The Real Outcome of This Fiasco
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The real outcome of this fiasco is easy to see. Dvorak thinks he's got the scenarios covered, but in my book, he's missing the likely outcome if SCO somehow wins this case.
Linux is free and available. Provided SCO wins anything, they will HAVE TO come clean about what parts are offending code and which are clear. As soon as that's done, SCO will have a field day with IBM, RH, and other Linux vendors.
However, within a few weeks/months, the Linunx community will rally to replace all offending parts of the kernel/GNU utilities/whatever with something equal if not better, it will be tested, and deployed within a year. Linux will suffer a setback, but Linux will NOT die.
It's been said that open source projects never die, they just cease to be developed. Linux ain't going anywhere. There's no imaginable way that hackers around the world will simulaneously abandon Linux and move to FreeBSD or some other alternative. If, by some miracle, there's something to all this, we'll have it behind us within a few months....but I'd still hate to be Red Hat.
The Linux source code is pretty well kept and well documented. If they "lift" code, we'll be able to determine where it came from, who submitted it, etc. So in this case, SCO will have to find the person who submitted the code and 1) somehow determine they have no records of the development and 2) somehow prove they had access to the SCO source code.
What if the so-called thief has some e-mail to his buddy that shares the code (e.g. "Hey dude, can you review this for errors before I submit it to the kernel maintainers?"). What if some obscure archive of a mailing list shows that portions of the code were discussed. Everyone in SCO stands to face MAJOR criminal lawsuits if that's the case.
It's much more likely they are simply lying or that they are picking on common short functions that are more logical than anything else.
It's nice to see a review like this. Many slashdot reviews are short and detail-less, but this one is a good overview, which I like.
As much as I want to know about the underpinnings of HTTP, I find this one of those "books I'd like to HAVE read." If I buy it, which I may, I'm pretty sure it will be one of those books I just don't get around to reading because I personally don't have a huge need for it. I'd love to know the information, but I don't know I have the time to pull off actually reading it. Is it just me, or does everyone have a few of those books - the ones you wish you had actually read, but instead just look nice as part of your technical book collection?
I guess there's at least one positive about the Matrix - I can make a quick phone call and have my operator just load "The Complete HTTP" for me.
I suppose I did take it personally, but mostly because I was reacting to your post and this one. I apologize if I jumped directly on you, but as you can see, I *was* attacked in a pretty personal way before.
I agree with you, restrictions suck for a user, but sometimes it's the preferred method for a company. My company has weighed the benefits of each of the activities, and you dismiss them as though it's common sense. I don't believe it is. I feel all of my decisions are carefully approached. We don't need certain things, so I disallow them. It makes my job easier, makes security better, and best of all, is good for the company. Anyway, port 80 and 443 outbound are open, so it's not like people can't have any fun.
I think a good admin blocks anything that is not work related, has the potentional to cause issues, and is possibly a vulnerability. Case in point: as IM programs mature, we'll see the first IM virus. Not at my company - where we don't need external IM'ing. If one day, we do, I can allow it again.
Work is not the place for computer freedom. The network belongs to the company. It's my job to protect it. We may disagree on some points, but I think overall we're both trying to provide the best functonal IT for our respective companies.
- He has a point here; most people don't have a clue how to use the features of email software. Of course a "good" admin and a "good" IT department make it their job to teach people this stuff.
Wrong. Some network admins are not desktop techs. Some don't even sit with their users. I was being general, but since you attack me - I'll tell you that over 400 of my users are offsite and I never see them. It's not an admins job, by default, to train users.
Hmm sounds like that investment in BlackBerry devices is going down the drain since users can't access their work email. Congratulations "good" admin you just wasted a butt load of money, way to go!
Pshaw! The reason I separated bb mailboxes from regular mailboxes is because that was something we did when I worked for the US NAVY. But I'm glad your little narrow mind has "deemed" us all wrong. BBs are WAY overused when they are piped into normal mailboxes. That's why we treat them as a separate system, and everone feels they are worth the money. But I'll let management know that YOU disagree. I'm sure they've have me change things right away.
Instant Messaging
- I take it that all of the companies that using IM aren't working? Has any one told them this?
