Do you watch DVDs? Do you dream of squeezing all your DVDs onto a harddrive and streaming them to a media PC attached to your TV?
You could copy the DVDs at ~8GB each to some large harddrives or you could transcode them to much smaller formats with all the garbage removed and go from ~8GB/movie to less than 4GB/movie. But to do this you need lots of processing power. A cluster works very good for this and the software is already there for you:
For the cost of some overpriced Dell crap video editing PC you could build a decent diskless cluster. Who needs harddrives, monitors, video cards, keyboards, mice, etc. At least more than one set.;)
Those are all good features to protect against poor coding, however, they are also features which are already available for the linux kernel. In fact it appears that all these features you've mentioned are part of PaX and are shared among linux and openBSD.
But perhaps of greater importance is the fact that none of this will protect you against poor coding which is susceptible to unexpected actions such as sql injection. An sql injection attack does not necessarily create a buffer overflow, but gets an application to execute a query in ways the programmer did not expect and thus uses the privileges of the database or application user to perform operations on the system which were not intended. And this was only one example of potential exploits an installed application may open up. There are others, some of them as simple as a poor password set by a user. You see, you must protect against more than just memory exploits.
selinux is very effective at protecting, not only against buffer overflows which may result in the execution of unexpected code, but other exploits:
"...Running an SELinux MAC kernel protects the system from malicious or flawed applications that can damage or destroy the system. SELinux defines the access and transition rights of every user, application, process, and file on the system. SELinux then governs the interactions of these subjects and objects using a security policy that specifies how strict or lenient a given Red Hat Enterprise Linux installation should be..."
So, again, I may be off base due to my lack of experience with bsd but I still believe that the BSDs are susceptible to attacks which an selinux implementation could protect against.
It definitely will not make an insecure application or insecure installation more secure, but it will provide additional protection against those insecure situations.
And the post is modded appropriately as funny since it is a humorous jab at linux security. Besides, I could be off base on this but I suspect that simply installing BSD as your OS will not resolve security issues in the applications you install on top of it, i.e. SQL inject exploits in applications such as PHPBB.
...it's sufficiently complicated that most people are just going to turn it off...
From what I have observed in the #fedora channel on freenode.net most people are oblivious to the existence and operation of selinux and they do not turn it off. However, I have observed people having problems related to selinux when they start utilizing advanced services on their fedora boxes, i.e. apache, named, etc. And in many cases I've seen people offer up the solution of just disabling selinux. This is unfortunate, however, it is not surprising considering the current lack of selinux experience. When possible I've provided some assistance and prevented the disabling of selinux as a solution, but its just a drop in the bucket.
I suspect that in the future there will be some good selinux frontends to assist the masses with configuration. I would not write it off just yet.
VIA Epia C3 800MHz - $105 512MB Kingston PC133 RAM - $79.99 Sony CDRW/DVD Combo drive - $57.99 Maxtor 40GB Harddrive - $48.99 Casetronic ITX-2699R - $62.99 UPS 3 Day shipping - ~ $15 linux OS and all the GPL software you can download - $FREE
Total: $369.96
Comparable Mac Mini - $499.99
Now I will agree that the Mac Mini will have a better CPU, a better GPU, a better looking case, but is it worth the $100+? It depends and in many cases I would have to say no.
Oh, and you can keep your OSX, iLife and Quicken '05. I really don't need them on my firewall, or on my web server, on my hot spot, etc.
Now you could make things interesting by purchasing one of the older Mac Minis from Compusa or another vendor and you can get below the $499.99 price but you will end up with less RAM, but you can play this same game with the ITX system. Since you can build the ITX box specific to the application you can dump parts that are not needed, i.e. the DVD/CDRW combo drive which would be worthless on a headless box providing network services. The Mac Mini will require that you become flexible and pay for hardware and features that you may not need.
So again, the Mac Mini is an awesome piece of hardware that people should consider, however, it is most definitely not the end all be all of inexpensive low power computers. In fact it can easily be beat for many applications.
