Some of SCO's accusations are so blatantly wrong, they make my head hurt doing the necessary mental gymnastics needed to validate any part of SCO's twisted logic:
"Averment 23: [omitted for brevity]"
This is entirely irrelevant. Linus started Linux on the '386 because it was available and had the features needed for his pet project. Intel processors' ability/inability to function at "enterprise level" at this point in time doesn't matter one iota.
"Averment 78: The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux."
The primary purpose of GNU is to provide a high quality, freely usable/modifyiable/redistributable implementation of an operating system that functions similarly to Unix. I argue that the value of commercial Unix was collapsing until the widespread use of Linux with the GNU system.
The primary operating system advanced by GNU is GNU. The Free Software Foundation has long been grudgingly accepting Linux until the Hurd is ready to replace it. SCO is completely distorting reality here.
Averment 79: In order to assure that the Linux operating system (and other software) would remain free of charge and not-for-profit, GNU created a licensing agreement entitled the General Public License ("GPL").
Have the SCO lawyers ever read the GPL?? The GPL specifies, in plain language, that it encourages profit motives for GPL software. You can sell it for as much as people are willing to pay for it. You just can't make it closed/proprietary. The GPL was created to ensure that people would never have the rug pulled out from under them by a greedy/unscrupulous company like SCO.
Averment 82: Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous (italics mine) software developers using single processor computers
I italicized "numerous" here. A large group of highly motivated individuals can accomplish wonderous things. I wonder if SCO thinks that complicated software just spontaneously comes into existence all by itself. More likely, SCO thinks that only it has highly talented and highly motivated people. Looking at what happened to Unix after SCO bought it, I'm doubtful that SCO employs any of the latter.
In the last several years, multi-processor systems have fallen in price enough that groups of low-paid individuals could afford to buy shared systems. More importantly, the price of dual processor systems have dropped in price enough that individuals can afford to buy them privately. (sarcasm on)But since Linux is developed solely by poor hippies, that couldn't possibly have happened(sarcasm off).
Also, there is nothing that disallows IBM from providing commodity hardware and publicly available specifications to some developers with the explicit purpose of providing access to otherwise prohibitively expensive hardware for expanding Linux's capabilities.
To comment on the author's closing remarks:
"This case serves as a reminder that organizations take non-disclosures seriously."
This case serves as a reminder of just how incredibly important the GNU and Linux projects are to the computing industry. Once this type of nonsense can be swept into the historical shitcan, we can all work in a more peaceful environment.
I hope IBM shreds SCO with legal fees and then countersues to recover them. Let SCO end its life in unrecoverable debt.
Try again. You're violating my patent on claiming to have patents to prevent people from getting patents on things that shouldn't be patentable.
Furthermore, my patent for the use of hypothetical allegories involving hoses for causing disintegration of cells from the contiguous epidermal does not permit you to use the statement, or any statement even vaguely resembling it, "you're hosed" without a substantial licensing fee.
Even moreso, my latest patent revolves around the use of highly specialized invididuals with deep knowledge of lying, moral ambiguity, and ethical barenness (hereafter designated 'lawyer') to extract money from people via accusations of implementations of the obvious (hereafter designated 'patent infringement').
Please see my lawyer to discuss turning over large sums of money for your patent infringement.
Good day, Sir!
Note: I am obviously violating a patent on "Good say, Sir!", but enforcement of your patent requires violating at least one of my patents.
I would pay a judge off to dismiss your patent, but paying a corrupt judge to render such a decision would undoubtedly violate one of amazon.com's patents.
Tandy's line of CoCo computers worked the same way with video. Set a couple registers to tell the video generator which part of system RAM to treat as video and watch the operating system state displayed on-screen.
It was mildly amusing from time to time.
My workplace recently bought all us programmers new Gateway systems where the integrated video card (a GeForce model) uses the same technology for video as the CoCo from the past. Figure out how to tell the board which part of system memory should be treated as video, and the same effect could be had.
"So I want to know if others think my concerns are legitimate or misinformed?"
I love Qt and KDE, but that one issue about Qt's GPL license has recently become a sore point with me. Some coworkers and I have debated this off and on for a while, and we have all come to agree that the GPL Qt will hinder the small startups who try to strike out with commercial, closed source apps (no, I don't think closed source is inherently evil).
We have three options:
1) Stop using Qt/KDE. Not gonna happen because they are the best things going. I certainly don't begrudge Troll Tech for its licensing (I wholeheartly thanked everyone there for adding the GPL to the release licensing).
2) Petition Troll Tech to make Qt LGPL. This would be suicide for Troll Tech, and it isn't going to happen (no reasonable person should expect this to happen). Troll Tech has been indispensable for the development of Qt, and I wish the company the best of success.
3) Create a new implementation of Qt's APIs. It's a big job, but it's very doable.
Because I want to eventually be able to create closed source apps of my own, and to allow others to do the same (and because I wanted to learn X11 programming), I've created a library that partially implements 25 of Qt's classes. When I get the layout and style engines implemented, I will release the source under the LGPL. This isn't a high priority project, so don't hold your breath.
It's a fun project, and it won't comply 100% with Qt. The only area in which I'm diverging from Qt is the event model. I have done away with meta objects, and have adopted Java's interface/listener model for events. I find that to be a much better way to handle events.
Anyway, I'm not concerned about Troll Tech owning Qt. The GPL guarantees that Troll Tech can never take it away, but can just stop releasing new versions. If that ever happens, the community will carry on with the last GPL version. No biggie.