No. We have internal IM capability. What we don't have it access out on the msn, jabber, yim, and aim ports. We have determined that IM is not really necessary for the job. But, alas, if YOU think it is, by all means...
- So users that don't have a laptop because the "good" admin doesn't think they need one have no way of getting their email remotely? Way to go "good" admin, keep up the good work!
Yes, it's called a Citrix VPN. Or RAS. Or webmail. But you cannot forward e-mail from our system to an SMTP address unless you have access to the backend, because it's a security risk. Any admin that let's you, or even argues for it, is a retard and shouldn't even be maintaining his own PC let alone a network.
- Yes call forwarding is bad! Who wants to call someone and actually reach who they called? How silly!
We don't allow call forwarding. We issue cell phones for this purpose.
You know, you talk a lot without even thinking. Just because you can't see the obvious solutions doesn't mean there aren't any. You're a dangerous person who passes judgement without being informed. And if you're truly in charge of a network, I'm scared that you didn't know some of these answers, whether you implement them or not. It sounds to me like your network is absolutely unrestricted chaos.
JKH posted this to the developers' list. I don't think he was intending to throw weight around, but more likely ask the guys who actively develop to make a simple change.
Only when it becomes Slashdot discussion does it suddenly seem like he's using politics to change FreeBSD from behind the Apple tree.
E-Mail Timers
Yeah. Okay. Most users barely know how to send regular e-mail.
BlackBerry
That's why bb mailboxes are separate from regular mailboxes.
GoToMyPc.Com
Aside from probably getting you fired, every good admin blocks crap like this at the firewall. The only out from your PC is through the proxy and firewall. The only way in leads to the DMZ.
Instant Messaging
Also blocked at the firewall. Get to work!
Yahoo By Phone
You can't forward your mail an SMTP address, only local accounts.
I'll have to do some research. I don't believe for one second that there are more ext3 or resier deployments that NTFS. NTFS has been around since at least 1996 or earlier - virtually every Windows server runs it.
I bet most Linux servers still use ext2. FreeBSD uses UFS. Novell uses NWFS. AIX uses JFS and IRIX uses XFS. reiser and ext3 are still babies comparitively.
Seriously though...who cares? No one will ever know the different except Slashdot readers and open source activists. No one else will ever hear of these "codenames." They will still call Phoenix/Firebird/Whateverthefuck - Mozilla.
NTFS is a modern, mature, stable, fully journalled file system. It's got POSIX compliance, and it's got room built in for improvement. It also handles sparse files very nicely. In fact, even Windows NT 4 can use NTFS 3.1 (aka NTFS5) when upgraded to SP4 (ntfs.sys is replaced).
Few people really know what they're talking about when they discuss NTFS. Did you know it supports hard linking? Did you know it's got a change journal? Did you know it can encrypt and decrypt files on the fly for instant access? NTFS pushes security, and part of security is security through obscurity. No one can boot Knoppix and overwrite your SAM - they can format the drive, but they can't CHANGE your system (presuming then, that you could always restore your data).
Anyway, leave it to Slashdot to find some jerk who says NTFS is crap because it's a Microsoft product.
I'm not saying NTFS is the end all of file systems, but don't trash it. It's a very nice product, and, unlike reiser, ext3, and UFS2, it's proven and widely deployed.
In fairness, some IDEs color different comments different ways. I've seen people use the different comment styles to make different kinds of comments. There's no steadfast rule, it's just preference, and SOME people use them that way.
I understand what you're trying to say, but PHP doesn't really have a counterpart. You can't really compare it with Perl, Java, or C++. The closet we have to something that compares to PHP is ASP, which is hardly a substitute. Perl wasn't really designed for web use, althought it's found its way there.
Either way, you seem awfully angry about this. PHP is flexible and is meant for all programmers. Like the rest of the Linux debates, the camp that "hates" PHP is often the same people who are elitist about Linux in general.
I should make it clear that I'm not making a statement as to the legitimacy of weblogs. God knows, my little open source project is mostly used by people as a personal outlet for their own stuff, not companies. Installations of it are probably some of the most guilty of the so-called "search engine perversion" mentioned in these articles. I don't know that separating blogs from google searches is a bad idea.
