Linux has supportted for a long long time. I know I was using it on a early 1.2 kernel. Running early versions of slack and redhat. I still have the page in my first linux book that explains how to do it bookmarked. Somebody here politely got all the commands correct. No loopback required. Faster without it.
Actually, C can have bounds checking. There are two or three different sets of features in gcc that can give library support to do this. Some of them are better then others. One of them is a resurrection of the Checker project that implements pointers a 3*native pointer size, so using sizeof() in the code is important, it has bounds checking built into the C library and uses two of the pointers to represent the upper and lower bounds so you can't walk off the end. There is another which is a flag one which is a flag to gcc which on every memory reference emits a call to a library with an address, you have to provide a function that will check that is a legal address. Last time I used it, if you walked off the end of one memory structure into another it worked. The trick is to use an allocation scheme that always skips a word between allocations of different structures. There were lots of interesting libraries that you could plug in for that feature set, and it is in gcc 3.0 or 3.01. C can have garbage collection and/or memory range checking built in if you want, it just isn't a feature by default. You write it in C, when you are convinced it doesn't need bounds checking, turn it off. If you're paranoid (which is a Good Thing (TM)), then leave it on all the time. The better implementation is supposed to be finished for gcc 3.1 last time I checked in on it. Supposedly it had a 25-50% increase in code size and execution speed. Just because most C compilers don't doesn't mean that it can't be done.
Just some food for thought, think historical perspective. Most monarchies are followed precisely because the original lines of leaders were followed because they were good for the masses. Sometimes they are good for a large force. Enventually the monarchies followed the old adage about absolute power. Microsoft is a great company. They have done great things. Anti-Monopolies are about eliminating Monarchies in business. People can't vote with there dollars. In order to try and get out from underneath a monarchy it generally takes a revolution which normally involves bloodshed. One doesn't just say they aren't going to follow the King/Queen and then King is no longer powerful. People won't associate with you, and your considered dangerous. It won't work. You need a huge movement of a lot of people.
With Microsoft, you can't just walk away from them. It doesn't work. Nobody will associate with you. Just try not using Microsoft and do business with a large set of people? I use Linux on my desktop. I use StarOffice. I don't have any MS products installed anywhere on any machines that are my personal workstations. However, I have to produce and interact with MS products all the time. Microsoft goes out of there way to make it hard not allow you to use 3rd party tools with there tools. They have just as much authority and power as a King in most IT departments. You can't just ignore microsoft and have them go away. There are too many people who believe. Monopolies are bad just like Monarchies are bad. After a while, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
On a side point, it isn't illegal to be a Monopoly (at least not in the US). You can be a monopoly all you want. What is illegal is that monopolies get absolute power in there area. When they start to abuse the authority they have that is when they get into trouble.
Ah, one last point, with Microsoft in a lot of ways there is no choice for the consumer. If the OEM signs up to pay for a windows license for all the machines they buy, I can't change that short of finding that out and buying from somebody else. The problem is MS use to line that deal up with all the OEM's for something like 60-90% of all computers sold in the USA. There is a reason people jokingly refer to it as the MS tax. You don't get many choices on sales tax either now do you?
Don't get me wrong. Microsoft has done a tremendous amount of good for the computing world. They have impowered literally 100's of millions of people in the world. Their original goals they had were incredibly good for society. I appreciate what they have done for me. I truly do.
However, I think in a lot of ways, I would appreciate it if they did things that allowed somebody besides microsoft to do good things. I'd like it if they would publish the API's so little guys can interact with the OS well. I would like it if they would publish specifications on how Office documents work, so somebody could write reliable filters so I can vote with my dollars and use another office program. I can't vote for that with my dollars. Its not possible. The government can make it happen.
If microsoft truely is the best at what they do, they have nothing to fear from publishing information on how to interact with the software. They have nothing to fear from allowing OEM's to bundle any software they want. If they are the best, people will vote with their dollars. If microsoft blew the doors off of all the other products, its what I'd use. Microsoft does a lot of things that don't involve being better for the consumer and that is how they are winning.