While redhat probably finds some of the bugs and security problems with the software it distributes, by and large the company merely repackages the software as released by the actual maintainers.
All the software redhat provides will still be fixed and updated by the software's actual developer(s), and will still be available to you. Redhat provides a service that makes system maintenance much more convenient, but all of the software will be updated and distributed long after Red Hat stops officially supporting it.
You don't have to adhere to redhat's software schedule if you don't want to. You can always download and install the fixes yourself if you are so inclined.
Redhat can never force you to upgrade your systems just to adhere to its support schedule. Only the convenience level has changed. It's much more convenient to let redhat take care of packaging and integration rather than doing so yourself, but the option is always yours. With Free software, "End of Life" is a misnomer. All that ends is redhat's involvement. The software itself will continue to be maintained until its actual developers and users decide otherwise.
You have a hundred different sources for everything redhat provides, which leaves the power entirely with you. Whether you choose to use it or surrender it is your own choice (and only your choice).
Red Hat's practices are different from Microsoft's practices, even when the components of the practices are identical, because Red Hat does not have a long history of happily abusing its customers.
Microsoft's entire corporate psyche is built around cultivating that abuse. Bill Gates has, on numerous occasions, stated that Microsoft's main competitor is its own customer base. Unless you've been living under a large rock for the last ten years, you're well aware of how Microsoft treats its competitors (and not coincidentally, its "partners").
Microsoft's known street-thug behavioral history should be enough to send shivers down your spine whenever anyone there has network access to your computer in any form whatsoever.
I looked at the list of packages, and I'm tempted to switch back to Mandrake from Red Hat. Most of the packages missing from prior releases (kdevelop, slocate, and a few others) are directly listed. kcalc isn't there, but I presume it's bundled in with the kdeutils package.
KDE 3.1 is there (I ran one of the first betas, and it was good even back then), and the wireless package is there (hopefully my two currently-useless Linksys WUSB11 2.6 cards will work out of the box).
In two weeks, when I'll have my credit card paid off, I'm ordering 9.1 to replace my Red Hat 8.0 system (which I bought just last month). Here's hoping Mandrake has touched all the right bases this time.
The first amendment is not violated on at least three counts:
1) Telemarketers are infringing upon my property rights by using my phone (which I own) in a manner not authorized by myself. This is by far the weakest of the three arguments, but it's still true. By being on the list, I am merely telling telemarketers that they may not use my property.
2) Their message is one purely of commerce, without any other value. Speech which is purely of commercial value is not protected speech.
3) Even if their speeches had socially redeeming value, there are many other protected avenues which can be utilized (such as snail mail, park gatherings, etc) to spread the same message. This is entirely irrelevant in this case, though, because purely commercial speech is not protected speech.
The 9th amemdment is not relevant in light of the first amendment not being violated.
The tenth amendment is not violated because this is the federal government regulating commerce. This is explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
I agree with the others who have commented on this being one of the best laws (if not the only good law) passed by Congress in recent years.
There are several reasons why Linux is not so adversely affected by security patches:
1) Linux the kernel is distinctly independent from the applications that it runs and from the vast majority of device drivers that it hosts. This is most likely the single most important factor. For example, fixing Apache does not require tampering with the kernel, which is turn does not require tampering with the web browser, which in turn does not require tampering with the task manager, which in turn does not require tampering with the database server. With Windows, changing one area touches every single other part of the entire system, including some very large applications (because they are integrated with the kernel).
2) Security releases are fast, furious, and focused. Only the affected pieces are replaced. When OpenSSL was compromised by Slapper, only OpenSSL was fixed. The fix didn't have to touch a hundred completely unrelated areas as happens when your entire kit and kaboodle (Windows) is tied together by spaghetti clusters. The fixes are released immediately after the vulnerability is discovered, and the full scope of the fix is detailed (parts are not hidden, as is the case with Windows). And the fixes, if anything was missed the first time, continue until the problem is erradicated.
3) Full disclosure. The vulnerability is fully disclosed to the user base ASAP, and details provided to allow us to confirm the vulnerability. Since the vulnerable parts of the system are separate and distinct, fixing the individual parts can occur on a continuous basis. That is, not every affected component has to be fixed before other fixed pieces can be distributed.
Not being a security type person, these are only things I can think of off the top of my head based on my own limited experience.
"Mullen wants to shut you down if you attack him. Metaphorically, he wants the right to knock you out if you try to rob him."
Mullen wants to be able to break into your house (enter your computer uninvited), root through all your belongings to find objectionable material (search your system for the offending program[s]), and destroy property (eliminate the offending program; though he wants you to trust that he won't destroy anything of value, and that he will know the difference) because he witnessed somebody running from your house with your property and trampling his lawn during the escape.
What this boils down to is that he wants to violate your personal property because somebody else did so already and caused collateral damage to his property in the escape. It's a "kick 'em when they're down" strike.
"Logic dictates that anyone who opposes a bill allowing corporate entities to attack our systems should support a technique to stop worm-ridden systems from doing the same."
This is flawed logic. The correct logic flows like so: Anyone who opposes a bill allowing corporate entities to attack our systems should oppose any technique that allows any other organization or individual to do the same.
Mr. Mullen's proposal is almost identical to the proposal made by the RIAA: let someone legally crack into a computer that is being used to do inconvenient things.
While I sympathize with Mr. Mullen's intent, this approach was wrong when suggested by the RIAA and it is wrong when suggested by Mr. Mullen.
