Walnut Creek owns cdrom.com. They makes their money selling CDs. Checkout www.cdrom.com for more information. As for their system, they run a single server with FreeBSD.
The problem with your logic is that the Regents move only applies to 4.4BSD and earlier. It does not affect the code in FreeBSD, or NetBSD, or the BSD code contained in Linux, or my program I released last week. I still have a claim-credit clause and you must abide by it.
The problem is that you cannot meet the demands of the GPL and claim-credit clause of the BSDL at the same time.
No irony because actually you have it backwards. In order to use the software, you must leave the current license on the existing code. No matter what the license is, you may not remove it. Now, one of the clauses in the BSD license is the claim-credit clause. If you make modifications to the code, and want to GPL you modifications, you have to leave the current license on the code and add the GPL to it. Except the GPL will not let you because of the no-additional-restrictions clause and the claim-credit clause is an additional restrictions. The BSD license lets BSD software be used in nearly anyway (as long as you leave the existing copyright and give credit, when required). You can give away derivatives under a BSD license, or commercially, but you cannot use the GPL because the GPL itself prevents it.
The problem with the GPL is that it tries hard to be incompatable. The "No additional restrictions" clause was even added specifically to prevent linking. For the most part, the GPL is just as bad as any EULA or NDA as it forces you to play by their rules and I cannot agree with that. That is why I release all my code under a BSD license, just so it cannot be used in a GPL'd program.
Several years ago I first installed FreeBSD on a spare 486 at Miami University. We were running a Linux server and Linux just wasn't cutting it. We had a lot of problems with reboots and lost filesystems.
So after the first installation of FreeBSD 2.2.2, this thing stayed up and was more responsive that a P166 running Linux. If you just want to play with a UNIX or clone, Linux will get you through your day, but if you are doing real work, FreeBSD is it.
As for the other BSDs, I installed NetBSD on a Mac68k and a MacPPC. In both cases, I was astounded by it. NetBSD is also an incredible system. I have not had much experience with OpenBSD, but the code itself is a direct off-shoot of NetBSD with security tweaks, so I expect the same experience.
But in general, I am sure you will be pleased with any BSD. They are fast, small, and easy systems. They are each present a clean, consistent interface without bogging down the system with unused "features" and bloat as GNU code tends to. The ports system also makes it a snap to install anything from Java to Apache to KDE without anything more than "make install". And without a doubt, my favorite feature of FreeBSD (and the others permit this as well) is the simple upgrade procedure: "make world". Never again will I have to deal with RPMs or dependencies, or precompiled binaries optimzed for a 386sx.:) Have fun and let us know which one you choose.
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..." If the Senate and House both approve a measure, it still does not become law.
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of/. readers who would be affected by this bill (ie US citizens) have already completed their 8th-grade civics course and understand the situation. That is not a safe assumption. The average Slashdot poster does not seem to have a clue how democracy, capitalism, or the United States government works. For proof of this, refer to any posting on patents, copyrights, or federal law.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point... Not true! The House is the only body which may initiate a a bill of taxation (Art I, Sec 7). However, appropriations bills may originate in either the Senate or the House. So in practice it is a moot point and in reality blatently false. In theory, the Senate and the House together have the power to prevent a previous action enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive by refusing to approprate funding for it. This is done fairly often. However, they may not make anything illegal.
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..." If the Senate and House both approve a measure, it still does not become law. I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of/. readers who would be affected by this bill (ie US citizens) have already completed their 8th-grade civics course and understand the situation. That is not a safe assumption. The average Slashdot poster does not seem to have a clue how democracy, capitalism, or the United States government works. For proof of this, refer to any posting on patents, copyrights, or federal law. Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point... Not true! The House is the only body which may initiate a a bill of taxation (Art I, Sec 7). However, appropriations bills may originate in either the Senate or the House. So in practice it is a moot point and in reality blatently false. In theory, the Senate and the House together have the power to prevent a previous action enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive by refusing to approprate funding for it.
The House cannot "ban" anything. Any action in the United States requires that it pass both the House and the Senate then it must be signed by the Executive. The only exceptions to this are treaties and executive appointments which must be ratified by the Senate.
