mportant Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
There was an operator loading a tool who complained that as she got into her work, the light screen (A light screen is a safety device consisting of a grid of light beams. Break a beam and the tool stops NOW) would trip.
The electricians couldn't find anything wrong, so they called the engineer (me). I couldn't find anything wrong. I asked the operator to show me how she works, and she did her normal routine--no problems. I watched her for a while, and the tool ran fine.
Came back an hour later, and the tool had stopped. I hid behind the adjacent tool and watched the operator go at it--Once she got rockin', she would place a part, spin around, grab another part, and turn to find the machine stopped! The centripetal acceleration experienced only when she was really in her rhythm caused her fingertips to fly through the light screen!
The entertainment industry's motive is profit, as well it should be--that's what industry is for. But...
They seek to enlist the aid of a government which has been rampantly trampling (say that 3 times fast!) the civil rights of its Citizens. And doing so with increasing enthusiasm for the past few years.
Their argument says, essentially: "We cannot see what a given individual is doing. They could be doing anything!. Therefore, we MUST monitor and regulate each individual!"
The premise of our society (in the US) is exactly the opposite of that view: "...Chief among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." The "liberty" part means that Yeah--you could be doing anything. Go ahead. We presume that what you're doing is none of anyone else's business.
In that context, the RIAA's argument "Unmonitored, unregulated private citizens are probably criminal, and must be treated as such." sounds absurd. Not to the folks making the laws.
This or similar regulation has a good chance of being enacted. Remember the "war on drugs" in its heyday. I personally know people who had property siezed and sold at auction because the property (a car) was "involved in a drug-related crime".
Problem is--the "crime" was an alleged crime--the person involved was never convicted of anything. Yeah, that sorta violates the fourth amendmant of our Constitution. And the law was overturned. But, he still lost his car.
The upsot of it is that there is (and always will be) a persistant layer of the legal system which undermines the same rights that are guaranteed by that same legaly system.
At any given moment, we can fight more or less diligently and determine the weight of that layer.
Make no mistake, however--it is the nature of power to concentrate itself. And if you don't take some of that power by speaking out, embarrassing politicians, joining your local zoning board, challenging that traffic ticket, etc.--then you are giving that power away.
Don't be embarrased to "take power" by taking action. Your very desire to protect your own freedoms conflicts with someone else's desire to regulate (restrict) those freedoms. You are in the game whether you like it or not. "I'll leave you alone and you leave me alone." is good in principle, but impossible to implement in practice.
However, you licensed the software. When you purchased the hardware, part of the price you paid (how much? Hard to tell, sometimes; recall the Microsoft Rebate game last year.) was paid for the "consideration" of a software license.
IF compliance matters to you AND you can't accept the offered license AND you can't use the HW without the SW, THEN send it back. Compliance matters? Sure. Or why discuss the clickthrough at all? Can't accept the license? Perhaps, can't accept the idea of a license attached to your hardware. (see below) Can't use the HW (which, as you say, you own), without the SW? Probably. Unless you have your own or FAI[S,B] BIOS.
That's "Why send it back".
Personally, I fail the test at line 1. "Care about compliance with the license". Screw 'em. Don't use the software. Like you said, you own the hardware. All it says is "Don't pretend you didn't know about the license when you opened up that copy of O2K."
So, what about the BIOS itself? Is there a license attached today? No? How 'bout tomorrow? Tomorrow, it might say: "In order to use the BIOS software included in this computer, you must shave your dog's butt and teach it to walk backwards." Then you have 3 choices: Violate the license, don't use the software, or get an ugly dog.
I quit using commercial software (as I sit at work, typing this in Opera under win2K!!) at home anyhow. I did it becasue the commercial software sucks and there's a better alternative.
Don't buy it. Just like DivX. If they tricked you, send it back.
If I'm using your software, then I have to abide by whatever draconian license we both agree to. The hardware, however, is mine. I paid for it, I own it.
What is the BIOS? Is it software? Is it part of the hardware? AFAIK, it's software. I can install my own BIOS if I want (similar to installing my own OS on the HDD), and ignore your software license.
Practical? No. Fair? What's fair? The contract we both agreed to defines "fair".
Where is the contract? It's in the sale of the hardware/software. I agree to give you EU1000 for a device and software you described. When the box shows up, I look at it and say "That's not what you described. It has a restrictive agreement attached." So, I send it back.
