my disagreement with the statement they're not going to be able to take over the kernel. Ok ok:) well, i dont see what a few modules or patched code is going to do to take over the kernel which ever way they pitch it. Maybe they could break stuff already in the kernel, tho i severly doubt this. From my point of view, MS can bring a hell of a lot to Linux that we need, especially in compatability arenas.
Oh and i wasnt strictly classifying you, jsut trying to put across that the majority of moaners out there dont actually have a arguement, jsut more of a "i use this, and everyone else is doing that..... so ill do it". I bet they have fights about which is the better cola, Coke or Pepsi;)
if they own it, then let them prove that in court. The majority of these people who do massive trading are pirates, they dont own all 100gb of mp3s they have.
Oh, i can name quite a few things which do this already. Vmware, iptables, loads of stuff. Why is it ok for them to do this and not MS? i really wish you ppl would get a proper arguement for once in a while.
Actually not so. The timelord council can actually grant certain time lords a second set of regeneration cycles, tho i forget exactly where i read this, i think it was in one of the advanced Dr Who books, when he was put on trial. This could get quite interesting. I dont see him running out of lives jst yet.
A lot of people have been saying that this was found be cause its a opensrc project, therefor many people looking at the code. Well think of this scenario:
I root the box with the ftpd on
I change the ftpd binary so that it detects when a particular file is being downloaded
When such a detection opccurs, instead of the ftpd sending the correct package, it sends a duff package out instead.
People wodner why they are receiving duff srcs when the file on the ftpd is fine
I think someone once demonstrated this could happen with gcc: write two things into the src code of gcc, one to check when it was compiling certain programs and always write a backdoor into it, and the second to check when it was compiling gcc and insert these two bits of code into it. then you compile gcc, remove the two items mentioned above, and compile again using the now rooted gcc binary. this way the actual src code never has the issue in it, but all the relevent binaries do.
During my time browsing, i have noticed that many sites out there have a "no deep linking" policy, including hobby sites and private sites. TBH i agree with them, as most deep linking does not give the owning site credit for what is shown, especially if the link is to something that should be in frames. If you want to link to something, provide a shallow link and tell the user where it is, then they can see for themselves the site that actually owns the article otr whatever.
yeah you can have sex, havea baby, get married, get addicted to cigerrettes, and watch violence, but you cant celebrate anything with a drink. what gives?
The company i work for had a huge problem with information being lost, and a long standing solution to this was the development of a company intranet.
Now we have a intranet that can handle almost anything you can throw at it, pdfs, word docs, excel files. The best thing is, its all due to the "bad" integration between office and IE. choose to view a word doc and it opens a word session inside IE.
The actual intranet is nothing more than a PHP/mysql website on a small piii box. Took a month or so to develop and everyone is happy with it.
As for being a maintenace nightmare? not really, its all documented, has its own api due to being OO coded, and not a lot needs changing anyway. Besides its a modular syste, cant work out howa page works, but know what it does? then replace the page.
Would it? How many times have we seen copies of Applications or Games out there before their official releae date? Hell, i was being offered WindowsXPpro 2 months before it was officially released.
That all depends on waht type of beginners they are. If they are previous coders who are moving to a new language, then the sites are enough, as thats exactly waht i did. i bought a couple of books, mainly WROX ones, and found the php ones to be shite.
For total beginners, then yes, maybe they will need a bit more to learn the proper structure and methods, but thats more of a true beginner thing.
Me, myself, i use these sorts of books, and articles on the internet jsut like them, to stop myself reinventing the wheel. I look at the stuff they do and then think of any projects im currently part of that will benifit from the methods and stuff.
You have a very valid point, but the thing is, the point of view that i was hitting out at isnt jsut prevelent on/., but through out the OSS community. As someone pointed out to me a while ago, my attitude is very much "Its my ball so it goes home when i do" but then again, since it is my ball, why should i let someone else decide what game i play with it?
I don't know that I'd say cool either way. The BSD license seems to encoutrage theft from the people who are willing to release code. To GPL code that you took your precious time developing is great, even noble. To take that same precious time and release code under a BSD license is STUPID.
This is exactly why i will NEVER EVER release stuff under the gpl, not because of the license itself but idiots like yourself who insult my intelligence by claiming that the GPL is better than anything else out there. News to you buddy, theres plenty more licenses, and to choose one other than the GPL isnt stupid as you claim, but a matter of free speech. No, not your free speech, MY free speech as i wrote the code.
In short, its my code, i'll license it what ever fucking way i want. Live with it and stop calling me stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
my disagreement with the statement they're not going to be able to take over the kernel. :) well, i dont see what a few modules or patched code is going to do to take over the kernel which ever way they pitch it. Maybe they could break stuff already in the kernel, tho i severly doubt this. From my point of view, MS can bring a hell of a lot to Linux that we need, especially in compatability arenas.
;)
Ok ok
Oh and i wasnt strictly classifying you, jsut trying to put across that the majority of moaners out there dont actually have a arguement, jsut more of a "i use this, and everyone else is doing that..... so ill do it". I bet they have fights about which is the better cola, Coke or Pepsi
if they own it, then let them prove that in court. The majority of these people who do massive trading are pirates, they dont own all 100gb of mp3s they have.