Unfortunately, the best approach I can suggest that both contains the problem (eventually) and protects everyone's privacy to the largest possible extent is to isolate the offending computer from the rest of the Internet (possibly shutting down the user's outgoing Internet feed) until that user fixes the problematic system.
Of course, the details are the killer. How is something like this accomplished quickly enough to minimize the damage done to systems receiving the barrage of data? And does a Slashdotting result in Slashdot's Internet feed being cut?
This type of problem definitely needs a solution, but vigilante attacks are not the solution.
I forgot to mention: Linux doesn't have to become number one on the desktop. Linux will have won everything that is important once it passes something like ~20%. At this point, every hardware manufacturer in the world will provide a native, up-to-date Linux driver, and every major software house in the world will provide a native Linux application port.
At this point, Microsoft will have lost the game. The company will still be large and strong, and computer users around the world will benefit enormously, but Microsoft will have lost the war. How? Simply because Microsoft wins only while its monopoly is in place. With a ~20% Linux desktop share, the Microsoft monopoly will crumble. At this point, the whole world wins.
Fortunately, we've never had an "X-Windows". We've had X11; the X Window System; X, X Version 11; X Window System, Version 11; but never X-Windows. Watch a bunch of tradmark lawsuits if you think this is just semantics.
The X Window System was designed precisely to support end user interfaces. The X Window system is fast and responsive. A fully functional X Window based program, unless badly written, will load instantly and run blazingly fast (at least the equal of, and typically better than, its MS-Windows counterpart).
When writing native X11 programs, I have encountered exactly one exception to this: font loading. Loading the full set of available fonts under X is a painfully slow experience. This is the one area where I will agree that X's handling is atrocious.
Adoption of a single standardized interface does not mean that either KDE or GNOME has to die. Adoption of a single interface would mean that both KDE and GNOME would have to adhere to that interface. Having competing implementations of a standard interface would be greatly beneficial to everyone involved. All major implementations would compel the developers of the other implementations to rapidly improve or be left behind. Otherwise, I completely agree that a common interface specification is necessary.
Comprehensive graphical setup utilities that work upon the operating system's (and the desktop's) underlying text files is a must. The text files must remain so that things can be easily fixed when (not if) the GUI utilities screw up. This is rapidly improving, and many areas are already covered. But the coverage is not complete.
When an end user needs help configuring his system, it sure is nice to be able run those configuration utilities remotely. End users don't care about X's ability to run native applications remotely until they realize that getting help is much easier when the helper doesn't have to physically be there.
X's ability to efficiently host multiple, completely independent workstation desktops on a single computer also makes management drool. Not util I demonstrated just how well a single 800mhz Linux box hosts a dozen employee desktops did my corporate customers see the light pop on. This is a great advantage for both home and corporate end users.
No argument here about binary distributions. Barring a few individualists, no one is disagreeing (hence the proliferation of binary distributions).
Both Mandrake and Red Hat both come with most, if not all, remotely accessable daemons turned off by default. This hasn't been an issue for quite some time now.
Insulting Microsoft is no longer necessary, as Microsoft has done a better job belittling itself in the last year than the combined efforts of all the worst detractors have done in the last ten years.;)
The DMCA doesn't create a crime merely because a device was created that circumvents copy protection unless that device's primary use is to infringe copy rights.
This, I think, is where the government's case against Elcomsoft falls apart. Elcomsoft, to the best of my knowledge, had always marketed its software as allowing people to read E-Books that they have the legal right to read, but explicitly blocks access to works that users haven't paid for (I don't know anything about how E-Books work to assure that). This means that Elcomsoft's product is used primarily (and since not one infringing case was found, used exclusively) for non-infringing purposes.
The DMCA, IIRC, allows circumvention for interoperability purposes where the copy right owner has not provided for the same (provided that the creator of the circumvention device has attempted to acquire such functionality from the copy right owner).
So if Elcomsoft can show that its product filled a legitimate need that Adobe refused to fill, then everyone at Elcomsoft should be in the clear DMCA-wise.
Having every device connected to the Internet is rather unlikely for one reason I discovered a few months ago: IPv6, which is required for this to work, will get nowhere. Why?
Because ISPs make a lot of money rationing out the limited range of IPv4 addresses available to the world. As more people and devices get connected to the Internet, the higher the prices for IPv4 addresses will get. IPSs would rather die than lose out on the massive cash flow that results from controlling access to limited IP resources. Allowing a new protocol which allows everyone on the planet to have as many IP addresses as they want will kill the cash cow, and it just isn't going to happen any time soon.
I also started using Mozilla at M8, and it was still a bit flakey. Ever since a couple releases prior to 1.0, though, Mozilla has been fairly stable and reliable.
I routinely leave it running continuously at work for as long as Windows will stay running (which, granted, isn't saying much). I leave it running 24x7 on my Linux machine for days at a time with no detectable ill effects on the machine. I have had a small number of Mozilla crashes between work and home, and have otherwise been completely happy with it.
I use it to test all my PHP development testing, and it perfoms wonderfully.
The only complaint sI have with what I'm using (still at 1.0) are that fonts aren't anti-aliased and the initial load time (not entirely Mozilla's fault) Other than that, it's a world-class, top-notch browser. Congratulations to the entire Mozilla team.
I don't think these people understand who the real thieves are. Sites that serve unwanted popups, banners, etc. without my consent are stealing the bandwidth that I paid for. If they want to use my bandwidth, they can damn well pay me for it at the prices I set. If they don't want to pay my prices, then they shouldn't be able to use my bandwidth. By the same token, if they don't want me to use their bandwidth, they're perfectly within their rights to deny me access to their sites.