Think of the EU100 PC. That requires a 5-year MSN contract at EU39.95 a month in order to get the EU100 price. Didn't buy one of those, either, didja? 'Cause what they're selling is not what you want.
The law does not provide for a way to force the vendor to sell what you want them to sell. The free market does that.
Hee Hee...
sounds like you got your d*** knocked in the dirt for doing someone else's job!
You'd better thank the next union electrician you see for the fact safety lockable equipment was installed. Also thank them for the fact you can buy a decent lock and scissors. And especially for the fact you are allowed to hang a lock and tell your employer where to go if he wants you to work in an unsafe manner. Safety laws, (and OSHA in the US) only exist because of the sweat and blood of union members. Learn some history.
So unions can be a PITA to work with? BFD. I've worked with them for years. They're just like anyone else--show a little simple human respect and they'll hand you the screwdriver. Act like you're "better than", and you'll get what you've earned.
FWIW, no, I'm not union; I'm an engineer.
As far as your IQ of 101 plus a lock protecting you--sorry; that's not enough. Safety equipment is not juju. You need to know what you're doing, and you need to know the practices in that plant or the code in that jurisdiction where you're working.
Would you go into an unknown IT center and "secure" it by installing iptables and modprobing the modules? There's a little more to it than that! You need to know how the equipment works and how it's being used.
But, hey--maybe you've "been doing it like that for 35 years", and you're still breathin'. Good for you. I've seen guys like that learn just how lucky they've been 'till now...
Hey, since you posted AC, tell us who you are and get your wife to post a message when it's too late for you. I'm sure some compassionate/.ers will be happy to send the flowers.
One would assume that the writer himself is a reader, and therefore counted on both sides of the 10:1 ratio. Sets often intersect; this is especially true of demographic sets.
Perhaps these same programmers to which you refer are the ones who use "write-only-memory".
Maybe they do where you live, but here, you hang a lock. The sign you describe is attached to the lock and has your picture on it, contact information, and contact information for your supervisor and employer.
Don't have one of those? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT FARKIN' QUALIFIED TO DO THE WORK!
If you have not had the correct training, you CAN NOT safely lock out equipment. Sure. You locked it out. You stuck your wiggy in the wall socket to make sure you got a buzz. You tested each terminal and they were all dead. You started stripping wires. You reached way into the cabinet to unscrew some terminals in the back. It got dark and the building's outside lighting circuit turned on. Guess what? Someone ran the lighting circuit through the box.
oopsie.
You don't know what you're doing. Neither does the person who "told you how" to do this safely. Hire a professional.
Have a look at some of the practice tests you can review before you sit for your ticket. A licensed electrician is NOT "bubba with a wiggy". These folks are worth the money they earn. This is a safety issue. It matters if you screw it up. And if you've screwed it up, it may not be immediately obvious. Hire somebody who knows what the hell they're doing.
The responsible party could be on the hook for a lot more than a wiring bill if it's as bad as you describe it!
Find out who's responsible: Do you rent? Did you buy it? Did you build it? Is this your mess? Clean it up! Is is someone else's mess? Make sure they know that they're going to have a serious problem if they don't clean it up NOW!
No matter who's responsibility it is, you need to take care of the fire/electrocution hazard NOW! Your laws may vary (Napoleanic Code?), but over here if someone gets hurt while on your property, it's your fault. Pay for it yourself, or if you're so inclined, sue the responsible party.
In any case, do what the other folks have said: Have a licensed professional bring it up to code or hang a lock NOW
Political Reasons Is the source code an appropriate place to put a short, relevant political statement? My answer to that is YES. We're not talking about a manifesto here. This is a short relevant statement that becomes part of the "history" of GNU. Good place for it.
Discontinuing SCO support--Why do it?