FreeBSD may have some significant technical flaws, but it is still the most powerful and stable OS in common use. Linux superzealots treat Windows the exact same way (and no matter what anyone says, Linux not ready for the desktop).
But the idea is to allow commerical and closed source products to use the filters. That is how to turn the xls and doc formats into commondity exchange media as the original poster suggested. (Rant about how the GPL can't save the world but the BSD license can omitted.)
I tihnk you understate how far along NetBSD is. For instance, on the Mac/m68k, Mac/ppc, and Intel ports, NetBSD is pretty freaking cool and does the job quite well. I think FreeBSD is much farther along on the x86, but then again, that is why I run FreeBSD on my x86 and NetBSD on my Macs.
Another issues is the fact that NetBSD presents a clean and consistant architecture and interface between platforms whereas Slackware and Red Hat don't even look the same on an i386.:)
Anyway, last I heard, the status was "booting" but then again, that is farther along that most other OSes are for the
While installing FreeBSD, you can be telnetting as soon as telnet has been written to/usr/bin:) Usually this doesn't take more than two or three minutes and you can do all sorts of other things, once the program is on the disk. I've been in IRC even before the installation was done.:)
I felt that the comments needed no further explanation, everyone knows it the GPL and Linux are anti-business, the only issue is whether or not you think that is a good thing. (PS, it isn't:)
Yes but look at what he was responding to. I calmy and without flaming pointed out that what the person I was responding to said was not true and in fact was unfairly moderated. Still, I take a 2-point hit (offtopic, troll) because I chose to stand up and say that the moderators are wrong and a misdeed should be undone.
This is simple proof that Slashdot moderation does not work.
It is clearly true that had the organization used BSD instead of Linux this would not be an issue. It also shows that the GPL and Linux are anti-business.
The moderation here is clearly a GPL zealot pushing his own agenda despite the detriment to society and the industry. Someone should moderate this up to where it belongs.
Additionally, the first response to this comment should be moderated up as well as it is also an example of moderator abuse.
Bill Joy (BSD, csh, vi, curses, Sun Microsystems) Kirk McKusick (BSD) Donald Knuth (TeX, The Art of Computer Programming) Stephen Wolfram (Wolfram Research) Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs (Breakout, my favorite arcade game, Apple) Seymore Cray (Cray Research) Vint Cerf, Jon Postel (Arpanet) And I am going to go out on a limb, but I think that in retrospect the technical acheivements of Torvalds will be ignored. After all, at a technical level, he did nothing for computer science; he only copied a lot of people who came before him.
This is very, very old news. I first downloaded and played with this demo in late 96/early 97. I remember being very impressed by how well the browser performed and its incredible size.
Since QNX is primarily a real-time OS, I always thought they might like to provide a "single-user" or non-commercial version (like SCO, BSDi, or Sun) do that potential users can actually program for it before buying. They can also make sure it meets their needs. Right now, if I were building an embedded system, I am going to use one of the BSDs because I know them very well. Having experience with QNX (or VXWorks, or ChorusOS) might prompt me to change my mind later.
The best way to prevent CT is to have a good staff of administrators and a good set of tools. By far, the two most stable and secure operating systems are OpenBSD and OpenVMS. Use them. Also make sure your staff knows how to administrate them properly.
Also make sure you are always running with the most up to date patches for your software (not just the OS, but all of it). Read Bugtraq to find out what the latest problems are and follow through on the suggestions given for securing a system.
Don't get too proud. Just as soon as you think you've gotten the crackers beat, they'll find a new way in. Never let your guard down.
Disable non-estential services. If you do not need a service running, why do you have it on? Remove any tools which could be used against you.
Don't be an easy target. Firewalls are good. Protect yourself at multiple levels.
Anyway, there are plenty of other ways to handle prevention, but I'll let others pick up the slack.
I am interested in getting a Dvorak keyboard just to see the differences. It would be interesting to see if I can relearn how to type. Where can I get one cheap?
Slashdot Mirror
/dev/eth0? You'll never know what kind of NIC you have that way :)
Walnut Creek owns cdrom.com. They makes their money selling CDs. Checkout www.cdrom.com for more information. As for their system, they run a single server with FreeBSD.