These bandwidth looters are trying to set the tone of the game by portraying those of us who are trying to preserve our bandwidth usage as something dirty. I am paying for my bandwidth, and I will be the one to determine when it gets used.
"I'm interested to get a DirecWay [direcway.com] system, but one of the things that worries me is that it requires special software (supposedly)."
I've had both the DirecWay 1-way system and the 2-way system. In both cases, the hardware and software are both proprietary and work only with Windows (which is by far its biggest failing). The satellite modem is USB, and will not work with standard networking hardware. This means that there is absolutely no way to connect it to Linux. It must run through a Windows computer. You can use Windows' truly pathetic Internet Connection Sharing to share the connection with any other machine through standard networking hardware, but it is quite painful in its unreliability.
Its saving graces are (in no particular order):
1) It's always on if Windows hasn't crashed.
2) Downloads are much faster than dialup (at least 400kbs -- kbs, not KBs).
3) If you would otherwise have to purchase multiple dialup accounts for your household to allow multiple users decent Internet speeds (sharing a dialup modem among three people is not decent speed), then the long term costs can be substantially less (after the initial hardware purchase has been amortized).
4) If you can use satellite TV, then you can use satellite Internet.
It's primary losing fuckups:
1) It is proprietary from head to toe, and they (so far) refuse to support anything but Windows.
2) Upload speeds (despite the satellite transmitter) are no better than dialup.
3) DirecWay's business admins are complete incompetent clusterfucks. If you MUST go with 2-way satellite, try Earthlink BEFORE you buy any equipment. Earthlink currently will not allow DirecWay hardware to transfer to Earthlink's service, despite the hardware being identical. I had very good experiences with Earthlink when I was on dialup, though, and would switch away from DirecWay in an instant if I could transfer my hardware.
4) Getting started is damned expensive. The initial hardware is roughly $700, and you must agree to a 1-year commitment (which is about $70 a month, and is in addition to the hardware). Only after that first year can you go month to month.
5) Since you have to use Windows as the "server", and Windows drops packets like rabbits breed, it can be a painful experience. It's better than sharing a dialup modem, but it's still painful.
The DOE was publishing information that was acquired through tax-funded government research. The results of the research were being returned to those who paid for it: tax payers.
This assanine publishing organization, which was taking this government-funded research and selling it, wanted to take the results and make libraries and individuals pay again to be able to see the results.
This is a case of private industry stealing public information under conspiracy with the federal government.
"what he meant was that to express within the Japanese cultural framework the same emotion expressed in English by 'I love you,' one must choose words like 'The moon is so blue tonight.'"
Does this mean that for Japanese to truly express the emotion behind, "You're so hot, I can't stand it!" they have to resort to phrases like, "My twin moons are so blue for you tonight."?
"...one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models."
Hatch was a primary author of the DMCA. When Skylarov was illegally imprisoned (assuming that the DMCA will fall for being unconstitutional), Hatch commented that the DMCA was working exactly as he had intended. I would hardly place him anywhere on the same planet as the best of the bunch.
Re:Make that "old skool BSD license"
on
Ghost for Unix
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"GPL gets around this by asking that you give them the copyright and give them all the credit leaving you with none."
The GPL does nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the GPL is the request made for contributors to sign over their copyrights. Just the opposite is true. Contributors retain copyrights over contributed code that is their own creation. The GPL states that contributors of derivitive code must grant others the full right to copy, modify, and distribute those derivitive contributions. That's it.
You are probably confusing the GPL with the FSF's advice to assign it the copyright to your GPL'd code that you wish to have legally defended by the FSF (under the assumption that you are not financially able to enforce your copyrights yourself). Nowhere is this a requirement.
Likewise, there is no provision in the GPL to strip you of credit for contributions you have made. Once again, quite the opposite is true. The GPL goes to great length to make sure you are properly attributed and that recognition for your contributions is not usurped.
The GPL has been carefully crafted to protect the rights of authors without imposing unnecessary burdens on contributors of derivitive works. The only inconvenience I have ever noticed with the GPL was experienced from a proprietary software perspective. And that was a primary purpose of the GPL: to make life difficult for those who want to steal the works of others, while making life easier for those who want to build upon the works of others and contribute those improvements back to the world.
The GPL works wonderfully and is a thing of beauty.
Probably because for the most part and until recently, I.T. people were treated well. Unions form when working conditions become unbearable for the workers. Interestingly, this may be a good ploy for disgruntled employees whos jobs are teetering. Get all those employees together and start talking Union. I wonder how quickly conditions would improve at work since employers absolutely hate to hear union talk. But there's little they can do about about it because it's illegal to fire workers for attempting to form a union.
"* Why is the current practice of laying off your IT staff, then "re-employing" them as contractors (at a lower rate) not illegal?"
Probably because I.T. workers haven't organized to oppose this (see answer to first question, which probably answers all the rest). Having seen and heard how unions operate, though, I'm not sure which is worse: Union, or no Union.
"A lot of the time it's kind of hard to remember which version exactly you have, and much UNIX software offers no quick, clear way to tell what version you have installed."
If you're running an RPM based system, "rpm -qa | grep kerb" is a quick way to determine if you've installed Kerberos. This works for any other RPM you've installed.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of SCO's accusations are so blatantly wrong, they make my head hurt doing the necessary mental gymnastics needed to validate any part of SCO's twisted logic:
"Averment 23: [omitted for brevity]"
This is entirely irrelevant. Linus started Linux on the '386 because it was available and had the features needed for his pet project. Intel processors' ability/inability to function at "enterprise level" at this point in time doesn't matter one iota.