Legal Does including SCO support in gcc undermine the legal position of the gcc developers and users w.r.t. the SCO situation? (My guess is NO). And even if that was true, would acknowledging the fact there MIGHT be a legal issue further undermine that position? (Again, my guess is NO). Legal Reason: No Logistical Does continuing to include SCO support in gcc cost an unacceptable amount of resources--(developers time)? I know that after SCO has pissed everyone off, some would say that "One second of developer's time is unacceptable." That's a different issue. We'll get to that farther down. My guess here is SCO support does not delay gcc releases a whole lot, but the developers can answer better. Logistical Reason: Probably Not Design Do developers sit around saying "Dammit, if we didn't have to support SCO, gcc could be twenty percent faster/smaller and we could add all these features people have been wanting." My guess no, but again, ask the developers. Design Reason" Probably Not Retribution Did SCO offend the community who has worked so hard to develop the GNU they use and (used to) distribute? Yes. Does that community now have the opportunity to abandon SCO (and all the users unfortunate enough to be dependant on SCO)? Yes. Is Retribution against SCO a valid reason for the gcc project to modify their code? Ask the developers. Only the people doing the work can say what they want their role in this community to be. Social(Don't Tread On Me)--Would discontinuing support for SCO send a message: "If you stand before the community and falsely accuse and harass us, you should not expect the community to continue to support you. You are now outcast." Why would the developers care how they are perceived?
Explicitly Removing SCO support--Why not do it? IF it is a good idea to discontinue SCO support, why not remove it altogether? What's the cost?
Functionality--What does removing SCO support break? Logistics--How much time and effort do the developers want to commit to excising this code? Collateral Damage--Who else would be hurt by the gcc project's retribution against SCO? Social(...thine Enemies)--Would the gcc developers be perceived as vindictive for removing SCO support? Why would the developers care how they are perceived? How would this affect future collaboration?
I've requested and gotten tech support for many GPLed drivers, libraries, and apps.
I do my research, make my good-faith effort to solve the issue, and then post to the mailing list or newsgroup. Drivers?--I've gotten test code and patches from developers. "Try it; if it works, it's in the next release." Apps? I've gotten many immediate and useful responses from other users, often there are several solutions to my problem.
To be fair, I do pay for this. A little of my time, a little exercise of thought. And it's stuff I like to do! Paid no dollars, though. I get excellent support, the code does what I want it to do. Time to satisfactory solution is rarely more than a day when the problem is my ignorance. Time to satisfactory solution is rarely less than a week when there's actually a problem in drivers or code.
And you can't beat the price.
Commercial tech support? Different story. I bought a MS product once. Windows 98, for my work computer. Paid real money for it, too. Wouldn't install even though the machine was listed as Win98 compliant. MS admitted it should work. "Reformat your HDD" was not a deterrent; I had a spare. I made those fsckers stay on the phone and waste their time while I wasted my time working on that turd. MS spent 12 hours on the phone with me over about a week. They had no clue. They never solved the problem. I sent the machine back to the mfr, they installed Win98, and I ghosted the HDD.
RFID readers are already available. What's to prevent some industrious hardware hacker from developing a programmable device that responds to a RFID reader pulse?
Grab your portable reader. Go around scanning all sorts of products. Just walk down the street and see what you pick up. Post the ID strings to a web page or newsgroup.
Now, the fun begins...Anyone can download the RFID response strings for a multitude of products and retransmit them when a scan pulse is detected. Maybe you could even run an antenna wire to your annoying neighbor's house!
"Hey, you better radio the station!". "Why?" "Well, according to my property scanner, there's at least a hundred cases of steel-core 7.62 and fifty Norinco AK knockoffs over at the Flanders' house...And about a pallet of dildos (dildoes?)."
I was able to affoard the hardware because there's an operating system that the general public can use. And they can use it even if they don't want to invest a considerable amount of their time and skull-sweat to get it to work.
Don't tell me "Linux is easy". Bullsh|t. There's a learning curve. Once you learn it, it's a hell of a lot easier than Windows. But it takes work. The general public is NOT stupid. They are NOT lazy. They're just not as into computers as you might be.
But if the market for computer hardware was limited to lonely geeks or interested hobbyists with *very* patient spouses, we would not see computers being sold at Wal-Mart.
Home computing would be a hobby for the serious hobbyist. An expensive hobby.
So, all you slackers out there, raise a glass to Bill Gates. He's a rich bastard, and we all love to hate the rich, but he made all this possible.
And you really want the admins to fix the problem.
And you really do have a fix.
Write a report. Save it as a plain text file!!! (I don't know what editor you use, but some windows products have a nasty habit of including some data you DID NOT WANT to be in your document!).
tar up your exploit code and your suggested bugfix. You should send source, which, again can be plain text. If you must send compiled code, be careful as above.
Email it to the person(s) responsible for the product. Start with the vendor. Give the vendor some time (30 days? whatever you think is appropriate), after which the customers will be notified. Indicate that this notification WILL take place on such and such a date, so they'd better have a plan in place if they don't want to be embarrassed.
