With most of the large Linux distributions, maintainers (sometimes multiple) act as liaisons between users and "upstream" authors. Case in point: Debian GNU/Linux, where each package is maintained by at least one maintainer. You, the user, submit a bug report to BTS, where the maintainer collects further information and passes it along upstream. (That was the simplified version.) Ultimately extra patches or bugfixes, etc. may be rolled into upstream's source. Bugs are closed in BTS. Behold the power of source.;-)
This is an interesting [mis]perception. I'm not about to judge how you came to such a conclusion, but my experience was quite different. I graduated from UNC Chapel Hill, a public flagship state university not necessarily renowned for engineering. The types of acquaintances I made were highly-educated and quite knowledgeable across the board. Certainly there was a strong current of "non-techiness" among certain student groups, but generally the students are quite well-informed.
I agree, both CS and the "classical humanities" (ala classics, history, languages, political "science") share a certain analytical methodology. Having majored in both computer science and English, I've heard from classmates the seeming apprehension (perhaps even disdain) each side holds. It basically stems from a type of closed mentality; a lot of CS enthusiasts and students shy from the seeming frivolous creativity and expression in classics; a lot of classical humanities majors avoid the "heavy math" of the sciences. In fact these views are misled. Granted, there's always an artistic element in studying a discipline, but one must often thoroughly understand the building blocks of various disciplines before attempting to define and explore the sinergy of "CS and Liberal Arts." An incorrect approach to "combine" or "bridge" the two camps would be to "talk down" to each discipline; you end up with dissatisfied students. You need more cross-discipline professors, as Professor K teaching a "liberal arts" seminar, or an esteemed classics professor teaching a programming languages concepts course. Unfortunately they're few and far between.
There's a fair amount of testing that takes place before the packages are updated. I wouldn't count on 3.5pX going into Sid for a while yet. The more critical fixes might be backported against 1:3.4p1-4, etc.
There was actually no throwing of anything in the case I'm referring to. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time _by accident_ can even get you into trouble.
I worked for a couple networking depts on campus during my undergraduate "career" at UNC, among which was ResNet. I've learned a _ton_ during my years at UNC, and I continue to learn at work and in external studying. I worked with some truly great people in ATN and computer science, namely my bosses in ResNet and the security folks.
Early in my college stint, one of my Red Hat machines was hacked literally minutes after I ifup'ed eth0. Needless to say, I took an immense amount of heat because that computer was subsequently used as a waypoint to launch a DoS. What a turning point. Those who've interacted with me since have known me to be extremely critical of standard security procedures at universities; I've been very outspoken in pushing the use of strict ssh2, strong passwords, forced password expiration, keeping current with application and service updates, reading and generally being security-conscious, and other what I consider security essentials from an administrator's viewpoint. I say this because most students don't care about the difference between ssh2 and telnet; they just want to check their email and download mp3s.
Which brings me to my second point. During my junior year, I was part of one of the first large OpenNap networks. Although the particular server I operated had the enable_share parameter disabled, the nature of the network setup allowed information transfer over the entire network and thus anyone--even on a host with sharing disabled, like mine--could retrieve search results for a song search. The RIAA wasn't too happy (I don't doubt this was discovered through napigator), and in the end I had to sign a number of documents promising I would never infringe copyrights again, use excessive network resources, etc. This is despite the fact that I was operating a completely legal OpenNap server--my boss at ResNet affirmed that I wasn't sharing.
What this goes to show is that universities with _competent_ security and copyright-aware folks will throw up a safety net for you _if you're doing the right thing_. The EULA for ResNet at UNC and various links already cited in the posting above make explicit the methodology of dealing with suspected copyright violation. While I wasn't happy at the time, I have to acknowledge that UNC gave me a lot of support for which I'm grateful. The basic point is "don't do any stupid, and you won't regret it." If however, the RIAA decides to chase you down as they did me, as long as you're within your proper use, you should be ok.
I've heard separate stories about mistreatments on separate protests, but those are unfortunately not things for which I can vouch.