Yes I.E. is a better brower. Wasn't at the beginning but it is now. Media player wasn't better then Real Audio. Microsoft didn't/doesn't allow an OEM to bundle software that is better then theirs to be bundled onto the base install which is in fact bad for the consumer. Microsoft didn't compete and beat people in an open market. Instead they do things to make it hard if not impossible for another competitor to work as well as microsoft.
The crap they do with auto-executing extensions and other nonesense makes it much harder to use programs they don't want you to. They aren't beating people with better products. They are leveraging the control from the OS market to run people out of every other market there is. That is bad. It is bad for the consumer. They do make good products. But if MS doesn't fell like implementing a feature I want, or feels like telling me I must register all my products and have them phone home that is hard to do. It just like the phone company dictating that you can't use anybody's phone but theirs on a phone network. It isn't hard to produce a good phone, but it is a real bitch to laydown a nationwide network just to make a good phone and sell it. For similar reasoning it is bad for the OS makers to be able to make it nearly impossible for software to interact well with the desktop. It isn't economically sound to develop an entire OS because you can make a better windows widget. It'd be nice if I knew how to make a good widget that I wouldn't have to create an entire OS and all the supporting superstructure just so I could see my widget. It's bad for the consumer, if you can't see that, you don't want to.
Re:Your lawyer is a fucking retard
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, XFree86 has some "obfusicated drivers", the Linux kernel license technically isn't the GPL, it the GPL with a binary module exception (sometimes referred to as the Linus Exception if I remember correctly) license. That is to say, you can write a set of code and compile it up, then write a wrapper around that that is open source and give out the binary objects with no code, plus the wrapper to make it work with the current version of the kernel. Then ship it as a module. Linus wouldn't let obfusicated code into the main source tree.
Sure that is trivially simple. First off, it is easier to admin a DHCP service (granted DHCP can do the equivlent of static addresses). Second, they don't want you to run services. If you want to run services you need Cox@work, which costs more money.
ISP's realized that the price point at which you can run reliable IP services is the key to making money. If they provide you (and everybody else) a cheap way to provide services then all of the high dollar high profit customers switch to the same service you get and the profit margins plumet.
Shortly after that, the number of subscribers is astronomically large because they get cheap access to static IP's that can run IP services. This drives up costs and oh yeah it is cheap so they aren't making any money. They have to build something that scales to huge bandwidth and causes big problems.
It is my understanding that DSL and ISDN are cheaper for the phone companies to run then analog POTS lines, but they charge so much more because the consumer will pay it. Simple economics.
As to the point of this story, me and 3 of my buddies could probably design and layout a service that could scale as well as @Home needed. It isn't particularly difficult to build a high volume, robust quality network. It's just expensive to do. I bet that guy didn't learn any new tricks while at @home and was in it to turn @home around.
No that means the cost of it is in the base price. OEM's use to pay for the MS for everybox sold period. Don't know if that is still the case. Even if it doesn't ship with any MS products on it. The price being zero means you don't save any money but not taking it.
Don't give the reference. It is out of the goodness of your heart that you give a reference. At my current work, we don't do references. You can verify the fact that they worked here, the start and stop date, the fact that they no longer work here,job duties/description and possibly a salary range. Oh yeah, only the HR person can do that, if I do it, I can be fired. (Actually I can be fired because I am using up too much of the air while breathing). If you want to give the guy a reference stick to verifable facts that literally can't be disputed, if you're seriously concerned about the legal liabilities.
Ummm, this is going to turn thread for bragging rights if this is done wrong. So here it is: Of the people I know, most of them spend 40-70 hours a week working. Lots of the people I know are programmers so that might be a bit high.
When there are problems I have worked more then 90 hours in a single week. I have worked more then 40 hours in a single sitting (I left to eat and shower and came back w/ no sleep). But I work at a smaller shop that has just 4 technical people, and I happen to have some rare skills so if something breaks that I know about I get to stay.
Some guys I know work a standard 40 hours and that is it. But that is rarer and rarer. Working at a larger company that is generally the corporate culture. Unless of course the company has an important project. 40 is normally the minimum a person works, not the maximum at most of the places I have ever been.