Repeat the process down the line. Next send a similar email to the IT department of the university, telling them you'll email the administration within 30 days and this is their fair warning and chance to save face.
Next, university faculty.
Finally the public. This last one is solely to motivate the people in charge to get off their butts.
Follow Good Security Practices when you do this. This does not mean using private idaho, mixmaster, or a hotmail account from a public terminal. Those tools are useful, and I encourage you to look into them. But...Good security practices mean Keep your farkin' mouth shut.. Don't brag about this to anyone.
If you seek legal counsel or public advice on this, remember phrases like "Hypothetically, if someone..." "It is my opinion that the law should allow..." Provide no traceable details. Never say "I would", "I did", "I could", "I know"...
If you don't rat yourself out, you'll be fine. You'll accomplish your ethically laudable goal, and you won't suffer retribution for doing good.
D'oh! Maybe you already blew it. Hope the account you posted this with is not traceable!
True or not, the point is that (at least the SuSE distribution of) GNU/Linux now has a serious backer with right to sell to the gubmit.
All this rating does is open the door a little. It's up to the marketing boys at IBM to bludgeon the pencil-pushers into submission.
Claiming some sort of "victory" for GNU/Linux as a whole is silly. This is another step in the right direction.
As GNU/Linux has become more utilized, it has attracted the attention of powerful (and some incompetent) enemies. Be careful what you wish for! GNU/Linux, by its nature will never present a unified front to defend itself. By binding the interestes of users to the interests of parties with power, we improve the chances that things will go our way.
Slashdot Mirror
mportant Stuff:
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
Why are you laughing? Are you saying we're not in happy fuzzy bunny land?
More correctly, I would have said "...industry's motive is profit--that's a fact of life--whether or not it should be is up for debate".
There was an operator loading a tool who complained that as she got into her work, the light screen (A light screen is a safety device consisting of a grid of light beams. Break a beam and the tool stops NOW) would trip.
The electricians couldn't find anything wrong, so they called the engineer (me). I couldn't find anything wrong. I asked the operator to show me how she works, and she did her normal routine--no problems. I watched her for a while, and the tool ran fine.
Came back an hour later, and the tool had stopped. I hid behind the adjacent tool and watched the operator go at it--Once she got rockin', she would place a part, spin around, grab another part, and turn to find the machine stopped! The centripetal acceleration experienced only when she was really in her rhythm caused her fingertips to fly through the light screen!
Solution: Stand 4" farther back from the tool!
That would have been about as useful as a screen door on...
They seek to enlist the aid of a government which has been rampantly trampling (say that 3 times fast!) the civil rights of its Citizens. And doing so with increasing enthusiasm for the past few years.
Their argument says, essentially: "We cannot see what a given individual is doing. They could be doing anything!. Therefore, we MUST monitor and regulate each individual!"
The premise of our society (in the US) is exactly the opposite of that view: "...Chief among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." The "liberty" part means that Yeah--you could be doing anything. Go ahead. We presume that what you're doing is none of anyone else's business.
In that context, the RIAA's argument "Unmonitored, unregulated private citizens are probably criminal, and must be treated as such." sounds absurd. Not to the folks making the laws.
This or similar regulation has a good chance of being enacted. Remember the "war on drugs" in its heyday. I personally know people who had property siezed and sold at auction because the property (a car) was "involved in a drug-related crime".
Problem is--the "crime" was an alleged crime--the person involved was never convicted of anything. Yeah, that sorta violates the fourth amendmant of our Constitution. And the law was overturned. But, he still lost his car.
The upsot of it is that there is (and always will be) a persistant layer of the legal system which undermines the same rights that are guaranteed by that same legaly system.
At any given moment, we can fight more or less diligently and determine the weight of that layer.
Make no mistake, however--it is the nature of power to concentrate itself. And if you don't take some of that power by speaking out, embarrassing politicians, joining your local zoning board, challenging that traffic ticket, etc.--then you are giving that power away.
Don't be embarrased to "take power" by taking action. Your very desire to protect your own freedoms conflicts with someone else's desire to regulate (restrict) those freedoms. You are in the game whether you like it or not. "I'll leave you alone and you leave me alone." is good in principle, but impossible to implement in practice.