The problem with your logic is that the Regents move only applies to 4.4BSD and earlier. It does not affect the code in FreeBSD, or NetBSD, or the BSD code contained in Linux, or my program I released last week. I still have a claim-credit clause and you must abide by it.
The problem is that you cannot meet the demands of the GPL and claim-credit clause of the BSDL at the same time.
No irony because actually you have it backwards. In order to use the software, you must leave the current license on the existing code. No matter what the license is, you may not remove it. Now, one of the clauses in the BSD license is the claim-credit clause. If you make modifications to the code, and want to GPL you modifications, you have to leave the current license on the code and add the GPL to it. Except the GPL will not let you because of the no-additional-restrictions clause and the claim-credit clause is an additional restrictions. The BSD license lets BSD software be used in nearly anyway (as long as you leave the existing copyright and give credit, when required). You can give away derivatives under a BSD license, or commercially, but you cannot use the GPL because the GPL itself prevents it.
No, you may not sublicense or relicense any code you do not own the rights to. Only the developer may do that.
The problem with the GPL is that it tries hard to be incompatable. The "No additional restrictions" clause was even added specifically to prevent linking. For the most part, the GPL is just as bad as any EULA or NDA as it forces you to play by their rules and I cannot agree with that. That is why I release all my code under a BSD license, just so it cannot be used in a GPL'd program.
Several years ago I first installed FreeBSD on a spare 486 at Miami University. We were running a Linux server and Linux just wasn't cutting it. We had a lot of problems with reboots and lost filesystems.
:) Have fun and let us know which one you choose.
So after the first installation of FreeBSD 2.2.2, this thing stayed up and was more responsive that a P166 running Linux. If you just want to play with a UNIX or clone, Linux will get you through your day, but if you are doing real work, FreeBSD is it.
As for the other BSDs, I installed NetBSD on a Mac68k and a MacPPC. In both cases, I was astounded by it. NetBSD is also an incredible system. I have not had much experience with OpenBSD, but the code itself is a direct off-shoot of NetBSD with security tweaks, so I expect the same experience.
But in general, I am sure you will be pleased with any BSD. They are fast, small, and easy systems. They are each present a clean, consistent interface without bogging down the system with unused "features" and bloat as GNU code tends to. The ports system also makes it a snap to install anything from Java to Apache to KDE without anything more than "make install". And without a doubt, my favorite feature of FreeBSD (and the others permit this as well) is the simple upgrade procedure: "make world". Never again will I have to deal with RPMs or dependencies, or precompiled binaries optimzed for a 386sx.
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..."
/. readers who would be affected by this bill (ie US citizens) have already completed their 8th-grade civics course and understand the situation.
If the Senate and House both approve a measure, it still does not become law.
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of
That is not a safe assumption. The average Slashdot poster does not seem to have a clue how democracy, capitalism, or the United States government works. For proof of this, refer to any posting on patents, copyrights, or federal law.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
Not true! The House is the only body which may initiate a a bill of taxation (Art I, Sec 7). However, appropriations bills may originate in either the Senate or the House. So in practice it is a moot point and in reality blatently false. In theory, the Senate and the House together have the power to prevent a previous action enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive by refusing to approprate funding for it. This is done fairly often. However, they may not make anything illegal.
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..." /. readers who would be affected by this bill (ie US citizens) have already completed their 8th-grade civics course and understand the situation.
If the Senate and House both approve a measure, it still does not become law.
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of
That is not a safe assumption. The average Slashdot poster does not seem to have a clue how democracy, capitalism, or the United States government works. For proof of this, refer to any posting on patents, copyrights, or federal law.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
Not true! The House is the only body which may initiate a a bill of taxation (Art I, Sec 7). However, appropriations bills may originate in either the Senate or the House. So in practice it is a moot point and in reality blatently false.
In theory, the Senate and the House together have the power to prevent a previous action enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive by refusing to approprate funding for it.
"US House Votes to Ban Cybersquatting" would be short and sweet and correct whereas the current headline is just plain wrong.
The House cannot "ban" anything. Any action in the United States requires that it pass both the House and the Senate then it must be signed by the Executive. The only exceptions to this are treaties and executive appointments which must be ratified by the Senate.