At first I was going to disagree with you, however, after checking the details on the Mac Mini specs it is impressive. I was expecting the mini-ITX to beat the Mac Mini hands down on power efficiency but it looks like they are on par with one another.
You can still beat the Mac Mini price by well over $100 if you piece together a mini-ITX system with similar specs, but the Mac will have a much more powerful CPU and GPU. If you don't need the extra CPU and GPU power then the cost savings may make the mini-ITX a better solution.
I've used mini-ITX systems in several applications, webservers, firewalls, wifi access points, etc., but I will definitely consider the Mac Mini hardware in future projects that may need more oompf. Especially since it appears it is quite easy to install linux over the top of OSX. While OSX is a nice OS (works great on my dual 1GHz G4) but it would waste resources on a headless box.
It does not mean the end to free software and independant development. It means you check the signature on the software you downloaded to ensure it actually came from the developer you think it came from.
As the parent post noted, Red Hat signs their RPM releases with Red Hat's digital signature. You can still download the Red Hat RPMs from an independant mirror but you don't install them if the signature test fails.
This is Channy Yun, leader of Mozilla Korean Community. This site is not official web sites of Mozilla Foundation. And this hack is orginated by no patch for PHP vulnerability of my hosting company for mozilla.or.kr. I will change it with backup and fix it with my ISP. Sorry for your worry.
I'm thinking they should give up their domain which likely causes the confusion and give the false impression that what you are downloading from the site is an official Mozilla binary.
Open source is not ALWAYS the ONLY answer; and nothing in your post refutes that.
Correct, there was nothing in my post to refute the possibility that open source is not always the only answer. The existence of open and closed source solutions is creating a rather lively and competetive market for both solutions.
What I am refuting is the idea that open source != making a living. Clearly this is not the case as the companies I listed in my post hire people with various skills, including software development. Don't confuse the end product or service which these companies provide with their total contributions to the economy and community.
And I see no problem with you making a living by charging for the thing you produce. If the software you produce is of the quality you suggest and there is demand then I suspect you will do very well. I would also have to agree that given a market and a high quality product it will be easier for you to make a living selling your product as closed source. It is a model that has worked for years and works today as well. However, if your product is a web browser then it had better be damn good.;)
rather than having to spend hundreds of thousands to write their web server from scratch; which was apparently the only alternative to open source FundingUtah could find.
As far as fundingutah.com goes, well your not paying attention. They did not write a webserver from scratch and the cost was $2000 not hundreds of thousands. And a quick check of the header from their web server shows:
[burnin@slimweb ~]$ lynx -mime_header http://fundingutah.com/ | more HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:05:38 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux) Accept-Ranges: bytes X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11 Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=aa6be018298b467e1b2c308177de0be0; expires=Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:05:38 GMT; path=/ Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 Pragma: no-cache Connection: close Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
They are developing their website on top of open source software.
"FundingUtah.com built its beta Web site for $2,000 with custom programming on top of open source code that would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to write from scratch. Another company I work with just installed SugarCRM, an open source CRM solution, to manage all its customer contacts for both sales and support. It's a great system that is virtually free."
Open source is creating opportunities for developers, administrators, technicians, etc. Obviously the licensing is changing business relationships and how we get things done but you are only fooling yourself when you suggest that you cannot making a living unless you keep the source code to yourself and sell licensing that restricts the use and distribution of your software.
The fun ones are the "what were you thinking" incidents. It happens quite often when operators have creative interpretations of processing procedures.
The procedure says empty slots in carriers must be filled with dummy wafers before starting the spray acid process tool, so how about if I mix two partial lots so I don't have to use dummy wafers and I'll load the second partial lot of wafers upside down so I know which wafers go in which lot.
Needless to say the upside down wafers didn't come out quite as expected. Its funny how gravity can play an important role in a manufacturing process.
I guess thats what happens when your only thinking about how you can push more wafers through the factory without stopping to think how things work.
As someone who works with both CS grads and vocational grads I'd have to say that what Dan believes is missing from the CS studies is also missing from the vocational studies as well. And the only outcome of the vocational studies is a graduate who has no understanding of the basics, has a difficult time adapting to platforms outside their study focus, and are missing the same key career tools as the CS students.
