From the article: "atomic nuclei, fundamental building blocks of matter with sub-nanometer dimensions" This is like calling a fly an animal of sub-kilometer dimensions.
Isn't it in the interest of the bright to exceptionally bright people, working to a deadline being paid a load of cash, to have the scheme broken, so they get the next load of cash for the next version?
with the exception of some non-open stuff in Linux, because of NDA's signed by some stupid developers
As far as I understand this, the NDAs are only for the documentation used to produce the code, not for the code itself (that would be a contradiction to the GPL). It's not a perfect situation, but the code is free anyway: You are allowed to look at it, change it and give it to others any way you please. What you don't have access to is the manuals of the hardware, but then, were those drivers not written at all, you'd not have those manuals anyway, and worse, you'd not even have working code from which you can (legally!) reverse-engineer how to interface to the hardware. Note that the hardware manuals are completely separate from the code, therefore the fact that the hardware manuals are not free (as unfortunate as this may be) doesn't mean that the software written using those manuals isn't free either.
Maybe a good analogy is the following: There's some lock (the hardware), which can be opened with a key (used with a driver). The inner working of the lock is secret. However someone gets the permission to make a key for the lock (write a driver for the hardware), and moreover tell everyone how to make his own key (i.e. open source the driver), as long as he doesn't tell anyone how the lock works (the NDA). Now, anyone can open the lock (access the hardware), although no one but the maker really knows how it works (although they may guess from the nature of the key).
Note that one thing mentioned in the article was that the Google toolbar doesn't even ask. That is, you might update it without even knowing. If anything asks "do you want to update", you can always answer "no" (and are also noticed that there's an auto-update functionality running which you might be able to disable). However, if it just happens silently, then unless you already know that it happens, you'll probably not notice (at least until a new version with an user-visible change gets auto-installed).
Well, maybe someone exploited the security hole mentioned in this article to add a "goatse extension" to some Firefox installations, which automatically sends a goatse comment to each visited Slashdot story.:-)
Since when is a browser considered part of the OS?
By Microsoft since at least 1998: "Microsoft insisted it had complied with the order, saying it was technically impossible to remove Internet Explorer files without ruining Windows 95 as the two programmes were highly integrated."
Those officers taking the vodka away from you were probably really tarnished islamic activists who wanted to deny you from drinking that un-islamic alcoholic stuff.:-)
You know, all the time some of your gravity bends the space in their land. Ok, it's only very slightly, but the effect exists. Thus they could tax you for that. Since the effect is so small, I think one cent per human per month should be enough. With about 6 billion people in the world, that would be 60 million dollars per month.
I don't remember the last time I've installed a package from the command line. And yes, I generally like the command line. Is there any current Linux distribution where you cannot install applications via GUI?
I'd be more impressed if they had you writing long mode X86 assembler.
Long mode? What's that? I know real mode, 16 bit protected mode, 32 bit protected mode, virtual 8086 mode and "unreal mode" (this is an unofficial mode where through some tricks involving PM you have some 32-bit addressing in real mode; I don't know if this is still possible with today's x86 processors). Oh, and AFAIK newer processors also have a "system management mode", although I don't know details. But long mode I've never heared. What's that?
One thing I think shopuld be considered from the beginning is how to handle multiple archives, which may be independently maintained. Sure, the basic operation is simple: You add a new URL to the list of archives to search, and then you can see the contents of those archives. However that's not all there is to archives:
1. How do you find additional repositories? 2. How do you find out if a given repository is trustworthy? 3. What to do if several repositories contain packages for the same application or library? 4. What about version inconsistencies?
Points 1 and 2 can IMHO be (mostly) solved together through a "repository web": Repositories not only contain packages, but also links to other repositories. Those links should also be rated, so you get a web of trust for repositories: You can mark several "root repositories" as trusted or untrusted (those settings should, of course, be user-changeable). Then trust would "propagate" through links marked as trusted, or "anti-propagate" through mistrust-links. One could even imagine "repository hubs", repositories which don't contain files, but only links to other repositories together with trust ratings. It might also be a good idea to have several trust ratings for the contained files, and for the contained links (after all, you can well imagine an excellent file repository where the maintainer isn't able to accurately rank the trust on inter-repository links).