"Averment 78: The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux."
The primary purpose of GNU is to provide a high quality, freely usable/modifyiable/redistributable implementation of an operating system that functions similarly to Unix. I argue that the value of commercial Unix was collapsing until the widespread use of Linux with the GNU system.
The primary operating system advanced by GNU is GNU. The Free Software Foundation has long been grudgingly accepting Linux until the Hurd is ready to replace it. SCO is completely distorting reality here.
Averment 79: In order to assure that the Linux operating system (and other software) would remain free of charge and not-for-profit, GNU created a licensing agreement entitled the General Public License ("GPL").
Have the SCO lawyers ever read the GPL?? The GPL specifies, in plain language, that it encourages profit motives for GPL software. You can sell it for as much as people are willing to pay for it. You just can't make it closed/proprietary. The GPL was created to ensure that people would never have the rug pulled out from under them by a greedy/unscrupulous company like SCO.
Averment 82: Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous (italics mine) software developers using single processor computers
I italicized "numerous" here. A large group of highly motivated individuals can accomplish wonderous things. I wonder if SCO thinks that complicated software just spontaneously comes into existence all by itself. More likely, SCO thinks that only it has highly talented and highly motivated people. Looking at what happened to Unix after SCO bought it, I'm doubtful that SCO employs any of the latter.
In the last several years, multi-processor systems have fallen in price enough that groups of low-paid individuals could afford to buy shared systems. More importantly, the price of dual processor systems have dropped in price enough that individuals can afford to buy them privately. (sarcasm on)But since Linux is developed solely by poor hippies, that couldn't possibly have happened(sarcasm off).
Also, there is nothing that disallows IBM from providing commodity hardware and publicly available specifications to some developers with the explicit purpose of providing access to otherwise prohibitively expensive hardware for expanding Linux's capabilities.
To comment on the author's closing remarks:
"This case serves as a reminder that organizations take non-disclosures seriously."
This case serves as a reminder of just how incredibly important the GNU and Linux projects are to the computing industry. Once this type of nonsense can be swept into the historical shitcan, we can all work in a more peaceful environment.
I hope IBM shreds SCO with legal fees and then countersues to recover them. Let SCO end its life in unrecoverable debt.
"Face it, you're hosed"
Try again. You're violating my patent on claiming to have patents to prevent people from getting patents on things that shouldn't be patentable.
Furthermore, my patent for the use of hypothetical allegories involving hoses for causing disintegration of cells from the contiguous epidermal does not permit you to use the statement, or any statement even vaguely resembling it, "you're hosed" without a substantial licensing fee.
Even moreso, my latest patent revolves around the use of highly specialized invididuals with deep knowledge of lying, moral ambiguity, and ethical barenness (hereafter designated 'lawyer') to extract money from people via accusations of implementations of the obvious (hereafter designated 'patent infringement').
Please see my lawyer to discuss turning over large sums of money for your patent infringement.
Good day, Sir!
Note: I am obviously violating a patent on "Good say, Sir!", but enforcement of your patent requires violating at least one of my patents.
I would pay a judge off to dismiss your patent, but paying a corrupt judge to render such a decision would undoubtedly violate one of amazon.com's patents.
Tandy's line of CoCo computers worked the same way with video. Set a couple registers to tell the video generator which part of system RAM to treat as video and watch the operating system state displayed on-screen.
It was mildly amusing from time to time.
My workplace recently bought all us programmers new Gateway systems where the integrated video card (a GeForce model) uses the same technology for video as the CoCo from the past. Figure out how to tell the board which part of system memory should be treated as video, and the same effect could be had.
"So I want to know if others think my concerns are legitimate or misinformed?"
I love Qt and KDE, but that one issue about Qt's GPL license has recently become a sore point with me. Some coworkers and I have debated this off and on for a while, and we have all come to agree that the GPL Qt will hinder the small startups who try to strike out with commercial, closed source apps (no, I don't think closed source is inherently evil).
We have three options:
1) Stop using Qt/KDE. Not gonna happen because they are the best things going. I certainly don't begrudge Troll Tech for its licensing (I wholeheartly thanked everyone there for adding the GPL to the release licensing).
2) Petition Troll Tech to make Qt LGPL. This would be suicide for Troll Tech, and it isn't going to happen (no reasonable person should expect this to happen). Troll Tech has been indispensable for the development of Qt, and I wish the company the best of success.
3) Create a new implementation of Qt's APIs. It's a big job, but it's very doable.
Because I want to eventually be able to create closed source apps of my own, and to allow others to do the same (and because I wanted to learn X11 programming), I've created a library that partially implements 25 of Qt's classes. When I get the layout and style engines implemented, I will release the source under the LGPL. This isn't a high priority project, so don't hold your breath.
It's a fun project, and it won't comply 100% with Qt. The only area in which I'm diverging from Qt is the event model. I have done away with meta objects, and have adopted Java's interface/listener model for events. I find that to be a much better way to handle events.
Anyway, I'm not concerned about Troll Tech owning Qt. The GPL guarantees that Troll Tech can never take it away, but can just stop releasing new versions. If that ever happens, the community will carry on with the last GPL version. No biggie.
While redhat probably finds some of the bugs and security problems with the software it distributes, by and large the company merely repackages the software as released by the actual maintainers.