I see nothing wrong with the CS curriculum, however, a student should actively pursue the following weak points which Dan pointed out in his article:
- Basics of good code architecture: Loose Coupling, etc. - The importance and tools of Planning: Spec'ing,, UML etc. - Economics, Business Studies, Costing Projects, Commercial pressures - Project/Time Management - Security - Testing, Debugging, Performance, Re-factoring - Problem analysis - Health and safety (nutrition?)
MSNBC is responsible for whatever they release whether they are regurgitating or not. Perhaps the Reuters story fits their opinion of the FSF so they ran it.
And I guess I wasn't clear in my last post. No matter where this news story originated it does not appear to be a FSF press release. Look for yourself, no really, look this time...
The press release from the FSF websites states they are organizing a project to write a new version of the GPL, so I guess that part is correct, however, there is no mention of writing off any businesses which "patent software or use anti-piracy technology".
I do not doubt there are open source advocates who would support the idea and it is possible this would be the outcome of the project. However, this is definitely not what was in the press release from the FSF.
So I look at the significant differences between the press release and the news article and I see an obvious attempt at agitation in the news article from the headline to the quotes. Yeah, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid then some poor sheepish sap who buys what they're selling.
One person in Europe does not represent the entire Free Software movement in Europe let alone every global voice in the Free Software movement.
I do not agree with many of the beliefs and ideas of Georg Greve as I'm sure many others do not and will have a say in the writing of the GPLv3.
The clowns at MSNBC chose to post an article with a headline and quotes that would portray the Free Software movement the way they would like the rest of the world to see it. Their objective is not journalism or truth but to polarize those who do not have the time or understanding to discover the truth for themselves.
True, but then again it also depends on who is bearing the news as well.
Considering you are nobody your press release wont really mean much. And I would also go so far as to say The SCO Group are nobody as well and their press releases don't mean much.
However, if Kroger made a big deal about your toothpaste purchase in the news section of their website it may actual be something to consider.
When SCO made their press release I didn't pay much attention because I have become very skeptical of any messages that come out of their organization. But it is disconcerting when MySQL considers the partnership to be news worthy as well:
I assume you are talking about the psql client. Note that this is a client and not PostgreSQL. There are other clients you can use with a PostgreSQL server some of which are GUIs. phpPgAdmin is one of them:
"Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes."
Calm down Mr. Ballmer, and put down that chair.
Oh, and by the way, the software is truely fecking software and those licenses are definitely fecking licenses. And be careful, one day one of those fecking licenses may feck you.
I have a dual G4 Mac with OS X. I do not run a virus scanner on it. It sits behind a linux based firewall with a custom set of iptables rules. And I make sure to check for updates frequently.
Now I suppose its possible that I have a virus and I'm just not aware, however, the same logic works towards virus scanners as well. Just because you run a virus scan how can you be absolutely sure that you don't still have a virus?
I also run several linux boxes, desktops, laptops, and servers. I'm curious about your linux virus scanner and the results. What virus software are your using on your linux box and specifically what linux viruses are you discovering? If your linux box is a server and your scanning for Windows viruses that may be propogated via the server then you may want to specifically state that.
The reason I ask is because I have yet to encounter a virus on my Mac or any of my linux boxes that I'm aware of. At work I use Windows boxes and in the past it was easy to tell when they had a virus because the box would slow down and act in unexpected ways. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to tell today if the Windows boxes had a virus because the current virus protection that runs on them makes them so damned slow and flakey in their operation that I would never know if it was a virus or just the stupid virus proctection software keeping things safe. Its rather sad when an upgrade to the latest and most expensive dual core submicron microprocessor from a muti-billion dollar 300mm factory seems necessary just to have a functional Windows box.
You are correct, use what works best for the job, but how do you know which is best for the job if you never compare the competition head to head?
I personally don't like the "use what works" reasoning because in most cases its used as a cop out or excuse to maintain the status quo.
That said I don't pay much attention to most of the studies that are thrown back and forth because 1) there is a lot of misinformation (pretty much from one side, yeah you know which side), and 2) most of the studies fail to start at the beginning before any features are speced or any pricing is quoted.