Actually the author doesn't make the point that "the right to Free software" is "a basic human right"--it might be inferred from the title, but that's an incomplete [and inaccurate] picture. The question more lies with human rights organizations--Amnesty International, various NGOs, etc.--and their use of nonfree software that hinders their effectiveness. I agree with the author's major points, but there are a few concessions even I as a free software enthusiast must make:
1) RE: accountability & verification Sure, the scientific community at large relies on a gratuitous mix of free and nonfree software for research, analysis, publication, etc. The author's strongest point in this argument is the factor of openness in review: those scrutinizing the process of arriving at such and such results are able to clearly argue the methodology's weaker points. You can't usually do this with closed proprietary packages because you have to _assume_ that all that has already been accounted for (although all researchers have big fat disclaimers in their papers as to scientific and analysis error, etc.).
I'm not quite sure of the non-openness being a "non-starter," however. I know of some human rights organizations that use nonfree software, and I don't think the verification of authenticity has ever been questioned.
2) The basic premise in the author's argument seems to be that free software would be ideal _given that its developers have a healthy conscience and world view_. Anyone who has taken a sociology and/or anthropology class--or even read an article or review that presented a perspective "not normally accepted"--knows that this isn't always the case. I'm not going to try and pigeon-hole developers because we're all different, but software development follows a pragmatic roadmap. There are _very_ few of us doing this thing because a) we love it; b) we want to make the world a "better place" [and not just the crap you scrawl on resumes and applications]. Often people say this view is too "relativistic," but you have to consider that "human rights" in and of itself is _extremely_ relativistic: beyond the ones that _we_ feel are necessary, we're out there "improving the living conditions" on a very subjective basis.
This is something the author should have emphasized as well: free software developers need to be passionate about world views that largely affect everyone, not just in isolated cases.
Actually Larry says that IBM's Linux Technology Center will have an exception clause, so the scenario you specifically outlined is moot.
However, the general case is still valid. In that case, Larry says BitMover wants you to do one (or more) of the following:
1) apply for an exception, which may or may not be difficult to obtain;
2) buy a commercial license.
Now the scenario outlined by a few more sharp-thinking kernel developers is to export GNU patches on a system not under BitMover's umbrella using means that don't fall under BitMover's IP, and then make them available to the public. Larry has stated in such a fashion that then there isn't anything BitMovers can do to prevent such changes from propagating.
I believe the intent of "Col. Klink (retired)" was to bring this to a wider audience, but there are several points that need to be reiterated.
1) "In fact you can't use BitKeeper if you OR your company have anything to do with competing software."
The above applies to/free/ use only. You are still welcome to purchase a commercial license from BitMover. What Larry has said "makes sense" from a survival/profit (i.e. capitalist) point of view: "you simply don't get to use our product -- which we provide for free -- to put our company out of business."
Furthermore, Larry has demonstrated that even if you/don't/ use BK, accessing changes and patches should be no more difficult than prior to Linus's trial/adoption of BK.
2) It has been made very clear by several of the core developers that accessibility to Linus's merges has been made much easier since his trial/adoption of BK. See here, here, and here.
Similarly, I doubled in mathematical sciences (compsci) and English, and they complement each other wonderfully. There is something beautifully tragic about someone who understands the value of concise, well-documented code, and on the flip side, someone who brings a "scientific" approach to coherent expression.
It never hurts to take that extra semester/quarter or two (or three, or four...), so do it while you can.
Re:Does this fix the nvidia/amd lockup?
on
Linux 2.4.19 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No Linux kernel branch currently contains fixes for the issue you noted. Folks from SuSE, AMD, and Nvidia are working toward a solution that will, as another post mentioned, require major restructuring of how memory is mapped (not to mention the issue of cacheline flushes, etc.). I think you have a better chance of seeing a workaround in 2.5. (I doubt the "mem=nopentium" append fixes it, perhaps lessens the chance of an erroneous state in the cacheline. Search lkml archives for details.)
Re:I tried compiling it once
on
WineX 2.0
·
· Score: 1
"make install" creates this link in/root then?
Re:I tried compiling it once
on
WineX 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Any particular reason you were running it as root?
I find the idea of a "well-rounded" education to be a shot in the dark at something that most students won't pursue at most liberal arts colleges because they/we simply aren't motivated enough. The best "well-rounded" education is something that takes cultivation, dedication, and a bit of stubborness. For instance, here at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -- just like at many other universities -- the courses that challenge me to think less-egocentrically and infuse in me a desire to change my/others' [warped] perceptions of our lifestyles (recycling, hello?) by offering more efficient alternatives are the ones that contribute to a "well-rounded" education.