All the software redhat provides will still be fixed and updated by the software's actual developer(s), and will still be available to you. Redhat provides a service that makes system maintenance much more convenient, but all of the software will be updated and distributed long after Red Hat stops officially supporting it.
You don't have to adhere to redhat's software schedule if you don't want to. You can always download and install the fixes yourself if you are so inclined.
Redhat can never force you to upgrade your systems just to adhere to its support schedule. Only the convenience level has changed. It's much more convenient to let redhat take care of packaging and integration rather than doing so yourself, but the option is always yours. With Free software, "End of Life" is a misnomer. All that ends is redhat's involvement. The software itself will continue to be maintained until its actual developers and users decide otherwise.
You have a hundred different sources for everything redhat provides, which leaves the power entirely with you. Whether you choose to use it or surrender it is your own choice (and only your choice).
Red Hat's practices are different from Microsoft's practices, even when the components of the practices are identical, because Red Hat does not have a long history of happily abusing its customers.
Microsoft's entire corporate psyche is built around cultivating that abuse. Bill Gates has, on numerous occasions, stated that Microsoft's main competitor is its own customer base. Unless you've been living under a large rock for the last ten years, you're well aware of how Microsoft treats its competitors (and not coincidentally, its "partners").
Microsoft's known street-thug behavioral history should be enough to send shivers down your spine whenever anyone there has network access to your computer in any form whatsoever.
I looked at the list of packages, and I'm tempted to switch back to Mandrake from Red Hat. Most of the packages missing from prior releases (kdevelop, slocate, and a few others) are directly listed. kcalc isn't there, but I presume it's bundled in with the kdeutils package.
KDE 3.1 is there (I ran one of the first betas, and it was good even back then), and the wireless package is there (hopefully my two currently-useless Linksys WUSB11 2.6 cards will work out of the box).
In two weeks, when I'll have my credit card paid off, I'm ordering 9.1 to replace my Red Hat 8.0 system (which I bought just last month). Here's hoping Mandrake has touched all the right bases this time.
IANAL
The first amendment is not violated on at least three counts:
1) Telemarketers are infringing upon my property rights by using my phone (which I own) in a manner not authorized by myself. This is by far the weakest of the three arguments, but it's still true. By being on the list, I am merely telling telemarketers that they may not use my property.
2) Their message is one purely of commerce, without any other value. Speech which is purely of commercial value is not protected speech.
3) Even if their speeches had socially redeeming value, there are many other protected avenues which can be utilized (such as snail mail, park gatherings, etc) to spread the same message. This is entirely irrelevant in this case, though, because purely commercial speech is not protected speech.
The 9th amemdment is not relevant in light of the first amendment not being violated.
The tenth amendment is not violated because this is the federal government regulating commerce. This is explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
I agree with the others who have commented on this being one of the best laws (if not the only good law) passed by Congress in recent years.
There are several reasons why Linux is not so adversely affected by security patches:
1) Linux the kernel is distinctly independent from the applications that it runs and from the vast majority of device drivers that it hosts. This is most likely the single most important factor. For example, fixing Apache does not require tampering with the kernel, which is turn does not require tampering with the web browser, which in turn does not require tampering with the task manager, which in turn does not require tampering with the database server. With Windows, changing one area touches every single other part of the entire system, including some very large applications (because they are integrated with the kernel).
2) Security releases are fast, furious, and focused. Only the affected pieces are replaced. When OpenSSL was compromised by Slapper, only OpenSSL was fixed. The fix didn't have to touch a hundred completely unrelated areas as happens when your entire kit and kaboodle (Windows) is tied together by spaghetti clusters. The fixes are released immediately after the vulnerability is discovered, and the full scope of the fix is detailed (parts are not hidden, as is the case with Windows). And the fixes, if anything was missed the first time, continue until the problem is erradicated.
3) Full disclosure. The vulnerability is fully disclosed to the user base ASAP, and details provided to allow us to confirm the vulnerability. Since the vulnerable parts of the system are separate and distinct, fixing the individual parts can occur on a continuous basis. That is, not every affected component has to be fixed before other fixed pieces can be distributed.
Not being a security type person, these are only things I can think of off the top of my head based on my own limited experience.
"Mullen wants to shut you down if you attack him. Metaphorically, he wants the right to knock you out if you try to rob him."
Mullen wants to be able to break into your house (enter your computer uninvited), root through all your belongings to find objectionable material (search your system for the offending program[s]), and destroy property (eliminate the offending program; though he wants you to trust that he won't destroy anything of value, and that he will know the difference) because he witnessed somebody running from your house with your property and trampling his lawn during the escape.
What this boils down to is that he wants to violate your personal property because somebody else did so already and caused collateral damage to his property in the escape. It's a "kick 'em when they're down" strike.
"Logic dictates that anyone who opposes a bill allowing corporate entities to attack our systems should support a technique to stop worm-ridden systems from doing the same."
This is flawed logic. The correct logic flows like so: Anyone who opposes a bill allowing corporate entities to attack our systems should oppose any technique that allows any other organization or individual to do the same.
Mr. Mullen's proposal is almost identical to the proposal made by the RIAA: let someone legally crack into a computer that is being used to do inconvenient things.
While I sympathize with Mr. Mullen's intent, this approach was wrong when suggested by the RIAA and it is wrong when suggested by Mr. Mullen.
Unfortunately, the best approach I can suggest that both contains the problem (eventually) and protects everyone's privacy to the largest possible extent is to isolate the offending computer from the rest of the Internet (possibly shutting down the user's outgoing Internet feed) until that user fixes the problematic system.
