Does code access security give you what you want for sandboxes? Go ahead, take 13 minutes, watch the video, read the transcript, get a feel for what's going on.
Oh, I dunno. For books that were really busy doing something else, Titan/Wizard/Demon did squeeze in a lot of interesting dynamics - Robin the Nine-Fingered's societal outlook, Chris and Valiha, Rocky and Gaby, and if you expand the topic to the politics of procreation, the Titanide/Wizard relationship was a new viewpoint.
Steel Beach is the one I was thinking of, though. And I pretty much agree with your main point.
We're just talking to each other now behind the main wave, I suppose, but still worth saying. Maybe Varley will cut us a commission.
The fact that the Cold War happened and 'communism' became a dirty word in the U.S. and other western nations doesn't make Open Source any less about ensuring that everyone can enjoy the fruits of the labor of the most talented without the necessity of enriching the producers of the software or discrimination against those that would not be able to afford software if it was proprietary and commercial.
That's not a sentence, that's a buffer overflow attempt...
I was with you up to syllable #127, but errored out appropriately at that point. It's in the spec, I swear to god.
Anything that flies benefits from light components.
Anything that flies benefits from being actually completed already - a mystical state that higher-level toolkits help one achieve more quickly.
I'm sure they could start from the codebase they have now, work really hard, and have equivalent expertise built into a lighter package in some number of staff-years. Alternately, they could archive the source, go drink margaritas for a couple years, and then buy the lighter package with equivalent power off the shelf and use it to run the existing already-completed software.
Which would you consider the elegant way to proceed?
I've solved problems (and that's what it's all about) using 50 lines of C feeding 100 lines of Fortran feeding 50 lines of Perl producing Postscript that compiled to the desired diagrams, because that's what suited the problem domains best.
Please tell me you destroyed the source immediately afterward, or at least that no maintainer knows your name.
I fear for your life the first time someone wants one little change.
Now before we go any farther with this, and start designing funky logos or whatever, you should know that this will not get you laid in any way whatsoever.
The article rips on someone who named a menu item captioned "smbUmount"... no doubt it's perfectly usable for the guy that wrote it. Why would he stop and "fix" it?
People who want to scratch their itch in ways you'd like to watch are rare, companred to people who just want to scratch in front of you. We'll have to avert our eyes from much of hobby-written software forever.
when the government found that sAme company guilty
Spellcheck is never quite enough, is it?
Re:True Geeks..
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Um, Star Fleet Battles lawyers trump this, hands down.
Two fleets begin on opposing sides of the map, carefully maneuver to meet near the center... two guys argue for forty-five minutes, then one fleet sails on.
Marketers would call people who like undocumented setup challenges a market segment, and Linuxy things like available modifiable source code as a product attribute valued by that segment.
(Yes, they would also use phrases like "Linuxy things", but that's OK, they do what they do, and the planet's big enough for that.)
They would, however, also call this market segment comparatively miniscule... which is why that whole world domination thing has a problem. The hivemind here may want to get comfortable with that.
Well, you're sure they're not doing anything overtly immoral - unless their calls to the closed stuff do bad things you don't understand. Like compromising security, perhaps by misusing one of the evil undocumented APIs the tinfoil hat crowd always suspects Microsoft of including.
Sure, you could spot the/* exploit code here */ comments in the source quick enough, but I can't believe anyone skilled and paranoid enough to audit the code would really believe it was OK because it only called closed interfaces with benign-sounding names. In the end that's all you know - why take the time?
How is having an open source patch for a closed source product different than a closed source patch?
Seems to me that all you know is that somebody who presumably knows more than you can about the underlying code is doing stuff to it. You're still risking the same badness whether you read what they give or not.
The patch may be marvelous, but I can't see why anyone cares about its source.
...are the SysInternals tools just in case I want to be serious about what the box is doing, and the Textpad editor in case I want to be serious about editing.
I simply worry that our local Natalie Portman Overlords In Soviet Russia will begin using this technique to point out every time a clear sign of grievous iniquity appears in a Slashdot comment.
