It's drivers for the Broadband wireless chips. One reason such a stink is being raised is because drivers for these chips would be valuable to other Linux projects. Theres been a fair amount of work done looking into this and I, at least, am convinced that the work done includes modifications of kernel source (and not simply binary modules or the use of a special compiler).
I think the real issue here is a core capitalist mentality - the weighing of cost and benefit. Companies will do illegal things if the profits they make from doing so are more than the fines they have to pay when they get caught - just as a quick example, delivery services in NYC write off traffic tickets as a cost of doing buisness. The idea that theres a licensing issue that doesn't just involve paying money if you break it is abhorrent - the author mentions this when he says that the FSF "doesn't just want royalties".
The extern stuff is because of name decoration - it's a linker issue, not a language issue per se. I suppose it does make for a class of incompatability, though.
If it added keywords, then it's not 100% backwards compatible. So there you go.
I'm not aware of any C (not C99) code that a standard compliant C++ compiler won't compile, with the exception of one that uses C++ keywords. There may be some syntaxes that aren't legal in C++ anymore, but I'm not 100% sure.
Simply put, Stallman doesn't like the fact that a web interface doesn't fall under the GPL - for example, you can take PHP, modify it, and run a public web site with it without needing to make the source for your modified GPL available.
Personally, I say buggers up to that. There's other licenses that require the publishing of any modiications period, use one of those if thats what you're after.
Some enterprising fans have already reverse engineered much of the engine and have released a patch that corrects many of the bugs (as well as putting content that was removed to at Atari/WoTCs request back in). I think it's a pretty fucking sad state of affairs when a publisher not only releases a game before it's ready (not just a little bit, but a LOT before it's ready), but gets beaten to a patch release by it's users. And thats even assuming that there will be a patch, Atari was being bitchy about that, too.
I doubt it'd have an advantage over domain sockets on anything except x86, though - the main advantage seems to be avoiding the context switch. Seems to me that it'd be possible to implement some of the same features with domain sockets, too - maybe using those new frutex thingies in 2.6.
I agree that you should seperate the messaging mechanism from the message format - using an XML based message format like that is ridiculous. It increases the complexity by at least an order of magnitude and I'm sure slows it down by at least as much.
This version of a "well-written operating system" would only be modifiable by a kernel recompile and full reboot. It's the job of the OS to keep crashing applications from doing bad things, not to keep applications from doing unwise things. There's no way your OS can keep a rootkit that you're trojaned or social engineered into running as root from overwritting your MBR and hosing your machine. Nor should it - because if it did, it'd mean that you can't legitimatly overwrite your MBR.
There's lots of tools it can provide to help prevent things like this from happening on accident, but there is no protection from the user - as it should be.
Google doesn't do simplistic phrase matching. If it did, it'd be the same (and as useless) as altavista. Google does relevancy searches. tobeornottobe.com is relevent to a search for "to be or not to be".
The guy I was talking to didn't go into detail. I don't care, really - I can come up with alot of things that I would do if I was a spammer. I'd give them priority in my runs, for example, so email to those addresses was more likely to get out if some of my runs were cut off.
It doesn't matter, anyway - whats important is what they do NOT do with them, which is remove them.
Distributed spidering is easy. Distributed indexing is sort of easy. Distributed searching of this index is impossible, at least if speed and accuracy are any part of your requirements for this search engine.
Yeah, because I LIKE having all the nodes in my index seperated onto unreliable, unbstable, untrusted machines connected via high latency, low bandwidth links. It makes searching so easy and fast!
The shakespeare page is because it's located at "tobeornottobe.com". I'm not sure why the bee thing comes up - it's the only anomalous result on the first page.
They harvest verified email addresses and track them seperatly (and in addition to) ones they harvest from un-verifed sources like lists they buy from other spammers, the web, or usenet.
If you want scientfic research, do it on your own time - why the hell should I spend time and money just to satisfy you? Of course it's an unverifiable anecdote. I could falsify any evidence I create, too. Do your own fucking research if you want to be convinced. Anyway, as other responders have said, it's something very difficult to measure accurately - I know as a fact, because I've spoken with people who do it, that some spammers treat verified addresses differently than unverified ones. They certainly do NOT remove them from the spamlist. I do no know as a provable fact that clicking the link will result in more spam. I simply know that it does not have the desired effect, and thats all I need to know, and is all that the article claimed.