In my experience there is no average really. I don't work in Silicon Valley, I work in the midwest and most of the people put in 45-50 until there is a serious problem, then they put in as many as it takes. I put in 30 hours during a week on I was on vacation because they had problems at work and I was in town. I put in 70 hours one week I took two days off. I use to work every weekend. Just depends on where you work and the culture of the place. We work more because we can't afford more programmers and we like our jobs so we feel dedicated to keeping the place afloat.
Hmm, the poster asks how to get experience, you list all the things you do while not getting experience.
If you want experience with programming, give up doing something (possibly sleep) you like doing and do play with some source code (which hopefully is something you like doing otherwise find a new major).
Hmmm, lucky you if you believe when you are a salaried employee you'll only work 40 hours. Lots of people work more then 40 a week. If you think people who work full time jobs are less busy when they get out of college you have a lot to learn about life. You'll want to keep doing all those things and have all those discusssions but there aren't enough hours in a day, or days in a week, weeks in a year or years in a lifetime. Pick the ones that are important do them, skip the rest.
You use a PAM modules that looks in a smbpassword file and authenticates you against that. Essentially it implements NT password protocol for Linux. It isn't pretty, but it works. I have used it to authentice NT users against Samba, and to authenticate Linux users against NT.
What you really want to look into is all the various pam modules to modify the Linux/Unix side to go to an external source that you can configure NT to go to. The problem with lots of these is normally it is all done in the clear, so be careful.
Ahh, but RMS is in charge of the FSF, and Gnome is "an FSF supported project". Gnome is supposedly official GNU project is it not? If it is, then RMS has the right to question it as the leader of the FSF. He can't say no you can't do that, but he could say, if you do that your violating the tenats of the FSF we won't officially recognize you as a GNU project. Apache isn't a FSF project so why would RMS give a hoot about it? He might write an article stating his opinion, but so what, I could write my opinion about it Apache probably care much either way.
In order to be a GNU project the FSF has to approve and in some sense sponser the project. RMS has a little weight at the FSF RMS can tell Miguel where to put his ball and go home from the FSF and GNU project. It means the Gnome project won't get the support of the FSF, which it probably doesn't need. Not a big deal. Personally, as long as they avoid legal issues that would cause GNOME problems I really don't care if they use.NET, of course I am a KDE user at the moment.
Hmmm, in the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon", they claimed that there mission was to be known as Apollo I, but was renamed to avoid having a failure associated with the first Apollo missions. The series was pretty serious about getting details right, and showing all the little aspects of the Space program that are less public. Not stating your incorrect, just that this was a different perspective.
If that is true, I will happily buy a copy and post it the patches for anybody to apply to GCC. If RedHat doesn't give me the source, I'll inform RMS personally I am sure he will want to know. It is based on a GPL'ed project, I am pretty sure your spreading non-sense here. Any facts to back this up with? They can't keep the code from escaping back to the mainline GCC, beings that they are both hardcore opensource companies I am calling bullshit on the parent post.
Okay, having the only user be root is pretty stupid, but assuming root is the only user shadow is useless. I don't have one, so I can't check to be sure if it is a softlink as the programmer claims. However, if it is a softlink, well all softlinks have rwxrwxrwx permissions and the permissions behind it are what counts. Beyond all that, as root is the only user, it doesn't matter what your permissions are on any file anywhere on the system. Your correct, they sound like they have sound reasoning, but they did make a fundamental mistake just not the ones the reviewer listed.
A well administered machine, will run just fine, a poorly administered machine will not. Word might be running just fine, but the interaction between various DLL's could be the problem and the user is in need of a patch or upgrade. Just like a user having trouble with Linux software running a 2.4.0 kernel might have some issues. This is like saying it is Ford's fault that the my engine locked up because I didn't change the oil in the first 150,000 miles on my truck. Computer are not embedded systems. They are things that must be checked up on, and they need to have maintience. Yes it is the programmers fault, but the programmer might have a fix out, and you didn't go get it. I have seen very, very few issues that couldn't be solved on well administered machines with current patches. Why else does one need an SA?
Linux with LIDS installed is reasonable secure even assuming that root access gets hacked. Check out www.lids.org. The trick is that the password that gets logged on, doesn't give you complete access to the box, there is another layer of security where the password is compiled into the kernel in a completely hashed format that you have to know to remove the restrictions so root becomes a super user again. Granted, it can be subverted, and overridden like all security measures. It just stops a lot of script-kiddie attacks because it is different and more difficult to attack.