The first step in determining what works for the job is to examine the fine print. That is the licensing agreement which binds you once you make your decision.
If you do your due diligence and start with the licensing then in most cases you won't need to go any further.
Statistically speaking it may make sense to ignore the licensing as most individuals and companies do, however, that wont play well as a defense if the licensing and your practices are in conflict and the licensee demands retribution.
"OS/2 1.30 (SE and EE) was the first version which was written entirely by IBM. There was still some Microsoft code in it - that would not go away for a couple years yet - but all of the new code and a good portion of the existing code for OS/2 1.30 was written by IBM."
By the time Windows 95 came out OS/2 was at version 3 and was significantly more advanced than Windows 95. There were definitely issues in OS/2 Warp3 but compared to the competition it was a much better solution.
Interestingly, Windows NT was originally planned to be OS/2 Version 3. For anyone who has used Windows NT 3.5/4.0 and OS/2 Warp3/Warp4 they are very different operating systems. From my experience I can say that 3.5 was not on par with Warp3 or Warp4 and had a tendency to crash with some of the nastier Microsoft Office bugs. Windows NT 4 on the other hand was a relatively good build in my opinion and I used it for several years. I actually have a couple of legacy NT 3.5 boxes running that cannot be replaced, but I also have several Warp3 and Warp4 boxes that run day in day out.
The build scripts are using -Werror when you do a debug build. Debug is also the default build. So those inline assembly constraint warnings cause the build to error out.
If you do a release build the -Werror is not used and it should compile. To do a release build the command is./unix/cons -- release
Or you can get past the inline assembly constraint warnings by editing the Construct file in the code directory and removing the -Werror from $BASE_CFLAGS = $COMMON_CFLAGS . '-g -Wall -Werror -O ';
I've successfully compiled using both methods on my Fedora Core 3 box. The gcc -v output is: gcc version 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)
So to recap jcdr's tips with my addition, you have:
The actual 1999 "preliminary conclusion" from Swartz is very critical of linux and makes some very damning statements, i.e.
"many portions of Linux were clearly written with access to a copy of Unix sources."
"they started with a source file which apparently came from Unix and is thus the property of SCO."
So Swartz is telling SCO management what they want to hear, and this is also what they expect everyone to take from this 1999 letter. That is that linux infringes on SCO's copyrights.
Now what SCO likely is hopeful nobody reads from the 1999 letter are the following statements from Swartz after stating his claims:
"One of the questions which remains to be answered is what is the history of the identical code. It is possible that some of the code came from Berkeley or other third party."
And most importantly:
"I am awaiting an analysis from Mike Davidson on some of these issues, since he has a better feel for the history of much of this code."
So the claims Swartz makes in this "preliminary conclusion" seem rather harsh considering he doesn't know the history of the code which he finds suspect.
And then the clincher. When Mike Davidson comes back with the analysis Swartz is waiting on we get from Mike's follow up email in 2002:
"We had found absolutely *nothing*"
"invariably it turned out that the common code was something that both we (SCO) and the Linux community had obtained (legitimately) from some third party."
So it becomes obvious from the 1999 letter and the 2002 email that while Swartz did find similar code between linux and SCO's Unix in the end when the findings were presented to the SCO Unix source code expert it was discovered that none of the similar code belonged to SCO and there were no copyright infringements in linux.
I must say, it was nice reading the actual emails instead of listening to the obfuscation of facts from the lawyers and the media.
The PEP platforms in the factory I work in are running either Warp 3 or Warp 4 on old IBM industrial PCs which are old 486s. Recently I put together a set of Shuttle Pentium 4 PCs and went through the pain of figuring how to get Warp 4 installed and working with the new hardware. As the 486s die I'll replace them with new hardware and Warp 4.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you watch DVDs? Do you dream of squeezing all your DVDs onto a harddrive and streaming them to a media PC attached to your TV?