Well, you can do your own research, but I've both read interviews with and had personal conversations with spammers who do this. You'd need alot more time and bandwidth than I have lying around to scientifically test it, but I know for a fact that some spammers do so. They certainly don't respect the opt-out links, which begs the question [shut the fuck up, anyone who wants to argue with me about what that means]: Why have them at all?
Why must people go out of their way to make others go out of their way to contact them?
Sadly, it's because so many people (or rather, a relatively few people, but with great enthusiasm) have heavily abused the free communication, making it all but useless for many people. The signal to noise ratio is just too high. If spammers had never come into existence, you wouldn't be seeing all this nonsense.
I've never heard the "correct" usage actually used outside the context of telling someone they're wrong. I'm very well read and familiar with a wide variety of both popular and not-so-popular writing and literature. I think thats at least a reasonable cause for thinking that the meaning has changed.
Furthermore, "beg the question" is NOT short for "beggaring the question", which doesn't even make sense, and sounds to me the like the kind of nonsense people liked to use in the 19th century to confuse debating partners. It's "beg the question", which quite reasonable means "pleads for a question to be asked". If you want to use the phrase "beggaring the question", and then get to act smart explaining it, be my guest.
Actually, if someone without a prior connection to any of the companies did it, then the evidence would almost certainly be admissible. If SCO is willing to go all the way to the wall and conceal evidence during discovery, this could be usefull. It certainly would affect SCO in the court of opinion.
The difference is (and don't get me wrong here, I'm not a Java fan) is that Java checks the validity of the cast at runtime, where as C just does whatever you tell it to. It's perfectly possible to do things what can cause horrendously bad problems with invalid casts in C. Of course, I haven't seen many Java programs that will explicitly trap and try to recover from a badCast exception, so whatever.
Depends on what you're doing, but Java most certainly can be 100x times slower than C. When Java was first introduced, 50-100x slower than C code was in fact the rule of thumb.
It's alot better now, of course, and it's hard to get clear performance profiles when you include semi-random things like garbage collection overhead, but in terms of "resources consumed for execution of X algorithm", Java can easily meet that 2 orders of magnitude figure. At least 1.
Yeah, because it's so simple to debug netcode with a binary, right?
If you're going to be that paranoid about security, but still want to keep from increasing your development time by a factor of 10 by allowing your developers access to communications, consider having a private lan with all internal machines firewalled off from internet accesss, and then either have virtual OSes in virtual machines connecting, or have an app server (Citrix or similiar) with internet connectivity.
And even that is a massive pain. A reasonable security policy thats created by competent people, explained to the develpers, and adhered to is probably "good enough". You can't 100% prevent a hack, especially if theres inside connections. Watch out for your janitors!
Developers more than anyone need network access - documentation for libraries, IM communication with third parties that are providing those libraries, just using the internet as it was intended - as an information storage medium to look things up when you get stuck. The relaxing and stress release benefits are important too.
It all goes back to the same old crap - employers expect total, slavish obedience and loyalty but aren't willing (as a general rule) to give anything back for that. Just being able to blow off steam about an annoying problem (or even co-worker) in an IRC channel does more for my productivity than any other single benefit. Certainly more than any company picnic or other "morale building" exercise.
Slashdot Mirror
It's drivers for the Broadband wireless chips. One reason such a stink is being raised is because drivers for these chips would be valuable to other Linux projects. Theres been a fair amount of work done looking into this and I, at least, am convinced that the work done includes modifications of kernel source (and not simply binary modules or the use of a special compiler).
It already does - "immaterial" is already used to mean "without susbtance", or "baseless", and therefore meaningless.
I think the real issue here is a core capitalist mentality - the weighing of cost and benefit. Companies will do illegal things if the profits they make from doing so are more than the fines they have to pay when they get caught - just as a quick example, delivery services in NYC write off traffic tickets as a cost of doing buisness. The idea that theres a licensing issue that doesn't just involve paying money if you break it is abhorrent - the author mentions this when he says that the FSF "doesn't just want royalties".
The extern stuff is because of name decoration - it's a linker issue, not a language issue per se. I suppose it does make for a class of incompatability, though.
I'm not aware of any C (not C99) code that a standard compliant C++ compiler won't compile, with the exception of one that uses C++ keywords. There may be some syntaxes that aren't legal in C++ anymore, but I'm not 100% sure.
Personally, I say buggers up to that. There's other licenses that require the publishing of any modiications period, use one of those if thats what you're after.
