribute it, and all that Mr. Connolly can do is sue the contractor for violating his contracted promise to keep the code secret.
If the copyright went to Connolly and the contractor didn't actually do a re-implementaiton of that code that frees it from copyright, then I'm thinking that the proper people to sue would still be the contractor, and anybody else distributing the code (but not usually the end=users).
That having been said: 1: IANAL, and 2: If you get a lette from this guy, you'd essentially have two choices:
A: Give in, and have the block of code re-implemented by somone else, or
B: risk having to spend $400K proving me right.
I'm guessing that Connolly is more interested in blocking the competition than copyright law -- and that would explain his focus on end users rather than distributors.
Looks like the 4801 has usb, too (though only usb 1.1, which at 12 mbps is a little slow as a file server).
If you didn't also want a file server, I'd say "go for it". There was a time when booting diskless over a 10 megabit (shared) network was condidered just peachy. If all you have on the outside of the firewall is a 1 Megabit adsl/cable link then it'd be more than enough to handle that load.
Unfortunately, if you also want file serving, chances are (these days) that you'd find 12 megabit a bit slow.
You forgot to ask to see his tax returns for the last 7 years, all bank statements and other documents of financial transactions, and the names of all business and individuals
There are still a few hundred million lines of AIX that haven't been compared.
Whoop de friggin do!!!
IBM has a license to use UNIX in AIX, so if there's UNIX code in AIX, that's just fine.
There's actually no question that there's AIX code ported to Linux (but without any AT&T code in it). I think that that's a given. Even if there is, though, that has nothing to do with Copyright violations... SCO has acknowledged that IBM still owns their AIX code, just that they (SCO) have the right to NIX IBM from revealing it... but that's would be a contract violation question (in the improbability-drive universe where SCO is correct), not copyright, which is what they're arguing about here.
The SCO Contract claims are scheduled to get shot down next month, If I remember correctly.
Remember that any external variables cannot renamed. If, for example, you rename write(2) to syswrite(2), then you've broken just about every piece of UNIX user code what was ever written.
Once you pull all of those interconnected pieces out, there's not much room to rename variables, and if there were any wholesale copying of code from Unix to Linux, You'd still find blocks of matching code all over the place with just the external variable names.
I'm sure they will jump on the fact that the expert didn't provide an example of a true derivative work run through the same procedure.
It just hit me: He doesn't have to. It's SCO's responsibility to show that there is infringing code in Linux. It's not IBM's responsibility to show that there is none. All that Davis has to prove is that the search is feasible in a reasonable ammount of time (as opposed to SCO's claim of 25,000 man-years). He's done this admirably. Not being able to find anything is simply icing on the cake.
One beautiful thing about this is that (AFAICT) all (or almost all) of the software he used seems to be Open source (although he has references some similar commercial software), so SCO has absolutely no excuse to not repeat his experiment and come up with different results (presuming that they've actually got a case), given that it takes about 1 hour to run the comparison on off-the-shelf hardware.
The other beautiful thing about this is -- remember Darl's remarks about an MIT team deep-diving the code?...... (boot to the head!)
"I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!"
He doesn't need to; the software in question has probably been used many times before for the exact same thing.
No doubt that it's been used before (and successfully, too!), but it would have been a good idea to provide an example of the code finding true positives so that:
The judge would have proof that it works.
SCO would have no excuse to say "ah, it just can't find anything
On the other hand, he did provide at least one example of false positives -- which really does do the jobs listed above and even proves that the program finds stuff that is vaguely similar even if it doesn't fit the criteria for protectability.
I don't think that they explicitly claimed that the forecast that takes an hour is a 3 day forcast.. I'd expect that it would be for a 5 day forecast, with the 3 day forecast being ejected mid stream.
My thesis is that the confusion came from the last sentence that: "If we took three days to do a three-day forecast, it wouldn't be relevant."
Fortran also has built-in complex mathematics. No need for subroutines and macros (which just slow down computing and/or compiling).
Many of the most famous Fortran computational libraries have long since been translated into C and other languages, but when you have millions of lines of perfectly functional (and reasonably complicated) Fortran production code, moving to something like C is a difficult decision, especially when you have limited value in the move.