FreeBSD may have some significant technical flaws, but it is still the most powerful and stable OS in common use. Linux superzealots treat Windows the exact same way (and no matter what anyone says, Linux not ready for the desktop).
You stole that from my Daemon News article! :)
But the idea is to allow commerical and closed source products to use the filters. That is how to turn the xls and doc formats into commondity exchange media as the original poster suggested. (Rant about how the GPL can't save the world but the BSD license can omitted.)
I tihnk you understate how far along NetBSD is. For instance, on the Mac/m68k, Mac/ppc, and Intel ports, NetBSD is pretty freaking cool and does the job quite well. I think FreeBSD is much farther along on the x86, but then again, that is why I run FreeBSD on my x86 and NetBSD on my Macs.
:)
Another issues is the fact that NetBSD presents a clean and consistant architecture and interface between platforms whereas Slackware and Red Hat don't even look the same on an i386.
Anyway, last I heard, the status was "booting" but then again, that is farther along that most other OSes are for the
Probably not be too difficult. OpenBSD has already ported to the Sega Dreamcast.
I think I can beat that :)
/usr/bin :) Usually this doesn't take more than two or three minutes and you can do all sorts of other things, once the program is on the disk. I've been in IRC even before the installation was done. :)
While installing FreeBSD, you can be telnetting as soon as telnet has been written to
I felt that the comments needed no further explanation, everyone knows it the GPL and Linux are anti-business, the only issue is whether or not you think that is a good thing. (PS, it isn't :)
Yes but look at what he was responding to. I calmy and without flaming pointed out that what the person I was responding to said was not true and in fact was unfairly moderated. Still, I take a 2-point hit (offtopic, troll) because I chose to stand up and say that the moderators are wrong and a misdeed should be undone.
This is simple proof that Slashdot moderation does not work.
Why is this marked flamebait?
It is clearly true that had the organization used BSD instead of Linux this would not be an issue. It also shows that the GPL and Linux are anti-business.
The moderation here is clearly a GPL zealot pushing his own agenda despite the detriment to society and the industry. Someone should moderate this up to where it belongs.
Additionally, the first response to this comment should be moderated up as well as it is also an example of moderator abuse.
Bill Joy (BSD, csh, vi, curses, Sun Microsystems) Kirk McKusick (BSD) Donald Knuth (TeX, The Art of Computer Programming) Stephen Wolfram (Wolfram Research) Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs (Breakout, my favorite arcade game, Apple) Seymore Cray (Cray Research) Vint Cerf, Jon Postel (Arpanet) And I am going to go out on a limb, but I think that in retrospect the technical acheivements of Torvalds will be ignored. After all, at a technical level, he did nothing for computer science; he only copied a lot of people who came before him.
What's the difference between an anal orifice and a Back Orifice? :)
This is very, very old news. I first downloaded and played with this demo in late 96/early 97. I remember being very impressed by how well the browser performed and its incredible size.
Since QNX is primarily a real-time OS, I always thought they might like to provide a "single-user" or non-commercial version (like SCO, BSDi, or Sun) do that potential users can actually program for it before buying. They can also make sure it meets their needs. Right now, if I were building an embedded system, I am going to use one of the BSDs because I know them very well. Having experience with QNX (or VXWorks, or ChorusOS) might prompt me to change my mind later.
The best way to prevent CT is to have a good staff of administrators and a good set of tools. By far, the two most stable and secure operating systems are OpenBSD and OpenVMS. Use them. Also make sure your staff knows how to administrate them properly.
Also make sure you are always running with the most up to date patches for your software (not just the OS, but all of it). Read Bugtraq to find out what the latest problems are and follow through on the suggestions given for securing a system.
Don't get too proud. Just as soon as you think you've gotten the crackers beat, they'll find a new way in. Never let your guard down.
Disable non-estential services. If you do not need a service running, why do you have it on?
Remove any tools which could be used against you.
Don't be an easy target. Firewalls are good. Protect yourself at multiple levels.
Anyway, there are plenty of other ways to handle prevention, but I'll let others pick up the slack.
I am interested in getting a Dvorak keyboard just to see the differences. It would be interesting to see if I can relearn how to type. Where can I get one cheap?