Some enterprising fans have already reverse engineered much of the engine and have released a patch that corrects many of the bugs (as well as putting content that was removed to at Atari/WoTCs request back in). I think it's a pretty fucking sad state of affairs when a publisher not only releases a game before it's ready (not just a little bit, but a LOT before it's ready), but gets beaten to a patch release by it's users. And thats even assuming that there will be a patch, Atari was being bitchy about that, too.
I agree that you should seperate the messaging mechanism from the message format - using an XML based message format like that is ridiculous. It increases the complexity by at least an order of magnitude and I'm sure slows it down by at least as much.
There's lots of tools it can provide to help prevent things like this from happening on accident, but there is no protection from the user - as it should be.
Google doesn't do simplistic phrase matching. If it did, it'd be the same (and as useless) as altavista. Google does relevancy searches. tobeornottobe.com is relevent to a search for "to be or not to be".
It doesn't matter, anyway - whats important is what they do NOT do with them, which is remove them.
Distributed spidering is easy. Distributed indexing is sort of easy. Distributed searching of this index is impossible, at least if speed and accuracy are any part of your requirements for this search engine.
Yeah, because I LIKE having all the nodes in my index seperated onto unreliable, unbstable, untrusted machines connected via high latency, low bandwidth links. It makes searching so easy and fast!
The shakespeare page is because it's located at "tobeornottobe.com". I'm not sure why the bee thing comes up - it's the only anomalous result on the first page.
If you're looking for the product "VB.NET", you need to search for it as a term.
If you want scientfic research, do it on your own time - why the hell should I spend time and money just to satisfy you? Of course it's an unverifiable anecdote. I could falsify any evidence I create, too. Do your own fucking research if you want to be convinced. Anyway, as other responders have said, it's something very difficult to measure accurately - I know as a fact, because I've spoken with people who do it, that some spammers treat verified addresses differently than unverified ones. They certainly do NOT remove them from the spamlist. I do no know as a provable fact that clicking the link will result in more spam. I simply know that it does not have the desired effect, and thats all I need to know, and is all that the article claimed.
Well, you can do your own research, but I've both read interviews with and had personal conversations with spammers who do this. You'd need alot more time and bandwidth than I have lying around to scientifically test it, but I know for a fact that some spammers do so. They certainly don't respect the opt-out links, which begs the question [shut the fuck up, anyone who wants to argue with me about what that means]: Why have them at all?
Sadly, it's because so many people (or rather, a relatively few people, but with great enthusiasm) have heavily abused the free communication, making it all but useless for many people. The signal to noise ratio is just too high. If spammers had never come into existence, you wouldn't be seeing all this nonsense.
I've never heard the "correct" usage actually used outside the context of telling someone they're wrong. I'm very well read and familiar with a wide variety of both popular and not-so-popular writing and literature. I think thats at least a reasonable cause for thinking that the meaning has changed.
Furthermore, "beg the question" is NOT short for "beggaring the question", which doesn't even make sense, and sounds to me the like the kind of nonsense people liked to use in the 19th century to confuse debating partners. It's "beg the question", which quite reasonable means "pleads for a question to be asked". If you want to use the phrase "beggaring the question", and then get to act smart explaining it, be my guest.
Actually, if someone without a prior connection to any of the companies did it, then the evidence would almost certainly be admissible. If SCO is willing to go all the way to the wall and conceal evidence during discovery, this could be usefull. It certainly would affect SCO in the court of opinion.
Oh, thats the IBM suit, no idea about the countersuits.
C++ has both options.
It's alot better now, of course, and it's hard to get clear performance profiles when you include semi-random things like garbage collection overhead, but in terms of "resources consumed for execution of X algorithm", Java can easily meet that 2 orders of magnitude figure. At least 1.
If you're going to be that paranoid about security, but still want to keep from increasing your development time by a factor of 10 by allowing your developers access to communications, consider having a private lan with all internal machines firewalled off from internet accesss, and then either have virtual OSes in virtual machines connecting, or have an app server (Citrix or similiar) with internet connectivity.
And even that is a massive pain. A reasonable security policy thats created by competent people, explained to the develpers, and adhered to is probably "good enough". You can't 100% prevent a hack, especially if theres inside connections. Watch out for your janitors!
It all goes back to the same old crap - employers expect total, slavish obedience and loyalty but aren't willing (as a general rule) to give anything back for that. Just being able to blow off steam about an annoying problem (or even co-worker) in an IRC channel does more for my productivity than any other single benefit. Certainly more than any company picnic or other "morale building" exercise.