I see your point. I just was confused and wanted to understand the whole thing better and this seemed like a good opportunity. Having my question modded up is a bit embarassing. The question itself just displays what I didn't know. The correct answers have some value for anyone who misunderstood the situation like I did.
Thats what you get for being polite, and asking questions people want answered:-D, maybe we need a good question +1 mod option.
I think it'd be pretty darn easy to setup an Opt-In for your private, no-spam address, and leave a regular address out there linked to your webmaster@wherever.com href...
Maybe once a week you go check that address out to see if anything interesting came through.
Is it really that hard to check mail in more than one place? Probably is, I guess. Bah, fuck the average moron user.:)
Not a problem with a decent email client, Mozilla, Balsa, Kmail,..... just hook them all up, don't most mail clients support multiple email servers/accounts now??
There is a discussion about this on Groklaw as well.
The question, of course, is whether the claim is true or not -- it is coming from SCO, after all. There's a good chance it could be true, though, because a big part of SCO's claim is for trade secret violations -- which require the alleged secret to, well, remain secret (disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets). It only makes sense for them to seek a protective order, and it does not really effect the case from the judge's and lawyers' standpoint. But that doesn't make it suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves.
No problem you can view the code in question here:
line:
....
line: 10000
sorry about the line numbers but SCO wouldn't let me remove them.
It is that Microsoft's own development teams have always programmed with inside knowledge of the OS, able to bypass the official API whenever necessary.
This was explained to me by the director of a large bank in Brussels that abandoned a huge Windows-based project after finding that COM+ and MSMQ could not talk to each other, and this after spending time with the actual developers at Microsoft to resolve the issues.
Each Microsoft application is written "to the metal", reimplementing huge pieces of code that should be abstracted into layers.
Many of the security issues in Windows software stem from this design model: a typical Linux security issue can be fixed by a single patch in one layer, but typical Windows security issues reappear in application after application.
And this is where the Unix model is strong: it is all about layers, formal documented interfaces, and clean separation. When Microsoft decided to add MSIE to the operating system, they were not just screwing their competitors, they were setting themselves up for a fall.
Good software must be built in layers, with formal and definite separation between layers. Microsoft is learning this now, mainly because it simply cannot make its current designs secure.
Very true as someone who knows programming, in both OS's very well I can attest to this, also it's just total nonsense to say as this article does that, the difference between the two cultures is:
"This is an important value in Unix culture because you're programming for other programmers. As Raymond puts it, "Programs that babble don't tend to play well with other programs." By contrast, in the Windows culture, you're programming for Aunt Madge, and Aunt Madge might be justified in observing that a program that produces no output because it succeeded cannot be distinguished from a program that produced no output because it failed badly or a program that produced no output because it misinterpreted your request."
This is just plain nonsense, yes there are *nix programs written for other programmers, and some of them use the command line, but this doesn't distinguish the two cultures at all.
Probably the biggest distinctive is: that M$ uses many really bad coding/design practices and the Windows culture is such that it says: oh M$ does it, it must be good. Whereas if the *nix world where to be confronted with the same thing we'd rightly can the programmers and not use their crappy code.
Probably the only other major distinctive is that the Widows culture, tends to be overly impressed with one metaphor, namely the GUI, whereas the *nix world uses what ever best suits the task, or often a combination, a GUI interface with good old command line back end. I guess this is sort of understandable (to a degree) as the traditional windows command line interface the dos environment is a total abortion.
Even so it has to be said that Widows programmers tend to be like the man who only has a hammer, they try to apply the same technique over and over again to each and every problem, never realising that there might be other ways of doing it, this goes way beyond the GUI thing; someone needs to explain to them the concept of using the right tool for the job. It'd be kind of good if they finally discovered screw drivers.
Actually, this is more a matter of software not written in a monopoly environment. When you don't have inside access to change things as you please, then you're forced to abstract and layer things. It's like the difference between running into a problem and instantly moving it into the kernel, and coming up with a carefully-designed interface to accomplish the same task from userland. A Microsoft programmer has the first option, but somebody programming for Linux is probably going to have a hard time convincing the kernel maintainers to include their custom hack to enable, say, threads, without a real and pressing justification.
Ummmm you seem to be muddled up, anyone who is a competent programmer knows not to do it the M$ way, how easy it is to be allowed to do so, is irrelevant, abstraction and layering is just good programming practice.
I'm sorry, but layers, good documentation - in Unix ???? Windows is scarsely better, but be serious. Unix is a massive indecipherable muddle at heart. It ought to have died long, long ago.
Rubbish, *nix have always had great documentation for programmers, for ordinary users it hasn't always been as good, but thats largely been solved for most of the commons stuff.
Konqueror... Kontact, KPDF, Plastik... Kmenu... kontrol center
If my brain was an eyeball it would be bleeding! Why do geeks think prefixing K (or G) to everything is witty? It's not; it's just annoying and confusing.
It's not a question of being witty, it's called name spacing, if your paths all start with a string alpha, then you only need to avoid name collision, with other paths which match the pattern alpha* or/path/alpha/*.