For points 3 and 4 I don't have a suggestion right now, but they definitely should be considered (note that separately maintained repositories will almost certainly cause inconsistencies at some point).
Of course you can just pretend that there will always be only one repository, or that all repository providers will work together to avoid inconsistencies, but I think that's not really a good idea. Additional independent repositories will eventually come (assuming the project is a success), and therefore the problems caused by those should definitively be anticipated, even if originally there's only one repository.
If the explicit goal of an application programmer was to move people to Linux, the ideal strategy would probably be as follows:
1. Port the application to Windows 2. Get people addicted to it (that's the hardest part). 3. Make sure that new developments are always available on Linux first (so that there's a real incentive to switch to Linux). 4. At some time, introduce Linux-only features. 5. After enough users have switched to Linux, drop Windows support. 6. ??? 7. Profit!
(Sorry, the last two lines just had to come!:-))
Of course the problem with this plan is that starting from step 4 on, it's virtually impossible to do with FOSS: If you don't implement those features on Windows, likely someone else will do. And if you drop Windows support, probably someone else will take over (remember, as of step 2, it's a popular application).
Slashdot Mirror
The Flying Tagliatelle Monster?
Anyway, it's still a Cube.
According to some hypothesis, too much testosterone = autism.
Well, maybe in future the value of diamonds is not measured in carat, but in "QUOPS" (Quantum Operations Per Second).
From the article:
"atomic nuclei, fundamental building blocks of matter with sub-nanometer dimensions"
This is like calling a fly an animal of sub-kilometer dimensions.
Isn't it in the interest of the bright to exceptionally bright people, working to a deadline being paid a load of cash, to have the scheme broken, so they get the next load of cash for the next version?
But matrices matrix 'Matrix' more than matrices matrix 'Pirates' ... no, I don't have an idea what that might mean! :-)
As far as I understand this, the NDAs are only for the documentation used to produce the code, not for the code itself (that would be a contradiction to the GPL). It's not a perfect situation, but the code is free anyway: You are allowed to look at it, change it and give it to others any way you please. What you don't have access to is the manuals of the hardware, but then, were those drivers not written at all, you'd not have those manuals anyway, and worse, you'd not even have working code from which you can (legally!) reverse-engineer how to interface to the hardware. Note that the hardware manuals are completely separate from the code, therefore the fact that the hardware manuals are not free (as unfortunate as this may be) doesn't mean that the software written using those manuals isn't free either.
Maybe a good analogy is the following: There's some lock (the hardware), which can be opened with a key (used with a driver). The inner working of the lock is secret. However someone gets the permission to make a key for the lock (write a driver for the hardware), and moreover tell everyone how to make his own key (i.e. open source the driver), as long as he doesn't tell anyone how the lock works (the NDA). Now, anyone can open the lock (access the hardware), although no one but the maker really knows how it works (although they may guess from the nature of the key).
You know, the most dangerous weapon is the human mind. So you have a perfect excuse for being mindless! :-)
I now looked at the linked law text, and couldn't find anything about tools. Am I just blind? Or maybe the newest change isn't yet displayed?
I've got eyes which I could use to look at someone typing a password. I hope I'll not be forced to disable them! :-)
They don't want you to secure your network. If your network is secure, then how would they introduce the "federal trojan" into your computers?
Note that one thing mentioned in the article was that the Google toolbar doesn't even ask. That is, you might update it without even knowing. If anything asks "do you want to update", you can always answer "no" (and are also noticed that there's an auto-update functionality running which you might be able to disable). However, if it just happens silently, then unless you already know that it happens, you'll probably not notice (at least until a new version with an user-visible change gets auto-installed).