As someone else pointed out: C is close to the machine, Fortran is close to the math. Where Fortran falls down is building interesting data structures and producing pretty output. Truth of the matter is that C isn't that much better as complex structures, and if you want pretty output you can always pipe the fortran output thru a perl filter. -- besides, these days the output is usually turned into a graphics image, so pretty numerical output isn't so important any more.
Besides: Just because the modelling is being done in FORTRAN doesn't mean that other parts of the process aren't done in languages appropriate to those tasks.
Fortran does just fine, thank you for numeric computation. Just because I wouldn't use it for OS building doesn't mean that I'm willing to throw out this baby with the bathwater.
(( Using COBOL on the other hand, seems lik cruel and unusual punishment for almost any task. ))
A couple of remote ion turrents, then add some motion sensors and cameras to the mix. At that point any intruder into your base is gonna be toast.
. . . . .
Uhh. I've been playing Tribes too much.
The "assault weapon" ban only covers semi-automatic rifles, you still won't be able to buy an AK-47...
AK-47's can be 'civilianized' down to semi-automatic. (and, apparently, can also be easily
re-converted back to full auto once you purchase them). Even if you don't go the criminal route of converting it to full auto, your grandmother (or grandchild) can still do massive ammounts of damage with a semi-automatic AK-47.
2 of them cost over 2500$ in vet bills before it was finally to late, the other one had leukemia and the vet said there's nothing at all we could do
Either you've just been very unlucky, or there are some serious problems with the shelter where you got them. I've had a couple of cats from shelters, and friends who have gotten many more. I haven't had any out of the ordinary problems with them, and neither have my friends (except for the one who specifically looks for special needs cats). Normally cats will actually live a good bit longer than dogs.
In any case, that's kinda irrelevant to the question at hand... Although a couple of indoor/outdoor cats will completely eliminate most mouse/rat problems (other than having to clean up after the cats have had dinner). Cats won't generally deter human thieves (unless you've got a pet bobcat, but that's a different story).
Dogs apparently do deter thieves... In fact, one police officer said that just having a 'Beware of Dog' sign on the door is enough to make most thieves go to the next house. An actual dog is optional.
Code submission would likely be construed as a gift.
It might be in other cases, but in the case of GPL contributions, the GPL presumes that it is contributed under the GPL, since "Nothing else gives you the right...."
Part of the reason why some people prefer contributing to GPL code over (for example) BSD licensed code is that they 'know' that their contributins will remain free.
The proper way to do things like this is to do like what the ReiserFs people did, and ask everybody contributing to do it under a dual license regime -- either that or do what other projects did and get permission before you release code under a modified license.
It's not that this dual-license stuff is impossible -- It's just that this way of doing things is morally unacceptable, if not outright illegal.
Actually, I take that back. This guy's pretty savvy...he's betting that most of the code contributors won't care (or pay attention) enough to demand that he remove their code from his binary.
A saffy code contributor has 5 years to register his copyright from when it was released. (S)he can then sue the bastard for statutory damages. This is a wilful copyright violation for money. Judges really don't take a shine to things like that.
<li> it'd be a lot easier if you didn't put <br>s before your <li>s.
<li> If this guy's work in portng the X-Chat is worth so much money, what about the people who contributed the original code that he's porting?
<br>
They contributed their code in the understanding that it'd remain free. Now they've got someone holding it randsom; offering them the choice of letting him sell it while keeping the full fee or pulling it out piecemeal.
According to the page, the actual code for the wineners should be up mid-October.
They intended to have the winning code available today, but the website was designed by last year's winner, and they're guessing it'll take another 6 weeks to figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just peachy, but if he's not doing any of that, then who cares? This is spoken as someone who has something similar (but I just started with OpenBSD and my own custom rulesets). I've also built similar boxes for people who wanted 4-leg networks (hacked box isolation and diagnosis, etc.). For a relatively simple user the only real question may be: How many simultaneous connections can that pretty white box handle when you've got 4 people doing bittorrent downloads?
If the answer is 'enough', then who cares about doing things that he doesn't want to do? It's like the difference between a cargo van and an austin mini -- if all you're doing is hauling groceries for two, the cargo vans capabilities are overkill, and the extra gas bill is a waste.
Even though I've got the pieces to build 3 or 4 more 'interesting' firewalls, I'm still happy to recommend a small box router to most of my friends who don't see the value of dedicating an entire shelf to the same (
for them) functionality.