However, I firmly believe that slashdot IS a blog, as is K5, as are many legitimate news sources, and they will probably be filtered as well by whatever googlebot determines what is and isn't a blog. Just something to consider.
Slashdor IS a blog. Because we're not talking about some Google employee sitting around and making a judgement call on every link on the net, it's obviously going to be automated by robots.
Slashdot, like other blogs, pollutes search engine searches with their "permalinks," which, although they might be useful, certainly constitute a blog. In fact, one of the problems with blogs and search engines is that they generate thousands of clickable hyperlinks effortlessly. It's great for someone reading a blog and trying to bookmark a certain section - it's terrible for the guy who wants information on combatting spam through more effective use of his SMTP server and has to search through 30 pages of/. and K5 chatter to find some substance.
Certainly, Google's criteria for what defines a blog might be helpful, but it seems to me like you're subjectively deciding which blogs are legitimate news sources and which are "some kid rambling on." Say whatever you like about the legitimacy of/., but make no mistake about it, it's a blog.
Yes, let's just up and agree that no one should ever innovate again.
By this logic, what the f are you doing using anything but Windows? That's where 95% of the market is. By your logic, Linux as a whole has "very small uptake." Therefore, should we all just save ourselves the trouble and (2) move to another OS?
Apparently, with the current "streetnames," only.1% of people know how to get there right now. Why not make the directions readable so the rest of the world can share too?
Slashdot Mirror
The real outcome of this fiasco is easy to see. Dvorak thinks he's got the scenarios covered, but in my book, he's missing the likely outcome if SCO somehow wins this case.
...but I'd still hate to be Red Hat.
Linux is free and available. Provided SCO wins anything, they will HAVE TO come clean about what parts are offending code and which are clear. As soon as that's done, SCO will have a field day with IBM, RH, and other Linux vendors.
However, within a few weeks/months, the Linunx community will rally to replace all offending parts of the kernel/GNU utilities/whatever with something equal if not better, it will be tested, and deployed within a year. Linux will suffer a setback, but Linux will NOT die.
It's been said that open source projects never die, they just cease to be developed. Linux ain't going anywhere. There's no imaginable way that hackers around the world will simulaneously abandon Linux and move to FreeBSD or some other alternative. If, by some miracle, there's something to all this, we'll have it behind us within a few months.
This is when it pays to be a subscriber. Download at 100+ kbps before the /.'ing begins.
Nearly everyone agrees that you won't see a 5.x STABLE until around 5.2. It needs some time to mature before it's deemed STABLE.
it's only slander if it's spoken. If it's written, it's libel.
The Linux source code is pretty well kept and well documented. If they "lift" code, we'll be able to determine where it came from, who submitted it, etc. So in this case, SCO will have to find the person who submitted the code and 1) somehow determine they have no records of the development and 2) somehow prove they had access to the SCO source code.
What if the so-called thief has some e-mail to his buddy that shares the code (e.g. "Hey dude, can you review this for errors before I submit it to the kernel maintainers?"). What if some obscure archive of a mailing list shows that portions of the code were discussed. Everyone in SCO stands to face MAJOR criminal lawsuits if that's the case.
It's much more likely they are simply lying or that they are picking on common short functions that are more logical than anything else.
That's a really interesting question!
It's nice to see a review like this. Many slashdot reviews are short and detail-less, but this one is a good overview, which I like.
As much as I want to know about the underpinnings of HTTP, I find this one of those "books I'd like to HAVE read." If I buy it, which I may, I'm pretty sure it will be one of those books I just don't get around to reading because I personally don't have a huge need for it. I'd love to know the information, but I don't know I have the time to pull off actually reading it. Is it just me, or does everyone have a few of those books - the ones you wish you had actually read, but instead just look nice as part of your technical book collection?
I guess there's at least one positive about the Matrix - I can make a quick phone call and have my operator just load "The Complete HTTP" for me.
I suppose I did take it personally, but mostly because I was reacting to your post and this one. I apologize if I jumped directly on you, but as you can see, I *was* attacked in a pretty personal way before.