Well, maybe someone exploited the security hole mentioned in this article to add a "goatse extension" to some Firefox installations, which automatically sends a goatse comment to each visited Slashdot story. :-)
By Microsoft since at least 1998:
"Microsoft insisted it had complied with the order, saying it was technically impossible to remove Internet Explorer files without ruining Windows 95 as the two programmes were highly integrated."
Those officers taking the vodka away from you were probably really tarnished islamic activists who wanted to deny you from drinking that un-islamic alcoholic stuff. :-)
Have a sleeping room behind the cockpit, still separated from the passenger area.
You know, all the time some of your gravity bends the space in their land. Ok, it's only very slightly, but the effect exists. Thus they could tax you for that. Since the effect is so small, I think one cent per human per month should be enough. With about 6 billion people in the world, that would be 60 million dollars per month.
I don't remember the last time I've installed a package from the command line. And yes, I generally like the command line. Is there any current Linux distribution where you cannot install applications via GUI?
Long mode? What's that? I know real mode, 16 bit protected mode, 32 bit protected mode, virtual 8086 mode and "unreal mode" (this is an unofficial mode where through some tricks involving PM you have some 32-bit addressing in real mode; I don't know if this is still possible with today's x86 processors). Oh, and AFAIK newer processors also have a "system management mode", although I don't know details. But long mode I've never heared. What's that?
Force Serious System Crash, Recovery Disabled.
One thing I think shopuld be considered from the beginning is how to handle multiple archives, which may be independently maintained. Sure, the basic operation is simple: You add a new URL to the list of archives to search, and then you can see the contents of those archives. However that's not all there is to archives:
1. How do you find additional repositories?
2. How do you find out if a given repository is trustworthy?
3. What to do if several repositories contain packages for the same application or library?
4. What about version inconsistencies?
Points 1 and 2 can IMHO be (mostly) solved together through a "repository web": Repositories not only contain packages, but also links to other repositories. Those links should also be rated, so you get a web of trust for repositories: You can mark several "root repositories" as trusted or untrusted (those settings should, of course, be user-changeable). Then trust would "propagate" through links marked as trusted, or "anti-propagate" through mistrust-links. One could even imagine "repository hubs", repositories which don't contain files, but only links to other repositories together with trust ratings. It might also be a good idea to have several trust ratings for the contained files, and for the contained links (after all, you can well imagine an excellent file repository where the maintainer isn't able to accurately rank the trust on inter-repository links).
For points 3 and 4 I don't have a suggestion right now, but they definitely should be considered (note that separately maintained repositories will almost certainly cause inconsistencies at some point).
Of course you can just pretend that there will always be only one repository, or that all repository providers will work together to avoid inconsistencies, but I think that's not really a good idea. Additional independent repositories will eventually come (assuming the project is a success), and therefore the problems caused by those should definitively be anticipated, even if originally there's only one repository.
If the explicit goal of an application programmer was to move people to Linux, the ideal strategy would probably be as follows:
:-))
1. Port the application to Windows
2. Get people addicted to it (that's the hardest part).
3. Make sure that new developments are always available on Linux first (so that there's a real incentive to switch to Linux).
4. At some time, introduce Linux-only features.
5. After enough users have switched to Linux, drop Windows support.
6. ???
7. Profit!
(Sorry, the last two lines just had to come!
Of course the problem with this plan is that starting from step 4 on, it's virtually impossible to do with FOSS: If you don't implement those features on Windows, likely someone else will do. And if you drop Windows support, probably someone else will take over (remember, as of step 2, it's a popular application).
"... its dual-licensed Lina virtual Linux machine will run more or less normal Linux applications ..."
Well, what is it? Is it more, or is it less?
It will run more (i.e. the terminal paging program) or less normal Linux applications (i.e. Linux applications which are less normal than more).I've heared they renamed MIT. It's now named "MIT Institute of Technology"