;)
You could copy the DVDs at ~8GB each to some large harddrives or you could transcode them to much smaller formats with all the garbage removed and go from ~8GB/movie to less than 4GB/movie. But to do this you need lots of processing power. A cluster works very good for this and the software is already there for you:
http://www.exit1.org/dvdrip/doc/cluster.cipp
For the cost of some overpriced Dell crap video editing PC you could build a decent diskless cluster. Who needs harddrives, monitors, video cards, keyboards, mice, etc. At least more than one set.
burnin
Those are all good features to protect against poor coding, however, they are also features which are already available for the linux kernel. In fact it appears that all these features you've mentioned are part of PaX and are shared among linux and openBSD.
L -4-Manual/ref-guide/ch-selinux.html
http://pax.grsecurity.net/
But perhaps of greater importance is the fact that none of this will protect you against poor coding which is susceptible to unexpected actions such as sql injection. An sql injection attack does not necessarily create a buffer overflow, but gets an application to execute a query in ways the programmer did not expect and thus uses the privileges of the database or application user to perform operations on the system which were not intended. And this was only one example of potential exploits an installed application may open up. There are others, some of them as simple as a poor password set by a user. You see, you must protect against more than just memory exploits.
selinux is very effective at protecting, not only against buffer overflows which may result in the execution of unexpected code, but other exploits:
"...Running an SELinux MAC kernel protects the system from malicious or flawed applications that can damage or destroy the system. SELinux defines the access and transition rights of every user, application, process, and file on the system. SELinux then governs the interactions of these subjects and objects using a security policy that specifies how strict or lenient a given Red Hat Enterprise Linux installation should be..."
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHE
So, again, I may be off base due to my lack of experience with bsd but I still believe that the BSDs are susceptible to attacks which an selinux implementation could protect against.
burnin
It definitely will not make an insecure application or insecure installation more secure, but it will provide additional protection against those insecure situations.
And the post is modded appropriately as funny since it is a humorous jab at linux security. Besides, I could be off base on this but I suspect that simply installing BSD as your OS will not resolve security issues in the applications you install on top of it, i.e. SQL inject exploits in applications such as PHPBB.
From what I have observed in the #fedora channel on freenode.net most people are oblivious to the existence and operation of selinux and they do not turn it off. However, I have observed people having problems related to selinux when they start utilizing advanced services on their fedora boxes, i.e. apache, named, etc. And in many cases I've seen people offer up the solution of just disabling selinux. This is unfortunate, however, it is not surprising considering the current lack of selinux experience. When possible I've provided some assistance and prevented the disabling of selinux as a solution, but its just a drop in the bucket.
I suspect that in the future there will be some good selinux frontends to assist the masses with configuration. I would not write it off just yet.
burnin
Try http://www.directron.com/
VIA Epia C3 800MHz - $105
512MB Kingston PC133 RAM - $79.99
Sony CDRW/DVD Combo drive - $57.99
Maxtor 40GB Harddrive - $48.99
Casetronic ITX-2699R - $62.99
UPS 3 Day shipping - ~ $15
linux OS and all the GPL software you can download - $FREE
Total: $369.96
Comparable Mac Mini - $499.99
Now I will agree that the Mac Mini will have a better CPU, a better GPU, a better looking case, but is it worth the $100+? It depends and in many cases I would have to say no.
Oh, and you can keep your OSX, iLife and Quicken '05. I really don't need them on my firewall, or on my web server, on my hot spot, etc.
Now you could make things interesting by purchasing one of the older Mac Minis from Compusa or another vendor and you can get below the $499.99 price but you will end up with less RAM, but you can play this same game with the ITX system. Since you can build the ITX box specific to the application you can dump parts that are not needed, i.e. the DVD/CDRW combo drive which would be worthless on a headless box providing network services. The Mac Mini will require that you become flexible and pay for hardware and features that you may not need.
So again, the Mac Mini is an awesome piece of hardware that people should consider, however, it is most definitely not the end all be all of inexpensive low power computers. In fact it can easily be beat for many applications.
burnin
At first I was going to disagree with you, however, after checking the details on the Mac Mini specs it is impressive. I was expecting the mini-ITX to beat the Mac Mini hands down on power efficiency but it looks like they are on par with one another.