Ok now that I've explained that, can we retire this as a mandatory comment; it's so boring.
The GPL is not about giving freedom to developers, it's about giving freedom to end users. The BSD license is about giving freedom to developers, including the freedom to screw their end users. The GPL guarantees the end user of a piece of software that they have control over the software that is running on their machines, no matter who modifies that software.
Even though I'm a developer, I still prefer the GPL out of respect for my customers.
Depend how you look at it, basically the difference is that the BSD licence and similar; grants people the right to "Steal your" code, to me thats not really giving the developer more freedom unless he wants his code "stolen".
As far as I'm concerned the BSD licence sucks, and GPL rules.
If the "Nerd" moniker is now the baseline for the general populace then the True Nerds will have to come up with something to differentiate us from Them. Maybe it's time to go back to black glasses with tape, flood pants and pocket protectors. Perhaps a secret handshake too!
Get real*:-D, we don't need anything new to distinguish us, a real nerd could never have been anything else if (s)he'd tried, I don't mean they couldn't have fooled others, looked non nerdy on the outside, I mean deep down they always resonated to things nerdish, anyone can put on an outward nerdishness, ape a few of our interests, etc.... but we'll always know the difference.
Just look at the wannabes that come onto/. they try to sound like us, but they don't understand anything technical, all technology frightens them, whether or not there are valid concerns or not, you can pick them easy.
I find it all kind of funny, well except when they try to take over the culture of/. , it's kind of pitifully when I was a kid (when I was a lad:-D), they would let us be one of them, and now their trying to ape us, be us, ROFL (well nearly), man if anything their worse at trying to be us than we were at trying to be one of them:-D
As for the Article, it's full of shit, so nothing new there:-D.
Although in hate Microsoft like the rest of you, I do believe they have a point: Lindows is an obvious reference to the similar product Windows.
Take a for example a look at the products of Sanex, and the blatant clone Sanicur (same sounding name, same colour scheme).
I would guess that Sanex would be more than happy to sue the other company into oblivion, but they are apparently not able to do so.
All true enough, Lindows is a Troll, but that doesn't change the fact that M$ has no right to the word windows, morally, if they do in law then shame on the Law.
It is pretty obvious that Lindows intentionally named their product for just this sort of attention.
You may be right, but Lindows is using a tactic in their US court case that may work. May.
They're saying that "Windows" is a generic computing term, especially in GUIs (which it is). You are not supposed to be allowed to trademark generic terms.
If that part works, then Microsoft will lose their trademark on "Windows" by itself. They could still have thier trademark on the phrase "Microsoft Windows", but they would no longer be allowed to have the word "Windows" itself trademarked, like it is now.
They're also going after the fact that Microsoft has failed to try and protect their trademark in the past, and that the only reason they are doing so now is because the Lindows.com "LindowsOS" is a competitor. (Trademark laws state you can and will lose your trademark if it is not actively defended.)
So far, it seems US courts seem to be agreeing with Lindows.com on the issue.
Yep and it'll be a total travesty if M$ doesn't loose, this whole tactic of theirs, of stealing words out of common usage windows, word, excel,... is immoral, and when the law wanders to far from what is right, the society it claims to serve is in trouble. Hopefully the judge in this case will do what is right but. Still it should be automatic, no misappropriating parts of the language proper, nor the technical jargon of your industry. It gives you an unfair advantage over your competitors, and makes total Shiite out of the language.
Even if Google qualified, which it probably doesn't due to the methods it uses for its data storage, if I read the article properly the database vendors are responsible for naming the participants.
Since Google's stuff seems to be developed in-house, they don't have a major database vendor to nominate them.
The thing is this is probably just a corporate wank fest, these things usually are, i.e. you can only win if you use a db server they approve of (i.e. one of theirs), if you use something else say postgres, some home grown thing whatever then they don't even look at you. That makes the whole thing worthless, but thats hardly a anything out of the normal is it.
well i am a scientist, and although i try to stay a neutral observer, it is quite difficult at times.
i have seen many debates in scientific meetings. i can assure you that many scientists are *huge* bigots, religiously debating their point of view, whether it is based on fact or not. many people do not like to be told they are wrong;)
i'm lucky enough: i don't care. and good scientists should be like that, leave an idea when it's inviable and don't try to prove something because you believe it is true.
Not a bad approach when viable, most things become clearer and less muddy with time, by the time it's an utter must to pick a side, the right side is usually a lot easier to see. It's just too soon on a lot of this, I cannot say I'm that quiet on this, but; I sure as hell don't take a position that goes beyond what the present knowledge can justify, mostly I figure, time will sort it out.
Personally talked to God about biotechnology, recently, have you? I'm sure Creator's just taking a little nap and forgot to throw fire and brimstone upon those EEEEEEEVIL scientists trying to stole His rightful place. He'll probably be back in few billion years or something.
Hmmmmm well I don't know about the parent of this post, but yeah I talk to God about this and much else all the time, far be it from me to presume I know his take on things before I check, humans on both sides of the fence seem to get it wrong every time when they do that.