But I still would like to get rid of some of these boxes....
No rule to make target 'o'reilly'. Stop.
Lucky you: I just got a greater-than sign that wouldn't go away, no matter how many times I hit 'enter. . I had to enter the command again, then I got this:
Not at all.. The magazine lets you see what other people are doing. This gives you some interesting ideas for:
1: Things you might want to do that are (slightly or completely) different
2: Ways of getting unusual things done on a budget not signed by the NSA.
The guys that were the technical advisors to one of the second world war escape movies ("The Great Escape", I think) considered the possibility that it might give future jailers ideas about preventing those same tactics from being used again, then decided that what was most importat was teaching the committment to thinking up ingenious methods and diversions that was most important, while the specific tactics were all but irrelevent.
I think of apt-get being for prepackaged and (nearly) complete builds.
If you're in the DIY mode, you're more likely to be using Make. Once you have a (semi) complete product then you'd be making it available to the apt-get crowd.
He doesn't care about collecting damages. He cares about resticting his competition.
Modified code is not (required to be) licensed under the GPL until and unless you distribute it. Now, if Connelly was distributing copies of Mambo containing the code that he now claims to be his, then He's the one who is now in violation of the GPL, has lost all rights to use Mambo and is now (properly) subject to copyright complaints.
He'd still have the rights to his own portions of Mambo, but he'd now have to rewrite the rest of Mambo to be able to use it.
Be aware, however, that -- even though this would be far less viral than most proprietary EULAs, it steps onto ground that I think the FSF avoided for a reason.
The GPL simply states that IF you distribute the derivative software, you must do so under the GPL (give them the sourde code and the right to distribute it under the GPL). There is no absolute requirement for public distribution. Quite to the contrary, it explicitly allows you to keep any changes within your organization.
That having been said, if it was a work for hire, then there are a couple of questions -- the first being who ended up with a copy of the original software. If it was the contractor, then he's actually got full rights to redistribute it, and all that Mr. Connolly can do is sue the contractor for violating his contracted promise to keep the code secret.
If the copyright went to Connolly and the contractor didn't actually do a re-implementaiton of that code that frees it from copyright, then I'm thinking that the proper people to sue would still be the contractor, and anybody else distributing the code (but not usually the end=users).
That having been said: 1: IANAL, and 2: If you get a lette from this guy, you'd essentially have two choices:
A: Give in, and have the block of code re-implemented by somone else, or
B: risk having to spend $400K proving me right.
I'm guessing that Connolly is more interested in blocking the competition than copyright law -- and that would explain his focus on end users rather than distributors.
If you didn't also want a file server, I'd say "go for it". There was a time when booting diskless over a 10 megabit (shared) network was condidered just peachy. If all you have on the outside of the firewall is a 1 Megabit adsl/cable link then it'd be more than enough to handle that load.
Unfortunately, if you also want file serving, chances are (these days) that you'd find 12 megabit a bit slow.
You may be thinking of The HardOCP case, there....
Whoop de friggin do!!!
IBM has a license to use UNIX in AIX, so if there's UNIX code in AIX, that's just fine.
There's actually no question that there's AIX code ported to Linux (but without any AT&T code in it). I think that that's a given. Even if there is, though, that has nothing to do with Copyright violations... SCO has acknowledged that IBM still owns their AIX code, just that they (SCO) have the right to NIX IBM from revealing it... but that's would be a contract violation question (in the improbability-drive universe where SCO is correct), not copyright, which is what they're arguing about here.
The SCO Contract claims are scheduled to get shot down next month, If I remember correctly.
Once you pull all of those interconnected pieces out, there's not much room to rename variables, and if there were any wholesale copying of code from Unix to Linux, You'd still find blocks of matching code all over the place with just the external variable names.
It just hit me: He doesn't have to. It's SCO's responsibility to show that there is infringing code in Linux. It's not IBM's responsibility to show that there is none. All that Davis has to prove is that the search is feasible in a reasonable ammount of time (as opposed to SCO's claim of 25,000 man-years). He's done this admirably. Not being able to find anything is simply icing on the cake.