Actually other then the turn it proprietary, you can legally do all of the things you list with GPL'ed software. Assuming you can write socket code or can shell script, it is relatively easy to "use" GPL'ed code in conjuction with Proprietary Software.
My boss would more then happily switch all the Win98 boxes over to Linux and pay for the Linux license instead of the Windows license for MS Office. Open Office is nice, but not there yet. Might not ever get there. The real deal MS Office would sell like hot cakes on Linux. I know for of 10 small companies and at least on state run University that would switch to Linux at the drop of a hat, could be displayed on an X desktop. I know there of a place or two that runs Citrix MetaFrame servers solely for the purpose of getting a client that can display on a Linux desktop an MS outlook and MS office. An X11 would be extremely well recieved in the market. It would however eliminate a lot of Windows 9x desktops. Which is bad for Microsoft in Microsoft's opinion.
Technically that isn't true. If you own the copyright to the source, you can re-release it under any license you want. You still have to provide the last version that was GPL'ed. If you buy the license from QT license, you have there permission to re-license it (they are the only people who could come after you for the GPL violation). The GPL uses copyright, and the owner of the original copyright can do nearly anything he wants. If you buy the license for QT, you have purchased there permission to violate their GPL. That is why Linus makes a point of not owning all of the copyright to the Linux kernel. That is why the FSF ensures they do own the copyright on all the software. Owning the copy right gives you a lot of rights a court of law. If you develop it under a GPL, the *ONLY* people who could legally pursue you are the TrollTech people, but you just paid them to be quiet. Nice huh?
In this context, (and completely off topic), my best guess is that a gang adaptor is the name of the metal/plastic plate in a wall that you install dual 110 electric plugs into. One that holds 2 plugs is a single gang, one that holds for is a double gang adaptor. I live in the US and am familiar with the term, unless you have installed electricity/data wire you probably would never come across the term. Picture a concrete wall that has electricty on the outside, run there with conduit, the metal box is a "gang adaptor".
Actually it is my understanding that only the meta data is actually journaled. That is directory entires permissions, stuff about the structure of the filesystem, not the data. As far as I know, none of the current filesystems do full blown journaling because they would be 50% as fast. Actually because of all the drive seeks it would probably be even slower then that. If you really want high performance journaling it takes two disks, one to journal to, and one to write the actual filesystem too. Just like a good database would. I remember reading that being able to move the journal off to a seperate disk (possibly using one journal for serval filesystems?) was on the wish list for ext3. Personally I use ReiserFS. If Linus and crew sign off on it, I will try it.
Hopefully some nice person will correct me because it is absolutely wrong. I have seen several people ask the question, but no one is answering. Nothing like a WAG to get corrected.
Notice also that it appears that the code has been updated to include the proper copyright and notices on the site. Read the diff, and the source all of the stuff has been added. It appears that it should be in compliance with the BSD license now.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux has supportted for a long long time. I know I was using it on a early 1.2 kernel. Running early versions of slack and redhat. I still have the page in my first linux book that explains how to do it bookmarked. Somebody here politely got all the commands correct. No loopback required. Faster without it.
Actually, C can have bounds checking. There are two or three different sets of features in gcc that can give library support to do this. Some of them are better then others. One of them is a resurrection of the Checker project that implements pointers a 3*native pointer size, so using sizeof() in the code is important, it has bounds checking built into the C library and uses two of the pointers to represent the upper and lower bounds so you can't walk off the end. There is another which is a flag one which is a flag to gcc which on every memory reference emits a call to a library with an address, you have to provide a function that will check that is a legal address. Last time I used it, if you walked off the end of one memory structure into another it worked. The trick is to use an allocation scheme that always skips a word between allocations of different structures. There were lots of interesting libraries that you could plug in for that feature set, and it is in gcc 3.0 or 3.01. C can have garbage collection and/or memory range checking built in if you want, it just isn't a feature by default. You write it in C, when you are convinced it doesn't need bounds checking, turn it off. If you're paranoid (which is a Good Thing (TM)), then leave it on all the time. The better implementation is supposed to be finished for gcc 3.1 last time I checked in on it. Supposedly it had a 25-50% increase in code size and execution speed. Just because most C compilers don't doesn't mean that it can't be done.