I agree with you, restrictions suck for a user, but sometimes it's the preferred method for a company. My company has weighed the benefits of each of the activities, and you dismiss them as though it's common sense. I don't believe it is. I feel all of my decisions are carefully approached. We don't need certain things, so I disallow them. It makes my job easier, makes security better, and best of all, is good for the company. Anyway, port 80 and 443 outbound are open, so it's not like people can't have any fun.
I think a good admin blocks anything that is not work related, has the potentional to cause issues, and is possibly a vulnerability. Case in point: as IM programs mature, we'll see the first IM virus. Not at my company - where we don't need external IM'ing. If one day, we do, I can allow it again.
Work is not the place for computer freedom. The network belongs to the company. It's my job to protect it. We may disagree on some points, but I think overall we're both trying to provide the best functonal IT for our respective companies.
Let's break down your responses, shall we?
- He has a point here; most people don't have a clue how to use the features of email software. Of course a "good" admin and a "good" IT department make it their job to teach people this stuff.
Wrong. Some network admins are not desktop techs. Some don't even sit with their users. I was being general, but since you attack me - I'll tell you that over 400 of my users are offsite and I never see them. It's not an admins job, by default, to train users.
Hmm sounds like that investment in BlackBerry devices is going down the drain since users can't access their work email. Congratulations "good" admin you just wasted a butt load of money, way to go!
Pshaw! The reason I separated bb mailboxes from regular mailboxes is because that was something we did when I worked for the US NAVY. But I'm glad your little narrow mind has "deemed" us all wrong. BBs are WAY overused when they are piped into normal mailboxes. That's why we treat them as a separate system, and everone feels they are worth the money. But I'll let management know that YOU disagree. I'm sure they've have me change things right away.
Instant Messaging
- I take it that all of the companies that using IM aren't working? Has any one told them this?
No. We have internal IM capability. What we don't have it access out on the msn, jabber, yim, and aim ports. We have determined that IM is not really necessary for the job. But, alas, if YOU think it is, by all means...
- So users that don't have a laptop because the "good" admin doesn't think they need one have no way of getting their email remotely? Way to go "good" admin, keep up the good work!
Yes, it's called a Citrix VPN. Or RAS. Or webmail. But you cannot forward e-mail from our system to an SMTP address unless you have access to the backend, because it's a security risk. Any admin that let's you, or even argues for it, is a retard and shouldn't even be maintaining his own PC let alone a network.
- Yes call forwarding is bad! Who wants to call someone and actually reach who they called? How silly!
We don't allow call forwarding. We issue cell phones for this purpose.
You know, you talk a lot without even thinking. Just because you can't see the obvious solutions doesn't mean there aren't any. You're a dangerous person who passes judgement without being informed. And if you're truly in charge of a network, I'm scared that you didn't know some of these answers, whether you implement them or not. It sounds to me like your network is absolutely unrestricted chaos.
JKH posted this to the developers' list. I don't think he was intending to throw weight around, but more likely ask the guys who actively develop to make a simple change.
Only when it becomes Slashdot discussion does it suddenly seem like he's using politics to change FreeBSD from behind the Apple tree.
E-Mail Timers
Yeah. Okay. Most users barely know how to send regular e-mail.
BlackBerry
That's why bb mailboxes are separate from regular mailboxes.
GoToMyPc.Com
Aside from probably getting you fired, every good admin blocks crap like this at the firewall. The only out from your PC is through the proxy and firewall. The only way in leads to the DMZ.
Instant Messaging
Also blocked at the firewall. Get to work!
Yahoo By Phone
You can't forward your mail an SMTP address, only local accounts.
Call Forwarding
Not our phones.
I'll have to do some research. I don't believe for one second that there are more ext3 or resier deployments that NTFS. NTFS has been around since at least 1996 or earlier - virtually every Windows server runs it.
I bet most Linux servers still use ext2. FreeBSD uses UFS. Novell uses NWFS. AIX uses JFS and IRIX uses XFS. reiser and ext3 are still babies comparitively.
That's not weird. They make a Linux distro.
You're right, but that's not a problem with NTFS. That's a problem with XP, of which there are MANY.