However, lacking specialization can be detrimental as well. I'm just as guilty as any student of believing in the infinite superiority of his particular area(s) of study -- I also realize that the capacity to learn is something that one cultivates from a young age.
Trent Gardner did a wonderful exposition on Leonardo da Vinci's life -- there is a man whose thinking is truly well-rounded.
Taco, actually we at universities already play quake over Internet2. Traffic between Internet2-enabled sites never touches the commodity Internet, as stated in the post to which I'm replying.
Re:It's really experience(not the degree) that cou
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it's "prospective," and I omitted "turn" in the first sentence of the second paragraph as well. Oh well, I never claimed to be an _intelligent_ person. =P
It's really experience(not the degree) that counts
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
I'm a senior CS/English double major (minoring in the equivalent of CIS) who has struggled above and beyond the required maths (just for kicks or something insane like that), and I have to caution you that it's really experience and not the degree that counts. With either degree (C(I)S), make sure you have a firm understanding of the basics: data structures, algorithms, architectures, languages, and software engineering. Additionally, I urge you to investigate fully networking, encryption and security, and the oh-so-shifty world of open source programming (yes, open source and not necessarily Free Software(tm)): get involved in various projects, test alpha/beta/gamma versions, etc. Try to get an internship in your field(s) of interest; that's where you'll pick up invaluable experience.
I doubt a perspective employer would truly you down if you were quite experienced and had strength to back it academically, but as stated here in the forum, no amount of academic pounding on your brain can really affect you as much as one hour of work in the "real world."
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, I slipped Linux in there. Obviously this also applies to the BSDs.
With most of the large Linux distributions, maintainers (sometimes multiple) act as liaisons between users and "upstream" authors. Case in point: Debian GNU/Linux, where each package is maintained by at least one maintainer. You, the user, submit a bug report to BTS, where the maintainer collects further information and passes it along upstream. (That was the simplified version.) Ultimately extra patches or bugfixes, etc. may be rolled into upstream's source. Bugs are closed in BTS. Behold the power of source. ;-)
This is an interesting [mis]perception. I'm not about to judge how you came to such a conclusion, but my experience was quite different. I graduated from UNC Chapel Hill, a public flagship state university not necessarily renowned for engineering. The types of acquaintances I made were highly-educated and quite knowledgeable across the board. Certainly there was a strong current of "non-techiness" among certain student groups, but generally the students are quite well-informed.
I agree, both CS and the "classical humanities" (ala classics, history, languages, political "science") share a certain analytical methodology. Having majored in both computer science and English, I've heard from classmates the seeming apprehension (perhaps even disdain) each side holds. It basically stems from a type of closed mentality; a lot of CS enthusiasts and students shy from the seeming frivolous creativity and expression in classics; a lot of classical humanities majors avoid the "heavy math" of the sciences. In fact these views are misled. Granted, there's always an artistic element in studying a discipline, but one must often thoroughly understand the building blocks of various disciplines before attempting to define and explore the sinergy of "CS and Liberal Arts." An incorrect approach to "combine" or "bridge" the two camps would be to "talk down" to each discipline; you end up with dissatisfied students. You need more cross-discipline professors, as Professor K teaching a "liberal arts" seminar, or an esteemed classics professor teaching a programming languages concepts course. Unfortunately they're few and far between.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-d evel-200210/msg00167.html
Your best bet is to contact Eric directly to check with the status of Phoenix.
There's a fair amount of testing that takes place before the packages are updated. I wouldn't count on 3.5pX going into Sid for a while yet. The more critical fixes might be backported against 1:3.4p1-4, etc.
Thanks.
The MD5 checksums for the official and portable tarballs are provided in the announcement here.
There was actually no throwing of anything in the case I'm referring to. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time _by accident_ can even get you into trouble.
Actually, they sure can. I know three former classmates of mine that were arrested in various peaceful protests.