With Microsoft, you can't just walk away from them. It doesn't work. Nobody will associate with you. Just try not using Microsoft and do business with a large set of people? I use Linux on my desktop. I use StarOffice. I don't have any MS products installed anywhere on any machines that are my personal workstations. However, I have to produce and interact with MS products all the time. Microsoft goes out of there way to make it hard not allow you to use 3rd party tools with there tools. They have just as much authority and power as a King in most IT departments. You can't just ignore microsoft and have them go away. There are too many people who believe. Monopolies are bad just like Monarchies are bad. After a while, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
On a side point, it isn't illegal to be a Monopoly (at least not in the US). You can be a monopoly all you want. What is illegal is that monopolies get absolute power in there area. When they start to abuse the authority they have that is when they get into trouble.
Ah, one last point, with Microsoft in a lot of ways there is no choice for the consumer. If the OEM signs up to pay for a windows license for all the machines they buy, I can't change that short of finding that out and buying from somebody else. The problem is MS use to line that deal up with all the OEM's for something like 60-90% of all computers sold in the USA. There is a reason people jokingly refer to it as the MS tax. You don't get many choices on sales tax either now do you?
Don't get me wrong. Microsoft has done a tremendous amount of good for the computing world. They have impowered literally 100's of millions of people in the world. Their original goals they had were incredibly good for society. I appreciate what they have done for me. I truly do.
However, I think in a lot of ways, I would appreciate it if they did things that allowed somebody besides microsoft to do good things. I'd like it if they would publish the API's so little guys can interact with the OS well. I would like it if they would publish specifications on how Office documents work, so somebody could write reliable filters so I can vote with my dollars and use another office program. I can't vote for that with my dollars. Its not possible. The government can make it happen.
If microsoft truely is the best at what they do, they have nothing to fear from publishing information on how to interact with the software. They have nothing to fear from allowing OEM's to bundle any software they want. If they are the best, people will vote with their dollars. If microsoft blew the doors off of all the other products, its what I'd use. Microsoft does a lot of things that don't involve being better for the consumer and that is how they are winning.
Yes I.E. is a better brower. Wasn't at the beginning but it is now. Media player wasn't better then Real Audio. Microsoft didn't/doesn't allow an OEM to bundle software that is better then theirs to be bundled onto the base install which is in fact bad for the consumer. Microsoft didn't compete and beat people in an open market. Instead they do things to make it hard if not impossible for another competitor to work as well as microsoft.
The crap they do with auto-executing extensions and other nonesense makes it much harder to use programs they don't want you to. They aren't beating people with better products. They are leveraging the control from the OS market to run people out of every other market there is. That is bad. It is bad for the consumer. They do make good products. But if MS doesn't fell like implementing a feature I want, or feels like telling me I must register all my products and have them phone home that is hard to do. It just like the phone company dictating that you can't use anybody's phone but theirs on a phone network. It isn't hard to produce a good phone, but it is a real bitch to laydown a nationwide network just to make a good phone and sell it. For similar reasoning it is bad for the OS makers to be able to make it nearly impossible for software to interact well with the desktop. It isn't economically sound to develop an entire OS because you can make a better windows widget. It'd be nice if I knew how to make a good widget that I wouldn't have to create an entire OS and all the supporting superstructure just so I could see my widget. It's bad for the consumer, if you can't see that, you don't want to.
Actually, XFree86 has some "obfusicated drivers", the Linux kernel license technically isn't the GPL, it the GPL with a binary module exception (sometimes referred to as the Linus Exception if I remember correctly) license. That is to say, you can write a set of code and compile it up, then write a wrapper around that that is open source and give out the binary objects with no code, plus the wrapper to make it work with the current version of the kernel. Then ship it as a module. Linus wouldn't let obfusicated code into the main source tree.
ISP's realized that the price point at which you can run reliable IP services is the key to making money. If they provide you (and everybody else) a cheap way to provide services then all of the high dollar high profit customers switch to the same service you get and the profit margins plumet.
Shortly after that, the number of subscribers is astronomically large because they get cheap access to static IP's that can run IP services. This drives up costs and oh yeah it is cheap so they aren't making any money. They have to build something that scales to huge bandwidth and causes big problems.