You can still beat the Mac Mini price by well over $100 if you piece together a mini-ITX system with similar specs, but the Mac will have a much more powerful CPU and GPU. If you don't need the extra CPU and GPU power then the cost savings may make the mini-ITX a better solution.
I've used mini-ITX systems in several applications, webservers, firewalls, wifi access points, etc., but I will definitely consider the Mac Mini hardware in future projects that may need more oompf. Especially since it appears it is quite easy to install linux over the top of OSX. While OSX is a nice OS (works great on my dual 1GHz G4) but it would waste resources on a headless box.
burnin
I don't think you understand the concept of digital signatures. There is a simple description here:
http://www.youdzone.com/signature.html
It does not mean the end to free software and independant development. It means you check the signature on the software you downloaded to ensure it actually came from the developer you think it came from.
As the parent post noted, Red Hat signs their RPM releases with Red Hat's digital signature. You can still download the Red Hat RPMs from an independant mirror but you don't install them if the signature test fails.
burnin
http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=
I'm thinking they should give up their domain which likely causes the confusion and give the false impression that what you are downloading from the site is an official Mozilla binary.
burnin
The key part here is "their source". Being their source I think it is up to them what they do with it not me.
Absolutely true, but some Red Hat employees did:
http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_alancox.html
burnin
Correct, there was nothing in my post to refute the possibility that open source is not always the only answer. The existence of open and closed source solutions is creating a rather lively and competetive market for both solutions.
What I am refuting is the idea that open source != making a living. Clearly this is not the case as the companies I listed in my post hire people with various skills, including software development. Don't confuse the end product or service which these companies provide with their total contributions to the economy and community.
And I see no problem with you making a living by charging for the thing you produce. If the software you produce is of the quality you suggest and there is demand then I suspect you will do very well. I would also have to agree that given a market and a high quality product it will be easier for you to make a living selling your product as closed source. It is a model that has worked for years and works today as well. However, if your product is a web browser then it had better be damn good.
As far as fundingutah.com goes, well your not paying attention. They did not write a webserver from scratch and the cost was $2000 not hundreds of thousands. And a quick check of the header from their web server shows:
[burnin@slimweb ~]$ lynx -mime_header http://fundingutah.com/ | more
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:05:38 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.40 (Red Hat Linux)
Accept-Ranges: bytes
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.11
Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=aa6be018298b467e1b2c308177de0be0; expires=Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:05:38 GMT; path=/
Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
They are developing their website on top of open source software.
burnin
Please see the following:
http://www.redhat.com/
http://www.ibm.com/
http://www.novell.com/
http://www.sourcelabs.com/
http://www.spikesource.com/
Also an interesting read:
http://www.connect-utah.com/article.asp?r=1050&ii
"FundingUtah.com built its beta Web site for $2,000 with custom programming on top of open source code that would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to write from scratch. Another company I work with just installed SugarCRM, an open source CRM solution, to manage all its customer contacts for both sales and support. It's a great system that is virtually free."
Open source is creating opportunities for developers, administrators, technicians, etc. Obviously the licensing is changing business relationships and how we get things done but you are only fooling yourself when you suggest that you cannot making a living unless you keep the source code to yourself and sell licensing that restricts the use and distribution of your software.
burnin
The fun ones are the "what were you thinking" incidents. It happens quite often when operators have creative interpretations of processing procedures.
The procedure says empty slots in carriers must be filled with dummy wafers before starting the spray acid process tool, so how about if I mix two partial lots so I don't have to use dummy wafers and I'll load the second partial lot of wafers upside down so I know which wafers go in which lot.
Needless to say the upside down wafers didn't come out quite as expected. Its funny how gravity can play an important role in a manufacturing process.
I guess thats what happens when your only thinking about how you can push more wafers through the factory without stopping to think how things work.
Oh well, chalk it up to %SCOP.
burnin
I see nothing wrong with the CS curriculum, however, a student should actively pursue the following weak points which Dan pointed out in his article:
MSNBC is responsible for whatever they release whether they are regurgitating or not. Perhaps the Reuters story fits their opinion of the FSF so they ran it.
