Developers like me do continious builds all the time, many are running the latest CVS code as primary desktop or alongside a stable release.
With a developer base in the hundreds of active people, there is little need for automated builds. Mozilla's developers base is way smaller, so they need a more automated QA system.
Furthermore, KDE does not provide binaries itself at this moment, although there are packagers who will probably do the necessary QA themselves.
Exactly! If anything technology has helped us to delay overpopulation. Just think how many more people we would have if it wasn't for the invention of the birth control pill.
And don't forget how the Internet delays overpopulation.. I mean, how many of us Slashdot readers will actually reproduce?!
While I agree with you that you shouldn't give a shit, I wonder what will happen in the future when EU citizens start calling themselves "Europeans" to distinct themselves, even from people living on the European landmass not part of the EU.
Funny. If this continues indefinitely, all those people who claimed the world was flat were true visionaries way ahead of their time. Who'da thought that?!
Okay, if you seperate between physical injury/damage and other damange then I agree that there should be different standards.
A high one for physical damages, which would hardly ever apply to any kind of software. And way less liability regarding other damages, or none at all without the user purchasing some kind of warranty.
Not trolling Bruce, just using a discussion forum. Hm, now wish I could moderate my own posts to (-1, Retracted).
Well, I believe it should not even be legally allowed to void yourself from liability. Why would software developers/vendors be allowed to void all liability?
If it extremely hypocrite that users would accept this for software. Would we accept it when Ford would make you waive all their liability as a requirement to purchase their cars? Are they even legally allowed to do so?
If you do not want to be responsible, do not distribute. And don't come with "but with open source end users have the ability to check this". With sufficient skills (and time, I bet) you could examine your car as well.
You are not liable when the damage is out of your control anyway but when it is, you should be liable. In all cases.
But if it is legal to waiver liability, then sure. This should preferably be enforced before distribution like in my Ford example though, not any later. If someone redistributes it, they should waiver liability pre-distribution as well. Or else *they* would be liable.
To have any kind of legal defensive as to why you are not liable, you'll need to have evidence that the user waived it anyway. If you allow for any method where the user can use your product without accepting, then that is a flaw of yours and you should still be liable.
Shrink-wrap is also not legally enforcable: you can easily tear it without having read (and thus being able to have accepted) the license.
Open source software can restrict you from distributing the software (which Free Software allows you to (some licenses restrict this under certain conditions like the GPL) but AFAIU the OSI guidelines did not allow licenses to place restrictions on using the software.
If the mere availability of code would be sufficient to be OSI approved, shared source would be too?
Opened a project page for this. I'm basing it on the idea of having absolutely no trust in data, not even official releases or distributed signatures of data.
This might be extreme and will still not be the ultimate tool, but it should provide significant aid to end users and packagers to automate audits.
Well considering the OpenSSH site still has not changed, nor the download, how can you be sure that someone didn't manage to alter DNS records or even the whois/SRS entries for the authorative name servers?
Hi. KDE developer here. We've checked developer.kde.org (the machine hosting Valgrind) and the md5sums. So far this looks like a hoax, so please move on. We will stay on the alert and continue investigating, but to quote one of my favourite authors: don't panic.
I didn't look at the link, since I'm the author. Read my charter for the Atlantik future and you'll see that I have a pretty wild idea on how old board games are pretty much the same in concept (as in, they are board games) and although Scrabble might be tough to implement, I'll give it some thought.
This is obviously still in early development. The first plane wasn't a 747 either and if I recall correctly, NASA didn't start with manned missions either for their prototypes.
Even though I develop for KDE, I must agree about the current status of Linux on the desktop. That is probably why I work on KDE in the first place.
I've written a response (might still be in the voting queue), mostly aimed at the KDE community, argueing for new efforts for system configuration and integration. Yes, this is a difficult task with all the distributions and *NIX flavours around, but it is a must.
If you feel at all involved with the development of a distribution, system application that needs configuration, a user friendly environment, or whatever, please let me know. This is the one thing that keeps Linux from the desktops and the ability to configure servers graphically with ease (in addition to the beloved edition of text files).
Watching for changes to configurations should be easy, the kernel supports file change modification and so does KDE for example, with KDirWatcher.
It is a royal pain in the ass to install a ttf under linux, it's not just copy it to the directory, you have to do all other retarded things, add it to config files, etc. Maybe that's because I don't have xfstt installed, and rely on X11's built in ttf support.
Recent KDEs have a font installer in the control center, where you can add fonts easily and it will generate a good.XftConfig (or system one, as root) file for you as well.
When (not if) I go back to Linux, I'll definitely try SuSE again.
So on the long-term, we're still doing something good very well. We don't need or even want a 100% userbase at the moment.