One beautiful thing about this is that (AFAICT) all (or almost all) of the software he used seems to be Open source (although he has references some similar commercial software), so SCO has absolutely no excuse to not repeat his experiment and come up with different results (presuming that they've actually got a case), given that it takes about 1 hour to run the comparison on off-the-shelf hardware.
The other beautiful thing about this is -- remember Darl's remarks about an MIT team deep-diving the code?...... (boot to the head!)
"I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!"
No doubt that it's been used before (and successfully, too!), but it would have been a good idea to provide an example of the code finding true positives so that:
- The judge would have proof that it works.
- SCO would have no excuse to say "ah, it just can't find anything
On the other hand, he did provide at least one example of false positives -- which really does do the jobs listed above and even proves that the program finds stuff that is vaguely similar even if it doesn't fit the criteria for protectability.My thesis is that the confusion came from the last sentence that: "If we took three days to do a three-day forecast, it wouldn't be relevant."
Many of the most famous Fortran computational libraries have long since been translated into C and other languages, but when you have millions of lines of perfectly functional (and reasonably complicated) Fortran production code, moving to something like C is a difficult decision, especially when you have limited value in the move.
As someone else pointed out: C is close to the machine, Fortran is close to the math. Where Fortran falls down is building interesting data structures and producing pretty output. Truth of the matter is that C isn't that much better as complex structures, and if you want pretty output you can always pipe the fortran output thru a perl filter. -- besides, these days the output is usually turned into a graphics image, so pretty numerical output isn't so important any more.
Besides: Just because the modelling is being done in FORTRAN doesn't mean that other parts of the process aren't done in languages appropriate to those tasks.
Fortran does just fine, thank you for numeric computation. Just because I wouldn't use it for OS building doesn't mean that I'm willing to throw out this baby with the bathwater.
(( Using COBOL on the other hand, seems lik cruel and unusual punishment for almost any task. ))
Uhh. I've been playing Tribes too much.
Get a dog.
AK-47's can be 'civilianized' down to semi-automatic. (and, apparently, can also be easily re-converted back to full auto once you purchase them). Even if you don't go the criminal route of converting it to full auto, your grandmother (or grandchild) can still do massive ammounts of damage with a semi-automatic AK-47.
Conversion Materials:
Either you've just been very unlucky, or there are some serious problems with the shelter where you got them. I've had a couple of cats from shelters, and friends who have gotten many more. I haven't had any out of the ordinary problems with them, and neither have my friends (except for the one who specifically looks for special needs cats). Normally cats will actually live a good bit longer than dogs.
In any case, that's kinda irrelevant to the question at hand... Although a couple of indoor/outdoor cats will completely eliminate most mouse/rat problems (other than having to clean up after the cats have had dinner). Cats won't generally deter human thieves (unless you've got a pet bobcat, but that's a different story).
Dogs apparently do deter thieves... In fact, one police officer said that just having a 'Beware of Dog' sign on the door is enough to make most thieves go to the next house. An actual dog is optional.
It might be in other cases, but in the case of GPL contributions, the GPL presumes that it is contributed under the GPL, since "Nothing else gives you the right ...."
Part of the reason why some people prefer contributing to GPL code over (for example) BSD licensed code is that they 'know' that their contributins will remain free.
The proper way to do things like this is to do like what the ReiserFs people did, and ask everybody contributing to do it under a dual license regime -- either that or do what other projects did and get permission before you release code under a modified license.
It's not that this dual-license stuff is impossible -- It's just that this way of doing things is morally unacceptable, if not outright illegal.
That's fine, as long as you remove the GPL code before you start distributing the derivative binaries.
A saffy code contributor has 5 years to register his copyright from when it was released. (S)he can then sue the bastard for statutory damages. This is a wilful copyright violation for money. Judges really don't take a shine to things like that.
Neither does the law.
- <li> it'd be a lot easier if you didn't put <br>s before your <li>s.
- <li> If this guy's work in portng the X-Chat is worth so much money, what about the people who contributed the original code that he's porting?
<br>
</ol>They contributed their code in the understanding that it'd remain free. Now they've got someone holding it randsom; offering them the choice of letting him sell it while keeping the full fee or pulling it out piecemeal.
They intended to have the winning code available today, but the website was designed by last year's winner, and they're guessing it'll take another 6 weeks to figure it out.
They started in January.