Of course, the details are the killer. How is something like this accomplished quickly enough to minimize the damage done to systems receiving the barrage of data? And does a Slashdotting result in Slashdot's Internet feed being cut?
This type of problem definitely needs a solution, but vigilante attacks are not the solution.
I forgot to mention: Linux doesn't have to become number one on the desktop. Linux will have won everything that is important once it passes something like ~20%. At this point, every hardware manufacturer in the world will provide a native, up-to-date Linux driver, and every major software house in the world will provide a native Linux application port.
At this point, Microsoft will have lost the game. The company will still be large and strong, and computer users around the world will benefit enormously, but Microsoft will have lost the war. How? Simply because Microsoft wins only while its monopoly is in place. With a ~20% Linux desktop share, the Microsoft monopoly will crumble. At this point, the whole world wins.
Fortunately, we've never had an "X-Windows". We've had X11; the X Window System; X, X Version 11; X Window System, Version 11; but never X-Windows. Watch a bunch of tradmark lawsuits if you think this is just semantics.
;)
The X Window System was designed precisely to support end user interfaces. The X Window system is fast and responsive. A fully functional X Window based program, unless badly written, will load instantly and run blazingly fast (at least the equal of, and typically better than, its MS-Windows counterpart).
When writing native X11 programs, I have encountered exactly one exception to this: font loading. Loading the full set of available fonts under X is a painfully slow experience. This is the one area where I will agree that X's handling is atrocious.
Adoption of a single standardized interface does not mean that either KDE or GNOME has to die. Adoption of a single interface would mean that both KDE and GNOME would have to adhere to that interface. Having competing implementations of a standard interface would be greatly beneficial to everyone involved. All major implementations would compel the developers of the other implementations to rapidly improve or be left behind. Otherwise, I completely agree that a common interface specification is necessary.
Comprehensive graphical setup utilities that work upon the operating system's (and the desktop's) underlying text files is a must. The text files must remain so that things can be easily fixed when (not if) the GUI utilities screw up. This is rapidly improving, and many areas are already covered. But the coverage is not complete.
When an end user needs help configuring his system, it sure is nice to be able run those configuration utilities remotely. End users don't care about X's ability to run native applications remotely until they realize that getting help is much easier when the helper doesn't have to physically be there.
X's ability to efficiently host multiple, completely independent workstation desktops on a single computer also makes management drool. Not util I demonstrated just how well a single 800mhz Linux box hosts a dozen employee desktops did my corporate customers see the light pop on. This is a great advantage for both home and corporate end users.
No argument here about binary distributions. Barring a few individualists, no one is disagreeing (hence the proliferation of binary distributions).
Both Mandrake and Red Hat both come with most, if not all, remotely accessable daemons turned off by default. This hasn't been an issue for quite some time now.
Insulting Microsoft is no longer necessary, as Microsoft has done a better job belittling itself in the last year than the combined efforts of all the worst detractors have done in the last ten years.
IANAL
The DMCA doesn't create a crime merely because a device was created that circumvents copy protection unless that device's primary use is to infringe copy rights.
This, I think, is where the government's case against Elcomsoft falls apart. Elcomsoft, to the best of my knowledge, had always marketed its software as allowing people to read E-Books that they have the legal right to read, but explicitly blocks access to works that users haven't paid for (I don't know anything about how E-Books work to assure that). This means that Elcomsoft's product is used primarily (and since not one infringing case was found, used exclusively) for non-infringing purposes.
The DMCA, IIRC, allows circumvention for interoperability purposes where the copy right owner has not provided for the same (provided that the creator of the circumvention device has attempted to acquire such functionality from the copy right owner).
So if Elcomsoft can show that its product filled a legitimate need that Adobe refused to fill, then everyone at Elcomsoft should be in the clear DMCA-wise.
Having every device connected to the Internet is rather unlikely for one reason I discovered a few months ago: IPv6, which is required for this to work, will get nowhere. Why?
Because ISPs make a lot of money rationing out the limited range of IPv4 addresses available to the world. As more people and devices get connected to the Internet, the higher the prices for IPv4 addresses will get. IPSs would rather die than lose out on the massive cash flow that results from controlling access to limited IP resources. Allowing a new protocol which allows everyone on the planet to have as many IP addresses as they want will kill the cash cow, and it just isn't going to happen any time soon.
I haven't experienced this. All my tabs open in the same top level window, and I didn't have to download any plugin.
I also started using Mozilla at M8, and it was still a bit flakey. Ever since a couple releases prior to 1.0, though, Mozilla has been fairly stable and reliable.
I routinely leave it running continuously at work for as long as Windows will stay running (which, granted, isn't saying much). I leave it running 24x7 on my Linux machine for days at a time with no detectable ill effects on the machine. I have had a small number of Mozilla crashes between work and home, and have otherwise been completely happy with it.
I use it to test all my PHP development testing, and it perfoms wonderfully.
The only complaint sI have with what I'm using (still at 1.0) are that fonts aren't anti-aliased and the initial load time (not entirely Mozilla's fault) Other than that, it's a world-class, top-notch browser. Congratulations to the entire Mozilla team.
I don't think these people understand who the real thieves are. Sites that serve unwanted popups, banners, etc. without my consent are stealing the bandwidth that I paid for. If they want to use my bandwidth, they can damn well pay me for it at the prices I set. If they don't want to pay my prices, then they shouldn't be able to use my bandwidth. By the same token, if they don't want me to use their bandwidth, they're perfectly within their rights to deny me access to their sites.