And I guess I wasn't clear in my last post. No matter where this news story originated it does not appear to be a FSF press release. Look for yourself, no really, look this time...
http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/news.en.html
http://www.fsf.org/news
The press release from the FSF websites states they are organizing a project to write a new version of the GPL, so I guess that part is correct, however, there is no mention of writing off any businesses which "patent software or use anti-piracy technology".
I do not doubt there are open source advocates who would support the idea and it is possible this would be the outcome of the project. However, this is definitely not what was in the press release from the FSF.
So I look at the significant differences between the press release and the news article and I see an obvious attempt at agitation in the news article from the headline to the quotes. Yeah, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I'd rather be paranoid then some poor sheepish sap who buys what they're selling.
burnin
The headline should read - FSF Announces the GPL Version 3 Development and Publicity Project
/ 2005q3/000116.html
And they should have read the announcement themselves to understand the purpose of the project:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release
One person in Europe does not represent the entire Free Software movement in Europe let alone every global voice in the Free Software movement.
I do not agree with many of the beliefs and ideas of Georg Greve as I'm sure many others do not and will have a say in the writing of the GPLv3.
The clowns at MSNBC chose to post an article with a headline and quotes that would portray the Free Software movement the way they would like the rest of the world to see it. Their objective is not journalism or truth but to polarize those who do not have the time or understanding to discover the truth for themselves.
burnin
More like debating Ford versus Mack.
_ 948.html
http://www.fordvehicles.com/
http://www.macktrucks.com/
Oh, and you may want to go read MySQL-AB's partner news page to get a better understanding of what SCO "bought".
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article
burnin
True, but then again it also depends on who is bearing the news as well.
_ 948.html
Considering you are nobody your press release wont really mean much. And I would also go so far as to say The SCO Group are nobody as well and their press releases don't mean much.
However, if Kroger made a big deal about your toothpaste purchase in the news section of their website it may actual be something to consider.
When SCO made their press release I didn't pay much attention because I have become very skeptical of any messages that come out of their organization. But it is disconcerting when MySQL considers the partnership to be news worthy as well:
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article
burnin
Get your facts straight coward:
_ 948.html
"As part of the agreement, the companies will work together on a range of joint marketing, sales, training, business development and support programs"
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article
burnin
Minor detail indeed.
I assume you are talking about the psql client. Note that this is a client and not PostgreSQL. There are other clients you can use with a PostgreSQL server some of which are GUIs. phpPgAdmin is one of them:
http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/
burnin
"Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes."
Calm down Mr. Ballmer, and put down that chair.
Oh, and by the way, the software is truely fecking software and those licenses are definitely fecking licenses. And be careful, one day one of those fecking licenses may feck you.
burnin
I have a dual G4 Mac with OS X. I do not run a virus scanner on it. It sits behind a linux based firewall with a custom set of iptables rules. And I make sure to check for updates frequently.
Now I suppose its possible that I have a virus and I'm just not aware, however, the same logic works towards virus scanners as well. Just because you run a virus scan how can you be absolutely sure that you don't still have a virus?
I also run several linux boxes, desktops, laptops, and servers. I'm curious about your linux virus scanner and the results. What virus software are your using on your linux box and specifically what linux viruses are you discovering? If your linux box is a server and your scanning for Windows viruses that may be propogated via the server then you may want to specifically state that.
The reason I ask is because I have yet to encounter a virus on my Mac or any of my linux boxes that I'm aware of. At work I use Windows boxes and in the past it was easy to tell when they had a virus because the box would slow down and act in unexpected ways. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to tell today if the Windows boxes had a virus because the current virus protection that runs on them makes them so damned slow and flakey in their operation that I would never know if it was a virus or just the stupid virus proctection software keeping things safe. Its rather sad when an upgrade to the latest and most expensive dual core submicron microprocessor from a muti-billion dollar 300mm factory seems necessary just to have a functional Windows box.
burnin
You are correct, use what works best for the job, but how do you know which is best for the job if you never compare the competition head to head?
r ing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf
I personally don't like the "use what works" reasoning because in most cases its used as a cop out or excuse to maintain the status quo.