My home server still runs Mandrake, and IPCop on my gateway/firewall. There is no way I'd ever put any form of Windows on my server, nor would I ever connect a Windows PC directly to the internet without a *NIX gateway in between. Microsoft has a history of poor security, so I protect myself the only way I know how; using Linux. I will continue to advocate the use of GNU/Linux in the server arena. This is where its strength lies at the moment.
Tony, when you're back in a couple of years or even a decade, remind me to buy you a beer.
My wife and I use Mozilla for web browsing and email, OpenOffice.org for word processing, and Psi (Jabber client) for instant messaging. All of these are true multi-user win32 programs, and are perfectly interoperable with their Linux counterparts.
And all of these are free software, so when KDE 5.0 and SuSE 12.0 are out, you can use those applications without any of the problems a lot of developers are now working on.
Nah. Packagers would remove them and only one person has to provide a good patch or patched versions and those would become mainstream.
Well, for open source that might break the license, but for free software this will just not work.
If you want to help development, just do so. Most projects accepts patches, documentation, translations, artwork, application testing, positive critism and financial donations.
Deep linking can easily be prevented with current technology using session-based guards against direct access to certain pages.
But, part of it should be illegal. Entering a cinema without paying through an unguarded area is illegal as well, regardless of the security measures taken. I might not agree with them, but I do believe that the publisher of data has the right to decide the terms of availability. If those terms require access through a certain pattern and not direct access, let's just obey that.
The linking itself should not be illegal, as that is equivalent to telling someone about a side-door of a cinema. Entering that way should be illegal, so if the linking site clearly indicates that there should not be a problem. The reference should be legal as long as the reader is informed that is not a legal act. Using the link should be illegal and linking without warning should be considered severe neglecance and might indeed be subject to legal action.
That might sound absurd, but we often compare technology issues to real life scenarios to explain flaws in (proposed) laws. Let's stay consistent, even if we do not like the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Developers like me do continious builds all the time, many are running the latest CVS code as primary desktop or alongside a stable release.
With a developer base in the hundreds of active people, there is little need for automated builds. Mozilla's developers base is way smaller, so they need a more automated QA system.
Furthermore, KDE does not provide binaries itself at this moment, although there are packagers who will probably do the necessary QA themselves.
do most software companies ship you a new CD at production cost when yours breaks but you can show them you have a license for the product?
Exactly! If anything technology has helped us to delay overpopulation. Just think how many more people we would have if it wasn't for the invention of the birth control pill.
And don't forget how the Internet delays overpopulation.. I mean, how many of us Slashdot readers will actually reproduce?!
While I agree with you that you shouldn't give a shit, I wonder what will happen in the future when EU citizens start calling themselves "Europeans" to distinct themselves, even from people living on the European landmass not part of the EU.
If that ever happens, of course.
Funny. If this continues indefinitely, all those people who claimed the world was flat were true visionaries way ahead of their time. Who'da thought that?!
Okay, if you seperate between physical injury/damage and other damange then I agree that there should be different standards.
A high one for physical damages, which would hardly ever apply to any kind of software. And way less liability regarding other damages, or none at all without the user purchasing some kind of warranty.
Not trolling Bruce, just using a discussion forum. Hm, now wish I could moderate my own posts to (-1, Retracted).
Well, I believe it should not even be legally allowed to void yourself from liability. Why would software developers/vendors be allowed to void all liability?
If it extremely hypocrite that users would accept this for software. Would we accept it when Ford would make you waive all their liability as a requirement to purchase their cars? Are they even legally allowed to do so?
If you do not want to be responsible, do not distribute. And don't come with "but with open source end users have the ability to check this". With sufficient skills (and time, I bet) you could examine your car as well.
You are not liable when the damage is out of your control anyway but when it is, you should be liable. In all cases.
But if it is legal to waiver liability, then sure. This should preferably be enforced before distribution like in my Ford example though, not any later. If someone redistributes it, they should waiver liability pre-distribution as well. Or else *they* would be liable.
To have any kind of legal defensive as to why you are not liable, you'll need to have evidence that the user waived it anyway. If you allow for any method where the user can use your product without accepting, then that is a flaw of yours and you should still be liable.
Shrink-wrap is also not legally enforcable: you can easily tear it without having read (and thus being able to have accepted) the license.
Not liable? Prove it.
Open source software can restrict you from distributing the software (which Free Software allows you to (some licenses restrict this under certain conditions like the GPL) but AFAIU the OSI guidelines did not allow licenses to place restrictions on using the software.
If the mere availability of code would be sufficient to be OSI approved, shared source would be too?
Don't do this.
Yup, until someone doesn't alter an existing release but actually announces it as new release. Can you guarantee me this will be audited sufficiently?
And what if the trusted project maintainers actually start misbehaving?
Opened a project page for this. I'm basing it on the idea of having absolutely no trust in data, not even official releases or distributed signatures of data.
This might be extreme and will still not be the ultimate tool, but it should provide significant aid to end users and packagers to automate audits.
I am considering to develop a system which diffs CVS files from an older checkout and scans for common signatures for trojans and reports them.