These bandwidth looters are trying to set the tone of the game by portraying those of us who are trying to preserve our bandwidth usage as something dirty. I am paying for my bandwidth, and I will be the one to determine when it gets used.
"I'm interested to get a DirecWay [direcway.com] system, but one of the things that worries me is that it requires special software (supposedly)."
I've had both the DirecWay 1-way system and the 2-way system. In both cases, the hardware and software are both proprietary and work only with Windows (which is by far its biggest failing). The satellite modem is USB, and will not work with standard networking hardware. This means that there is absolutely no way to connect it to Linux. It must run through a Windows computer. You can use Windows' truly pathetic Internet Connection Sharing to share the connection with any other machine through standard networking hardware, but it is quite painful in its unreliability.
Its saving graces are (in no particular order):
1) It's always on if Windows hasn't crashed.
2) Downloads are much faster than dialup (at least 400kbs -- kbs, not KBs).
3) If you would otherwise have to purchase multiple dialup accounts for your household to allow multiple users decent Internet speeds (sharing a dialup modem among three people is not decent speed), then the long term costs can be substantially less (after the initial hardware purchase has been amortized).
4) If you can use satellite TV, then you can use satellite Internet.
It's primary losing fuckups:
1) It is proprietary from head to toe, and they (so far) refuse to support anything but Windows.
2) Upload speeds (despite the satellite transmitter) are no better than dialup.
3) DirecWay's business admins are complete incompetent clusterfucks. If you MUST go with 2-way satellite, try Earthlink BEFORE you buy any equipment. Earthlink currently will not allow DirecWay hardware to transfer to Earthlink's service, despite the hardware being identical. I had very good experiences with Earthlink when I was on dialup, though, and would switch away from DirecWay in an instant if I could transfer my hardware.
4) Getting started is damned expensive. The initial hardware is roughly $700, and you must agree to a 1-year commitment (which is about $70 a month, and is in addition to the hardware). Only after that first year can you go month to month.
5) Since you have to use Windows as the "server", and Windows drops packets like rabbits breed, it can be a painful experience. It's better than sharing a dialup modem, but it's still painful.
Your title and description are completely wrong.
The DOE was publishing information that was acquired through tax-funded government research. The results of the research were being returned to those who paid for it: tax payers.
This assanine publishing organization, which was taking this government-funded research and selling it, wanted to take the results and make libraries and individuals pay again to be able to see the results.
This is a case of private industry stealing public information under conspiracy with the federal government.
"what he meant was that to express within the Japanese cultural framework the same emotion expressed in English by 'I love you,' one must choose words like 'The moon is so blue tonight.'"
Does this mean that for Japanese to truly express the emotion behind, "You're so hot, I can't stand it!" they have to resort to phrases like, "My twin moons are so blue for you tonight."?
"...one that i can identify is Orrin Hatch. i hear he is very distrustful of the MPAA, RIAA, and others who want to use their lobby money to preserve their dinosaur business models."
Hatch was a primary author of the DMCA. When Skylarov was illegally imprisoned (assuming that the DMCA will fall for being unconstitutional), Hatch commented that the DMCA was working exactly as he had intended. I would hardly place him anywhere on the same planet as the best of the bunch.
"GPL gets around this by asking that you give them the copyright and give them all the credit leaving you with none."
The GPL does nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the GPL is the request made for contributors to sign over their copyrights. Just the opposite is true. Contributors retain copyrights over contributed code that is their own creation. The GPL states that contributors of derivitive code must grant others the full right to copy, modify, and distribute those derivitive contributions. That's it.
You are probably confusing the GPL with the FSF's advice to assign it the copyright to your GPL'd code that you wish to have legally defended by the FSF (under the assumption that you are not financially able to enforce your copyrights yourself). Nowhere is this a requirement.
Likewise, there is no provision in the GPL to strip you of credit for contributions you have made. Once again, quite the opposite is true. The GPL goes to great length to make sure you are properly attributed and that recognition for your contributions is not usurped.
The GPL has been carefully crafted to protect the rights of authors without imposing unnecessary burdens on contributors of derivitive works. The only inconvenience I have ever noticed with the GPL was experienced from a proprietary software perspective. And that was a primary purpose of the GPL: to make life difficult for those who want to steal the works of others, while making life easier for those who want to build upon the works of others and contribute those improvements back to the world.
The GPL works wonderfully and is a thing of beauty.
"* Why is there no Union for IT workers?"
Probably because for the most part and until recently, I.T. people were treated well. Unions form when working conditions become unbearable for the workers. Interestingly, this may be a good ploy for disgruntled employees whos jobs are teetering. Get all those employees together and start talking Union. I wonder how quickly conditions would improve at work since employers absolutely hate to hear union talk. But there's little they can do about about it because it's illegal to fire workers for attempting to form a union.
"* Why is the current practice of laying off your IT staff, then "re-employing" them as contractors (at a lower rate) not illegal?"
Probably because I.T. workers haven't organized to oppose this (see answer to first question, which probably answers all the rest). Having seen and heard how unions operate, though, I'm not sure which is worse: Union, or no Union.
"A lot of the time it's kind of hard to remember which version exactly you have, and much UNIX software offers no quick, clear way to tell what version you have installed."
If you're running an RPM based system, "rpm -qa | grep kerb" is a quick way to determine if you've installed Kerberos. This works for any other RPM you've installed.