It is my understanding that DSL and ISDN are cheaper for the phone companies to run then analog POTS lines, but they charge so much more because the consumer will pay it. Simple economics.
As to the point of this story, me and 3 of my buddies could probably design and layout a service that could scale as well as @Home needed. It isn't particularly difficult to build a high volume, robust quality network. It's just expensive to do. I bet that guy didn't learn any new tricks while at @home and was in it to turn @home around.
No that means the cost of it is in the base price. OEM's use to pay for the MS for everybox sold period. Don't know if that is still the case. Even if it doesn't ship with any MS products on it. The price being zero means you don't save any money but not taking it.
Don't give the reference. It is out of the goodness of your heart that you give a reference. At my current work, we don't do references. You can verify the fact that they worked here, the start and stop date, the fact that they no longer work here,job duties/description and possibly a salary range. Oh yeah, only the HR person can do that, if I do it, I can be fired. (Actually I can be fired because I am using up too much of the air while breathing). If you want to give the guy a reference stick to verifable facts that literally can't be disputed, if you're seriously concerned about the legal liabilities.
When there are problems I have worked more then 90 hours in a single week. I have worked more then 40 hours in a single sitting (I left to eat and shower and came back w/ no sleep). But I work at a smaller shop that has just 4 technical people, and I happen to have some rare skills so if something breaks that I know about I get to stay.
Some guys I know work a standard 40 hours and that is it. But that is rarer and rarer. Working at a larger company that is generally the corporate culture. Unless of course the company has an important project. 40 is normally the minimum a person works, not the maximum at most of the places I have ever been.
In my experience there is no average really. I don't work in Silicon Valley, I work in the midwest and most of the people put in 45-50 until there is a serious problem, then they put in as many as it takes. I put in 30 hours during a week on I was on vacation because they had problems at work and I was in town. I put in 70 hours one week I took two days off. I use to work every weekend. Just depends on where you work and the culture of the place. We work more because we can't afford more programmers and we like our jobs so we feel dedicated to keeping the place afloat.
Hmm, the poster asks how to get experience, you list all the things you do while not getting experience.
If you want experience with programming, give up doing something (possibly sleep) you like doing and do play with some source code (which hopefully is something you like doing otherwise find a new major).
Hmmm, lucky you if you believe when you are a salaried employee you'll only work 40 hours. Lots of people work more then 40 a week. If you think people who work full time jobs are less busy when they get out of college you have a lot to learn about life. You'll want to keep doing all those things and have all those discusssions but there aren't enough hours in a day, or days in a week, weeks in a year or years in a lifetime. Pick the ones that are important do them, skip the rest.
What you really want to look into is all the various pam modules to modify the Linux/Unix side to go to an external source that you can configure NT to go to. The problem with lots of these is normally it is all done in the clear, so be careful.
Ahh, but RMS is in charge of the FSF, and Gnome is "an FSF supported project". Gnome is supposedly official GNU project is it not? If it is, then RMS has the right to question it as the leader of the FSF. He can't say no you can't do that, but he could say, if you do that your violating the tenats of the FSF we won't officially recognize you as a GNU project. Apache isn't a FSF project so why would RMS give a hoot about it? He might write an article stating his opinion, but so what, I could write my opinion about it Apache probably care much either way.
In order to be a GNU project the FSF has to approve and in some sense sponser the project. RMS has a little weight at the FSF RMS can tell Miguel where to put his ball and go home from the FSF and GNU project. It means the Gnome project won't get the support of the FSF, which it probably doesn't need. Not a big deal. Personally, as long as they avoid legal issues that would cause GNOME problems I really don't care if they use .NET, of course I am a KDE user at the moment.
Hmmm, in the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon", they claimed that there mission was to be known as Apollo I, but was renamed to avoid having a failure associated with the first Apollo missions. The series was pretty serious about getting details right, and showing all the little aspects of the Space program that are less public. Not stating your incorrect, just that this was a different perspective.