Ok first thing is there's nothing explicit in his word, so clearly he's not as steamed by this as some would say, now with this sort of thing we're really talking stem cell research not cloning, you could use a clone as a source of stem cells, and you could hunt rabbit with a bazooka too, I mean yeah it would be murder to make clones just to harvest organs and stem cells, but why bother anyway, there are easier and more promising ways on the horizon.
As for the other case of using stem cells from aborted fetuses well, yeah I believe thats wrong, not wrong to use them but wrong to abort, but thats an whole other debate. The main thing is I believe it will not work well, it's a dirty short cut, the only truly safe stem cells, that your body will not reject are your own, we need to be able to get those, or even switch normal cells back into stem cells, what ever it's all early days yet.
As for the parent post yeah science has a place but God is greater, thats kind of obvious isn't it, but how does the help this debate?? it really doesn't tell us much about where God sets the boundaries on what we may or may not do.
It seems to me that the United States is against the cloning of embryos for stem cell research and as such I applaud them; this helps maintain the sacredness of human life - life is re-created by an act of God through the union of man and woman, and not by a scientist in a lab.
Hmmm as a committed Christian and as a Scientist I'd have to disagree with you both, I don't see any reason why cloning a human being is in and of it's self unethical or immoral, probably more pointless. To begin with God allows us to be cloned all the time, that's what identical twins are, that would be one of the first problems I have with most of you on this, you want to clone (or not) only because you don't even understand what a clone is. You've all watched too much bad scifi in which a clone is a replica of a person, some how them again, this is the work of substandard minds, all a clone is, is a identical twin save they'd be heaps younger than you. So basically why bother??, no ones come up with a good reason for that yet, (maybe they will, maybe not).
As for organ harvesting, well that's not a cloning thing really, that has to do with the idea of organ and tissue farming, like grow bodies (no mind brain etc), just for tissues/organs, or even grow organs and tissues discreetly, looks sort of promising too.
But to do this with clones (in the proper sense of the word clone) would be Murder, that would be wrong.
And besides it is unstoppable. Even if prohibited the kind of ``black-market'' shall develop, where some groups will make huge amount of money... Because there are people willing to pay that money for extending there life, replacing organs etc... And that is not strange. Prohibitting cloning may look ``nice'' but for sure it will not stop the cloning.
Really??, as far as I can see, the possibilities and dangers are all over the place, and we haven't got a clue which are real and which are mirages. It's to be expected it's all so new.
Who knows in the end the point may be moot, maybe both the promises and the threats will come to nothing. Maybe when alls said and done it'll be why bother, there's no point. I hope not, I hope most of the promise and as few as possible of the dangers prove to be true, but who knows just now.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the biggest distinctive is: that M$ uses many really bad coding/design practices and the Windows culture is such that it says: oh M$ does it, it must be good. Whereas if the *nix world where to be confronted with the same thing we'd rightly can the programmers and not use their crappy code.
Maybe it time we built an OSS equivalent, big job but.
yay :-D
Off topic, like what drug are you on dufus??
Oh wait a minute ....
Yep one month after release I regon is all it'll take before it's cracked, if it's not cracked before based on the spec :-D.
Just look at the wannabes that come onto /. they try to sound like us, but they don't understand anything technical, all technology frightens them, whether or not there are valid concerns or not, you can pick them easy.
I find it all kind of funny, well except when they try to take over the culture of /. , it's kind of pitifully when I was a kid (when I was a lad :-D), they would let us be one of them, and now their trying to ape us, be us, ROFL (well nearly), man if anything their worse at trying to be us than we were at trying to be one of them :-D
As for the Article, it's full of shit, so nothing new there :-D.
Ok first thing is there's nothing explicit in his word, so clearly he's not as steamed by this as some would say, now with this sort of thing we're really talking stem cell research not cloning, you could use a clone as a source of stem cells, and you could hunt rabbit with a bazooka too, I mean yeah it would be murder to make clones just to harvest organs and stem cells, but why bother anyway, there are easier and more promising ways on the horizon.
As for the other case of using stem cells from aborted fetuses well, yeah I believe thats wrong, not wrong to use them but wrong to abort, but thats an whole other debate. The main thing is I believe it will not work well, it's a dirty short cut, the only truly safe stem cells, that your body will not reject are your own, we need to be able to get those, or even switch normal cells back into stem cells, what ever it's all early days yet.
As for the parent post yeah science has a place but God is greater, thats kind of obvious isn't it, but how does the help this debate?? it really doesn't tell us much about where God sets the boundaries on what we may or may not do.
As for organ harvesting, well that's not a cloning thing really, that has to do with the idea of organ and tissue farming, like grow bodies (no mind brain etc), just for tissues/organs, or even grow organs and tissues discreetly, looks sort of promising too.
But to do this with clones (in the proper sense of the word clone) would be Murder, that would be wrong.
Who knows in the end the point may be moot, maybe both the promises and the threats will come to nothing. Maybe when alls said and done it'll be why bother, there's no point. I hope not, I hope most of the promise and as few as possible of the dangers prove to be true, but who knows just now.