I worked for a couple networking depts on campus during my undergraduate "career" at UNC, among which was ResNet. I've learned a _ton_ during my years at UNC, and I continue to learn at work and in external studying. I worked with some truly great people in ATN and computer science, namely my bosses in ResNet and the security folks.
Early in my college stint, one of my Red Hat machines was hacked literally minutes after I ifup'ed eth0. Needless to say, I took an immense amount of heat because that computer was subsequently used as a waypoint to launch a DoS. What a turning point. Those who've interacted with me since have known me to be extremely critical of standard security procedures at universities; I've been very outspoken in pushing the use of strict ssh2, strong passwords, forced password expiration, keeping current with application and service updates, reading and generally being security-conscious, and other what I consider security essentials from an administrator's viewpoint. I say this because most students don't care about the difference between ssh2 and telnet; they just want to check their email and download mp3s.
Which brings me to my second point. During my junior year, I was part of one of the first large OpenNap networks. Although the particular server I operated had the enable_share parameter disabled, the nature of the network setup allowed information transfer over the entire network and thus anyone--even on a host with sharing disabled, like mine--could retrieve search results for a song search. The RIAA wasn't too happy (I don't doubt this was discovered through napigator), and in the end I had to sign a number of documents promising I would never infringe copyrights again, use excessive network resources, etc. This is despite the fact that I was operating a completely legal OpenNap server--my boss at ResNet affirmed that I wasn't sharing.
What this goes to show is that universities with _competent_ security and copyright-aware folks will throw up a safety net for you _if you're doing the right thing_. The EULA for ResNet at UNC and various links already cited in the posting above make explicit the methodology of dealing with suspected copyright violation. While I wasn't happy at the time, I have to acknowledge that UNC gave me a lot of support for which I'm grateful. The basic point is "don't do any stupid, and you won't regret it." If however, the RIAA decides to chase you down as they did me, as long as you're within your proper use, you should be ok.
I've heard separate stories about mistreatments on separate protests, but those are unfortunately not things for which I can vouch.
Actually the author doesn't make the point that "the right to Free software" is "a basic human right"--it might be inferred from the title, but that's an incomplete [and inaccurate] picture. The question more lies with human rights organizations--Amnesty International, various NGOs, etc.--and their use of nonfree software that hinders their effectiveness. I agree with the author's major points, but there are a few concessions even I as a free software enthusiast must make:
1) RE: accountability & verification
Sure, the scientific community at large relies on a gratuitous mix of free and nonfree software for research, analysis, publication, etc. The author's strongest point in this argument is the factor of openness in review: those scrutinizing the process of arriving at such and such results are able to clearly argue the methodology's weaker points. You can't usually do this with closed proprietary packages because you have to _assume_ that all that has already been accounted for (although all researchers have big fat disclaimers in their papers as to scientific and analysis error, etc.).
I'm not quite sure of the non-openness being a "non-starter," however. I know of some human rights organizations that use nonfree software, and I don't think the verification of authenticity has ever been questioned.
2) The basic premise in the author's argument seems to be that free software would be ideal _given that its developers have a healthy conscience and world view_. Anyone who has taken a sociology and/or anthropology class--or even read an article or review that presented a perspective "not normally accepted"--knows that this isn't always the case. I'm not going to try and pigeon-hole developers because we're all different, but software development follows a pragmatic roadmap. There are _very_ few of us doing this thing because a) we love it; b) we want to make the world a "better place" [and not just the crap you scrawl on resumes and applications]. Often people say this view is too "relativistic," but you have to consider that "human rights" in and of itself is _extremely_ relativistic: beyond the ones that _we_ feel are necessary, we're out there "improving the living conditions" on a very subjective basis.
This is something the author should have emphasized as well: free software developers need to be passionate about world views that largely affect everyone, not just in isolated cases.
All, in all, however, a very good presentation.
Actually Larry says that IBM's Linux Technology Center will have an exception clause, so the scenario you specifically outlined is moot.
However, the general case is still valid. In that case, Larry says BitMover wants you to do one (or more) of the following:
1) apply for an exception, which may or may not be difficult to obtain;
2) buy a commercial license.
Now the scenario outlined by a few more sharp-thinking kernel developers is to export GNU patches on a system not under BitMover's umbrella using means that don't fall under BitMover's IP, and then make them available to the public. Larry has stated in such a fashion that then there isn't anything BitMovers can do to prevent such changes from propagating.