If that is true, I will happily buy a copy and post it the patches for anybody to apply to GCC. If RedHat doesn't give me the source, I'll inform RMS personally I am sure he will want to know. It is based on a GPL'ed project, I am pretty sure your spreading non-sense here. Any facts to back this up with? They can't keep the code from escaping back to the mainline GCC, beings that they are both hardcore opensource companies I am calling bullshit on the parent post.
Okay, having the only user be root is pretty stupid, but assuming root is the only user shadow is useless. I don't have one, so I can't check to be sure if it is a softlink as the programmer claims. However, if it is a softlink, well all softlinks have rwxrwxrwx permissions and the permissions behind it are what counts. Beyond all that, as root is the only user, it doesn't matter what your permissions are on any file anywhere on the system. Your correct, they sound like they have sound reasoning, but they did make a fundamental mistake just not the ones the reviewer listed.
A well administered machine, will run just fine, a poorly administered machine will not. Word might be running just fine, but the interaction between various DLL's could be the problem and the user is in need of a patch or upgrade. Just like a user having trouble with Linux software running a 2.4.0 kernel might have some issues. This is like saying it is Ford's fault that the my engine locked up because I didn't change the oil in the first 150,000 miles on my truck. Computer are not embedded systems. They are things that must be checked up on, and they need to have maintience. Yes it is the programmers fault, but the programmer might have a fix out, and you didn't go get it. I have seen very, very few issues that couldn't be solved on well administered machines with current patches. Why else does one need an SA?
Linux with LIDS installed is reasonable secure even assuming that root access gets hacked. Check out www.lids.org. The trick is that the password that gets logged on, doesn't give you complete access to the box, there is another layer of security where the password is compiled into the kernel in a completely hashed format that you have to know to remove the restrictions so root becomes a super user again. Granted, it can be subverted, and overridden like all security measures. It just stops a lot of script-kiddie attacks because it is different and more difficult to attack.
Actually other then the turn it proprietary, you can legally do all of the things you list with GPL'ed software. Assuming you can write socket code or can shell script, it is relatively easy to "use" GPL'ed code in conjuction with Proprietary Software.
My boss would more then happily switch all the Win98 boxes over to Linux and pay for the Linux license instead of the Windows license for MS Office. Open Office is nice, but not there yet. Might not ever get there. The real deal MS Office would sell like hot cakes on Linux. I know for of 10 small companies and at least on state run University that would switch to Linux at the drop of a hat, could be displayed on an X desktop. I know there of a place or two that runs Citrix MetaFrame servers solely for the purpose of getting a client that can display on a Linux desktop an MS outlook and MS office. An X11 would be extremely well recieved in the market. It would however eliminate a lot of Windows 9x desktops. Which is bad for Microsoft in Microsoft's opinion.
Cats Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, according to a quick google search... Sorry Not in NYC, and I own the game.
Technically that isn't true. If you own the copyright to the source, you can re-release it under any license you want. You still have to provide the last version that was GPL'ed. If you buy the license from QT license, you have there permission to re-license it (they are the only people who could come after you for the GPL violation). The GPL uses copyright, and the owner of the original copyright can do nearly anything he wants. If you buy the license for QT, you have purchased there permission to violate their GPL. That is why Linus makes a point of not owning all of the copyright to the Linux kernel. That is why the FSF ensures they do own the copyright on all the software. Owning the copy right gives you a lot of rights a court of law. If you develop it under a GPL, the *ONLY* people who could legally pursue you are the TrollTech people, but you just paid them to be quiet. Nice huh?
In this context, (and completely off topic), my best guess is that a gang adaptor is the name of the metal/plastic plate in a wall that you install dual 110 electric plugs into. One that holds 2 plugs is a single gang, one that holds for is a double gang adaptor. I live in the US and am familiar with the term, unless you have installed electricity/data wire you probably would never come across the term. Picture a concrete wall that has electricty on the outside, run there with conduit, the metal box is a "gang adaptor".
kirby
I am not sure, but my best guess is:
Standard Operating Environment.
Hopefully some nice person will correct me because it is absolutely wrong. I have seen several people ask the question, but no one is answering. Nothing like a WAG to get corrected.
Arjan van de Ven
Notice also that it appears that the code has been updated to include the proper copyright and notices on the site. Read the diff, and the source all of the stuff has been added. It appears that it should be in compliance with the BSD license now.