That said I don't pay much attention to most of the studies that are thrown back and forth because 1) there is a lot of misinformation (pretty much from one side, yeah you know which side), and 2) most of the studies fail to start at the beginning before any features are speced or any pricing is quoted.
The first step in determining what works for the job is to examine the fine print. That is the licensing agreement which binds you once you make your decision.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cybersrc/about/compa
If you do your due diligence and start with the licensing then in most cases you won't need to go any further.
Statistically speaking it may make sense to ignore the licensing as most individuals and companies do, however, that wont play well as a defense if the licensing and your practices are in conflict and the licensee demands retribution.
No, the quote is correct. You should read up on your OS/2 history:
. html
http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2
"OS/2 1.30 (SE and EE) was the first version which was written entirely by IBM. There was still some Microsoft code in it - that would not go away for a couple years yet - but all of the new code and a good portion of the existing code for OS/2 1.30 was written by IBM."
By the time Windows 95 came out OS/2 was at version 3 and was significantly more advanced than Windows 95. There were definitely issues in OS/2 Warp3 but compared to the competition it was a much better solution.
Interestingly, Windows NT was originally planned to be OS/2 Version 3. For anyone who has used Windows NT 3.5/4.0 and OS/2 Warp3/Warp4 they are very different operating systems. From my experience I can say that 3.5 was not on par with Warp3 or Warp4 and had a tendency to crash with some of the nastier Microsoft Office bugs. Windows NT 4 on the other hand was a relatively good build in my opinion and I used it for several years. I actually have a couple of legacy NT 3.5 boxes running that cannot be replaced, but I also have several Warp3 and Warp4 boxes that run day in day out.
burnin
The build scripts are using -Werror when you do a debug build. Debug is also the default build. So those inline assembly constraint warnings cause the build to error out.
./unix/cons -- release
3 2b-source.zip
If you do a release build the -Werror is not used and it should compile. To do a release build the command is
Or you can get past the inline assembly constraint warnings by editing the Construct file in the code directory and removing the -Werror from $BASE_CFLAGS = $COMMON_CFLAGS . '-g -Wall -Werror -O ';
I've successfully compiled using both methods on my Fedora Core 3 box. The gcc -v output is:
gcc version 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)
So to recap jcdr's tips with my addition, you have:
wget ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/quake3-1.
unzip quake3-1.32b-source.zip
cd quake3-1.32b
find -type f -exec dos2unix {} \;
cd code
./unix/cons -- release
And from there you have the compiled binary in the install directory.
burnin
So Swartz is telling SCO management what they want to hear, and this is also what they expect everyone to take from this 1999 letter. That is that linux infringes on SCO's copyrights.
Now what SCO likely is hopeful nobody reads from the 1999 letter are the following statements from Swartz after stating his claims:
And most importantly:
So the claims Swartz makes in this "preliminary conclusion" seem rather harsh considering he doesn't know the history of the code which he finds suspect.
And then the clincher. When Mike Davidson comes back with the analysis Swartz is waiting on we get from Mike's follow up email in 2002:
So it becomes obvious from the 1999 letter and the 2002 email that while Swartz did find similar code between linux and SCO's Unix in the end when the findings were presented to the SCO Unix source code expert it was discovered that none of the similar code belonged to SCO and there were no copyright infringements in linux.
I must say, it was nice reading the actual emails instead of listening to the obfuscation of facts from the lawyers and the media.
burnin
Gasonics PEP wafer processing equipment has been running on OS/2 since Warp 3.
Gasonics was purchased by Novellus but the PEP 3510 and PEP Iridia are still manufactured today.
http://www.novellus.com/products/prosetup.asp
The PEP platforms in the factory I work in are running either Warp 3 or Warp 4 on old IBM industrial PCs which are old 486s. Recently I put together a set of Shuttle Pentium 4 PCs and went through the pain of figuring how to get Warp 4 installed and working with the new hardware. As the 486s die I'll replace them with new hardware and Warp 4.
burnin