Oh, i can name quite a few things which do this already. Vmware, iptables, loads of stuff. Why is it ok for them to do this and not MS?
i really wish you ppl would get a proper arguement for once in a while.
Actually not so. The timelord council can actually grant certain time lords a second set of regeneration cycles, tho i forget exactly where i read this, i think it was in one of the advanced Dr Who books, when he was put on trial. This could get quite interesting. I dont see him running out of lives jst yet.
A lot of people have been saying that this was found be cause its a opensrc project, therefor many people looking at the code. Well think of this scenario:
I root the box with the ftpd on
I change the ftpd binary so that it detects when a particular file is being downloaded
When such a detection opccurs, instead of the ftpd sending the correct package, it sends a duff package out instead.
People wodner why they are receiving duff srcs when the file on the ftpd is fine
I think someone once demonstrated this could happen with gcc: write two things into the src code of gcc, one to check when it was compiling certain programs and always write a backdoor into it, and the second to check when it was compiling gcc and insert these two bits of code into it. then you compile gcc, remove the two items mentioned above, and compile again using the now rooted gcc binary. this way the actual src code never has the issue in it, but all the relevent binaries do.
Its frightening when u think about it.
Hi, i havent been around for a while, this means im eiather dead or I went out and got a life. Could someone please check up on me?
During my time browsing, i have noticed that many sites out there have a "no deep linking" policy, including hobby sites and private sites. TBH i agree with them, as most deep linking does not give the owning site credit for what is shown, especially if the link is to something that should be in frames. If you want to link to something, provide a shallow link and tell the user where it is, then they can see for themselves the site that actually owns the article otr whatever.
Of course if you forgot, you'd be SOL.
Ahh but thats what backups are f.........hmmmmm.
yeah you can have sex, havea baby, get married, get addicted to cigerrettes, and watch violence, but you cant celebrate anything with a drink. what gives?
hmmm were you once employed by Enron?
The company i work for had a huge problem with information being lost, and a long standing solution to this was the development of a company intranet.
Now we have a intranet that can handle almost anything you can throw at it, pdfs, word docs, excel files. The best thing is, its all due to the "bad" integration between office and IE. choose to view a word doc and it opens a word session inside IE.
The actual intranet is nothing more than a PHP/mysql website on a small piii box. Took a month or so to develop and everyone is happy with it.
As for being a maintenace nightmare? not really, its all documented, has its own api due to being OO coded, and not a lot needs changing anyway. Besides its a modular syste, cant work out howa page works, but know what it does? then replace the page.
Would it? How many times have we seen copies of Applications or Games out there before their official releae date? Hell, i was being offered WindowsXPpro 2 months before it was officially released.
You dont read slashdot a lot do you?
That all depends on waht type of beginners they are. If they are previous coders who are moving to a new language, then the sites are enough, as thats exactly waht i did. i bought a couple of books, mainly WROX ones, and found the php ones to be shite.
For total beginners, then yes, maybe they will need a bit more to learn the proper structure and methods, but thats more of a true beginner thing.
Me, myself, i use these sorts of books, and articles on the internet jsut like them, to stop myself reinventing the wheel. I look at the stuff they do and then think of any projects im currently part of that will benifit from the methods and stuff.
Auuuh come on, this way it gets on CNN 5 minutes faster than normal.
First, there is no proof you ever clicked the button.
;))
I think the proof would be that you have a working copy of the software.
There are things you just can't give up, even by contract. For example you can't sell your self into slavery.
Wanna bet? You can go and get married. Thats a contract (and slavery
then you shouldnt be using it.
Over here (uk) we are getting one stargate a day at 6pm. Its satisfying me for the moment :)
And you have those at home? Right? :))
(if you do, thats serious geekness
On second thought, nothing changed realy, except that now nothing on the net is hidden anymore ;-)
/. :)
Hmmm i think there is something hidden on the net, usefull stuff on
Erm, im on a 2mb down 256k up dsl link at the moment, within the UK. Bought it from Demon Internet.
You have a very valid point, but the thing is, the point of view that i was hitting out at isnt jsut prevelent on /., but through out the OSS community. As someone pointed out to me a while ago, my attitude is very much "Its my ball so it goes home when i do" but then again, since it is my ball, why should i let someone else decide what game i play with it?
I don't know that I'd say cool either way. The BSD license seems to encoutrage theft from the people who are willing to release code. To GPL code that you took your precious time developing is great, even noble. To take that same precious time and release code under a BSD license is STUPID.
This is exactly why i will NEVER EVER release stuff under the gpl, not because of the license itself but idiots like yourself who insult my intelligence by claiming that the GPL is better than anything else out there. News to you buddy, theres plenty more licenses, and to choose one other than the GPL isnt stupid as you claim, but a matter of free speech. No, not your free speech, MY free speech as i wrote the code.
In short, its my code, i'll license it what ever fucking way i want. Live with it and stop calling me stupid.
Flash presents unknown security risks.
Oh well, fuck me. Doesnt this statement also apply to all other programs that you run on your system? Live a little. Its a computer, not your life.
The Linux community will not allow a company like Gateway to pull a stunt like that.
No of course not, you jsut let Redhat etc make the same descisions.