This would have to be run on multiple remote systems. It would still require trust in those machines, but it'd help a bit.
This system could also diff any downloaded releases against a confirmed trusted source and scan for the same signatures.
Well, the lamer who managed to put the trojan there forgot to update the md5sum signature. Had he changed that as well, we'd still be fucked.
Well considering the OpenSSH site still has not changed, nor the download, how can you be sure that someone didn't manage to alter DNS records or even the whois/SRS entries for the authorative name servers?
Hi. KDE developer here. We've checked developer.kde.org (the machine hosting Valgrind) and the md5sums. So far this looks like a hoax, so please move on. We will stay on the alert and continue investigating, but to quote one of my favourite authors: don't panic.
I didn't look at the link, since I'm the author. Read my charter for the Atlantik future and you'll see that I have a pretty wild idea on how old board games are pretty much the same in concept (as in, they are board games) and although Scrabble might be tough to implement, I'll give it some thought.
I don't know of any 3 foot astronauts.
Demonstrator-2 as in not RealImplementation-1.
This is obviously still in early development. The first plane wasn't a 747 either and if I recall correctly, NASA didn't start with manned missions either for their prototypes.
Board games under Linux work, so that's one less reason.
KDE stands for: (The) Kalle Dalheimer Experience ;)
ghobe' bIlughbe' ji-bIlugh Klingon Desktop Environment
naDev tlhInganpu' tu'lu' yaj'a' majQa'
Even though I develop for KDE, I must agree about the current status of Linux on the desktop. That is probably why I work on KDE in the first place.
I've written a response (might still be in the voting queue), mostly aimed at the KDE community, argueing for new efforts for system configuration and integration. Yes, this is a difficult task with all the distributions and *NIX flavours around, but it is a must.
If you feel at all involved with the development of a distribution, system application that needs configuration, a user friendly environment, or whatever, please let me know. This is the one thing that keeps Linux from the desktops and the ability to configure servers graphically with ease (in addition to the beloved edition of text files).
Watching for changes to configurations should be easy, the kernel supports file change modification and so does KDE for example, with KDirWatcher.
It is a royal pain in the ass to install a ttf under linux, it's not just copy it to the directory, you have to do all other retarded things, add it to config files, etc. Maybe that's because I don't have xfstt installed, and rely on X11's built in ttf support.
Recent KDEs have a font installer in the control center, where you can add fonts easily and it will generate a good
From the article:
When (not if) I go back to Linux, I'll definitely try SuSE again.
So on the long-term, we're still doing something good very well. We don't need or even want a 100% userbase at the moment.
My home server still runs Mandrake, and IPCop on my gateway/firewall. There is no way I'd ever put any form of Windows on my server, nor would I ever connect a Windows PC directly to the internet without a *NIX gateway in between. Microsoft has a history of poor security, so I protect myself the only way I know how; using Linux. I will continue to advocate the use of GNU/Linux in the server arena. This is where its strength lies at the moment.
Tony, when you're back in a couple of years or even a decade, remind me to buy you a beer.
My wife and I use Mozilla for web browsing and email, OpenOffice.org for word processing, and Psi (Jabber client) for instant messaging. All of these are true multi-user win32 programs, and are perfectly interoperable with their Linux counterparts.
And all of these are free software, so when KDE 5.0 and SuSE 12.0 are out, you can use those applications without any of the problems a lot of developers are now working on.
Nah. Packagers would remove them and only one person has to provide a good patch or patched versions and those would become mainstream.
Well, for open source that might break the license, but for free software this will just not work.
If you want to help development, just do so. Most projects accepts patches, documentation, translations, artwork, application testing, positive critism and financial donations.
BTW, I'm wondering what part of 'Uniform Resource Locator' these yahoo's don't understand.
Just because a resource locator is uniform does not mean it should be universally accessable, available or used by each and everyone.
Excellent comment.
Deep linking can easily be prevented with current technology using session-based guards against direct access to certain pages.
But, part of it should be illegal. Entering a cinema without paying through an unguarded area is illegal as well, regardless of the security measures taken. I might not agree with them, but I do believe that the publisher of data has the right to decide the terms of availability. If those terms require access through a certain pattern and not direct access, let's just obey that.
The linking itself should not be illegal, as that is equivalent to telling someone about a side-door of a cinema. Entering that way should be illegal, so if the linking site clearly indicates that there should not be a problem. The reference should be legal as long as the reader is informed that is not a legal act. Using the link should be illegal and linking without warning should be considered severe neglecance and might indeed be subject to legal action.
That might sound absurd, but we often compare technology issues to real life scenarios to explain flaws in (proposed) laws. Let's stay consistent, even if we do not like the consequences.
Hm, KDE is also missing and I am pretty sure I am flying into San Francisco for LWCE.
This either implies a very sloppy job by our organiser or that the exhibitor list is simply not complete.