I agree, NTFS isn't by any stretch a panacea, but it is worthy of some praise - certainly as much as the current iterations of reiserfs and ext3.
-Are you the Judean People's Front?
...We're the People's Front of Judea!
-FUCK OFF!
Seriously though...who cares? No one will ever know the different except Slashdot readers and open source activists. No one else will ever hear of these "codenames." They will still call Phoenix/Firebird/Whateverthefuck - Mozilla.
NTFS is a modern, mature, stable, fully journalled file system. It's got POSIX compliance, and it's got room built in for improvement. It also handles sparse files very nicely. In fact, even Windows NT 4 can use NTFS 3.1 (aka NTFS5) when upgraded to SP4 (ntfs.sys is replaced).
Few people really know what they're talking about when they discuss NTFS. Did you know it supports hard linking? Did you know it's got a change journal? Did you know it can encrypt and decrypt files on the fly for instant access? NTFS pushes security, and part of security is security through obscurity. No one can boot Knoppix and overwrite your SAM - they can format the drive, but they can't CHANGE your system (presuming then, that you could always restore your data).
Anyway, leave it to Slashdot to find some jerk who says NTFS is crap because it's a Microsoft product.
I'm not saying NTFS is the end all of file systems, but don't trash it. It's a very nice product, and, unlike reiser, ext3, and UFS2, it's proven and widely deployed.
More on NTFS
In fairness, some IDEs color different comments different ways. I've seen people use the different comment styles to make different kinds of comments. There's no steadfast rule, it's just preference, and SOME people use them that way.
I understand what you're trying to say, but PHP doesn't really have a counterpart. You can't really compare it with Perl, Java, or C++. The closet we have to something that compares to PHP is ASP, which is hardly a substitute. Perl wasn't really designed for web use, althought it's found its way there.
Either way, you seem awfully angry about this. PHP is flexible and is meant for all programmers. Like the rest of the Linux debates, the camp that "hates" PHP is often the same people who are elitist about Linux in general.
I think PHP coders generally lack the ego that non-PHP'ers have. Case in point...parent
Hate to tell you - but all three of those work in PHP. In fact, lots of good PHP programmers use all three for different kinds of comments -
// is for instructions
# is for copyrights
/* is for
multiple lines */
What he hates about PHP doesn't sound so bad, and doesn't seem like anything that won't be corrected in PHP5.
I knew there was a reason I liked it.
I should make it clear that I'm not making a statement as to the legitimacy of weblogs. God knows, my little open source project is mostly used by people as a personal outlet for their own stuff, not companies. Installations of it are probably some of the most guilty of the so-called "search engine perversion" mentioned in these articles. I don't know that separating blogs from google searches is a bad idea.
However, I firmly believe that slashdot IS a blog, as is K5, as are many legitimate news sources, and they will probably be filtered as well by whatever googlebot determines what is and isn't a blog. Just something to consider.
Slashdor IS a blog. Because we're not talking about some Google employee sitting around and making a judgement call on every link on the net, it's obviously going to be automated by robots.
/. and K5 chatter to find some substance.
/., but make no mistake about it, it's a blog.
Slashdot, like other blogs, pollutes search engine searches with their "permalinks," which, although they might be useful, certainly constitute a blog. In fact, one of the problems with blogs and search engines is that they generate thousands of clickable hyperlinks effortlessly. It's great for someone reading a blog and trying to bookmark a certain section - it's terrible for the guy who wants information on combatting spam through more effective use of his SMTP server and has to search through 30 pages of
Certainly, Google's criteria for what defines a blog might be helpful, but it seems to me like you're subjectively deciding which blogs are legitimate news sources and which are "some kid rambling on." Say whatever you like about the legitimacy of
Yes, let's just up and agree that no one should ever innovate again.
By this logic, what the f are you doing using anything but Windows? That's where 95% of the market is. By your logic, Linux as a whole has "very small uptake." Therefore, should we all just save ourselves the trouble and (2) move to another OS?
Apparently, with the current "streetnames," only .1% of people know how to get there right now. Why not make the directions readable so the rest of the world can share too?
You should patent it!