OK, that actually might be kind of fun for a day or two, but still...
Slashdot Mirror
Does code access security give you what you want for sandboxes? Go ahead, take 13 minutes, watch the video, read the transcript, get a feel for what's going on.
It's not like the sandbox isn't there, folks.
... if nothing runs at all, everything runs equally well.
Glad we'll finally be able to clear that Kennedy thing up.
Oh, I dunno. For books that were really busy doing something else, Titan/Wizard/Demon did squeeze in a lot of interesting dynamics - Robin the Nine-Fingered's societal outlook, Chris and Valiha, Rocky and Gaby, and if you expand the topic to the politics of procreation, the Titanide/Wizard relationship was a new viewpoint.
Steel Beach is the one I was thinking of, though. And I pretty much agree with your main point.
We're just talking to each other now behind the main wave, I suppose, but still worth saying. Maybe Varley will cut us a commission.
I was with you up to syllable #127, but errored out appropriately at that point. It's in the spec, I swear to god.
(Don't mind me - system test this week)
I think it was just posted twice to milk karma out of a bad situation...
I'm sure they could start from the codebase they have now, work really hard, and have equivalent expertise built into a lighter package in some number of staff-years. Alternately, they could archive the source, go drink margaritas for a couple years, and then buy the lighter package with equivalent power off the shelf and use it to run the existing already-completed software.
Which would you consider the elegant way to proceed?
I fear for your life the first time someone wants one little change.
The article rips on someone who named a menu item captioned "smbUmount"... no doubt it's perfectly usable for the guy that wrote it. Why would he stop and "fix" it?
People who want to scratch their itch in ways you'd like to watch are rare, companred to people who just want to scratch in front of you. We'll have to avert our eyes from much of hobby-written software forever.
Please tell me email to example.com really does go nowhere where it costs people money... I can't count the number of places I've used that anymore.
Um, Star Fleet Battles lawyers trump this, hands down.
Two fleets begin on opposing sides of the map, carefully maneuver to meet near the center... two guys argue for forty-five minutes, then one fleet sails on.
And that's with the Commander's Edition.
I'm hallucinating that part, right? After all, this got modded informative...
Sounds like Red Thunder with real reds.
(Or do we not call russkis reds anymore? I lose track...)
If Dad can be believed, there was plenty of good tang around before Apollo...
(The biggest problems with our space programs is the ease with which interested people can take cheap shots...)
Marketers would call people who like undocumented setup challenges a market segment, and Linuxy things like available modifiable source code as a product attribute valued by that segment.
(Yes, they would also use phrases like "Linuxy things", but that's OK, they do what they do, and the planet's big enough for that.)
They would, however, also call this market segment comparatively miniscule... which is why that whole world domination thing has a problem. The hivemind here may want to get comfortable with that.
Well, you're sure they're not doing anything overtly immoral - unless their calls to the closed stuff do bad things you don't understand. Like compromising security, perhaps by misusing one of the evil undocumented APIs the tinfoil hat crowd always suspects Microsoft of including.
/* exploit code here */ comments in the source quick enough, but I can't believe anyone skilled and paranoid enough to audit the code would really believe it was OK because it only called closed interfaces with benign-sounding names. In the end that's all you know - why take the time?
Sure, you could spot the
How is having an open source patch for a closed source product different than a closed source patch?
Seems to me that all you know is that somebody who presumably knows more than you can about the underlying code is doing stuff to it. You're still risking the same badness whether you read what they give or not.
The patch may be marvelous, but I can't see why anyone cares about its source.
I really want to critically moderate that comment.
But trying would be pointless, as I have no points.
...are the SysInternals tools just in case I want to be serious about what the box is doing, and the Textpad editor in case I want to be serious about editing.
And it's never a bad idea to have the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer handy.
I simply worry that our local Natalie Portman Overlords In Soviet Russia will begin using this technique to point out every time a clear sign of grievous iniquity appears in a Slashdot comment.
OK, that actually might be kind of fun for a day or two, but still...