I believe the intent of "Col. Klink (retired)" was to bring this to a wider audience, but there are several points that need to be reiterated.
/free/ use only. You are still welcome to purchase a commercial license from BitMover. What Larry has said "makes sense" from a survival/profit (i.e. capitalist) point of view: "you simply don't get to use our product -- which we provide for free -- to put our company out of business."
/don't/ use BK, accessing changes and patches should be no more difficult than prior to Linus's trial/adoption of BK.
3 389686711292&w=2, or subscribe to linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org for updates.
1) "In fact you can't use BitKeeper if you OR your company have anything to do with competing software."
The above applies to
Furthermore, Larry has demonstrated that even if you
2) It has been made very clear by several of the core developers that accessibility to Linus's merges has been made much easier since his trial/adoption of BK. See here, here, and here.
3) This is hardly a "new EULA."
Please see the thread at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=10
Similarly, I doubled in mathematical sciences (compsci) and English, and they complement each other wonderfully. There is something beautifully tragic about someone who understands the value of concise, well-documented code, and on the flip side, someone who brings a "scientific" approach to coherent expression.
It never hurts to take that extra semester/quarter or two (or three, or four...), so do it while you can.
No Linux kernel branch currently contains fixes for the issue you noted. Folks from SuSE, AMD, and Nvidia are working toward a solution that will, as another post mentioned, require major restructuring of how memory is mapped (not to mention the issue of cacheline flushes, etc.). I think you have a better chance of seeing a workaround in 2.5. (I doubt the "mem=nopentium" append fixes it, perhaps lessens the chance of an erroneous state in the cacheline. Search lkml archives for details.)
"make install" creates this link in /root then?
Any particular reason you were running it as root?
No, this is most certainly NOT an April Fools'.
Btw, not all applicants such as myself are 14 year-old Linux hackers. Some of us just bang on it in our spare time.
I find the idea of a "well-rounded" education to be a shot in the dark at something that most students won't pursue at most liberal arts colleges because they/we simply aren't motivated enough. The best "well-rounded" education is something that takes cultivation, dedication, and a bit of stubborness. For instance, here at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill -- just like at many other universities -- the courses that challenge me to think less-egocentrically and infuse in me a desire to change my/others' [warped] perceptions of our lifestyles (recycling, hello?) by offering more efficient alternatives are the ones that contribute to a "well-rounded" education.
However, lacking specialization can be detrimental as well. I'm just as guilty as any student of believing in the infinite superiority of his particular area(s) of study -- I also realize that the capacity to learn is something that one cultivates from a young age.
Trent Gardner did a wonderful exposition on Leonardo da Vinci's life -- there is a man whose thinking is truly well-rounded.
apt-get -b source foo
:)
0.7 is not available via Debian proper, but add this to your /etc/apt/sources.list :
deb http://archive.progeny.com progeny main contrib non-free
I've been running the 0.7-0progeny1 deb from Progeny, a very cool company, for a while now.
See http://www.internet2.edu/ for more information.
Taco, actually we at universities already play quake over Internet2. Traffic between Internet2-enabled sites never touches the commodity Internet, as stated in the post to which I'm replying.
Yes, it's "prospective," and I omitted "turn" in the first sentence of the second paragraph as well. Oh well, I never claimed to be an _intelligent_ person. =P
I'm a senior CS/English double major (minoring in the equivalent of CIS) who has struggled above and beyond the required maths (just for kicks or something insane like that), and I have to caution you that it's really experience and not the degree that counts. With either degree (C(I)S), make sure you have a firm understanding of the basics: data structures, algorithms, architectures, languages, and software engineering. Additionally, I urge you to investigate fully networking, encryption and security, and the oh-so-shifty world of open source programming (yes, open source and not necessarily Free Software(tm)): get involved in various projects, test alpha/beta/gamma versions, etc. Try to get an internship in your field(s) of interest; that's where you'll pick up invaluable experience.
I doubt a perspective employer would truly you down if you were quite experienced and had strength to back it academically, but as stated here in the forum, no amount of academic pounding on your brain can really affect you as much as one hour of work in the "real world."