Much as I'd like to reflexively jump into GLX defense with you, I must refrain from doing so.
Debian is a distro, not a kernel. Debian problems involve problems with any packages that Deb, Ian, et. al. chosen to include in their distro.
One of those packages is the Linux kernel. But it's not the only one.
The hardware is your property. You purchased it.
However, you licensed the software. When you purchased the hardware, part of the price you paid (how much? Hard to tell, sometimes; recall the Microsoft Rebate game last year.) was paid for the "consideration" of a software license.
IF compliance matters to you AND you can't accept the offered license AND you can't use the HW without the SW, THEN send it back.
Compliance matters? Sure. Or why discuss the clickthrough at all?
Can't accept the license? Perhaps, can't accept the idea of a license attached to your hardware. (see below)
Can't use the HW (which, as you say, you own), without the SW? Probably. Unless you have your own or FAI[S,B] BIOS.
That's "Why send it back".
Personally, I fail the test at line 1. "Care about compliance with the license". Screw 'em. Don't use the software. Like you said, you own the hardware.
All it says is "Don't pretend you didn't know about the license when you opened up that copy of O2K."
So, what about the BIOS itself? Is there a license attached today? No? How 'bout tomorrow?
Tomorrow, it might say: "In order to use the BIOS software included in this computer, you must shave your dog's butt and teach it to walk backwards."
Then you have 3 choices: Violate the license, don't use the software, or get an ugly dog.
I quit using commercial software (as I sit at work, typing this in Opera under win2K!!) at home anyhow. I did it becasue the commercial software sucks and there's a better alternative.
If I'm using your software, then I have to abide by whatever draconian license we both agree to. The hardware, however, is mine. I paid for it, I own it.
What is the BIOS? Is it software? Is it part of the hardware? AFAIK, it's software. I can install my own BIOS if I want (similar to installing my own OS on the HDD), and ignore your software license.
Practical? No. Fair? What's fair? The contract we both agreed to defines "fair".
Where is the contract? It's in the sale of the hardware/software. I agree to give you EU1000 for a device and software you described. When the box shows up, I look at it and say "That's not what you described. It has a restrictive agreement attached." So, I send it back.
Think of the EU100 PC. That requires a 5-year MSN contract at EU39.95 a month in order to get the EU100 price. Didn't buy one of those, either, didja? 'Cause what they're selling is not what you want.
The law does not provide for a way to force the vendor to sell what you want them to sell. The free market does that.
Send it back.
Kinda hard to hide spyware in open-source software, isnt' it?
And, yes, I know some of the protocols used by mldonkey are not open-source. There are reasons for this, too.
You'd better thank the next union electrician you see for the fact safety lockable equipment was installed. Also thank them for the fact you can buy a decent lock and scissors. And especially for the fact you are allowed to hang a lock and tell your employer where to go if he wants you to work in an unsafe manner. Safety laws, (and OSHA in the US) only exist because of the sweat and blood of union members. Learn some history.
So unions can be a PITA to work with? BFD. I've worked with them for years. They're just like anyone else--show a little simple human respect and they'll hand you the screwdriver. Act like you're "better than", and you'll get what you've earned.
FWIW, no, I'm not union; I'm an engineer.
As far as your IQ of 101 plus a lock protecting you--sorry; that's not enough. Safety equipment is not juju. You need to know what you're doing, and you need to know the practices in that plant or the code in that jurisdiction where you're working.
Would you go into an unknown IT center and "secure" it by installing iptables and modprobing the modules? There's a little more to it than that! You need to know how the equipment works and how it's being used.
But, hey--maybe you've "been doing it like that for 35 years", and you're still breathin'. Good for you. I've seen guys like that learn just how lucky they've been 'till now...
Hey, since you posted AC, tell us who you are and get your wife to post a message when it's too late for you. I'm sure some compassionate /.ers will be happy to send the flowers.
How long can this go on?
One would assume that the writer himself is a reader, and therefore counted on both sides of the 10:1 ratio. Sets often intersect; this is especially true of demographic sets.
Perhaps these same programmers to which you refer are the ones who use "write-only-memory".
Don't have one of those? THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT FARKIN' QUALIFIED TO DO THE WORK!
If you have not had the correct training, you CAN NOT safely lock out equipment. Sure. You locked it out. You stuck your wiggy in the wall socket to make sure you got a buzz. You tested each terminal and they were all dead. You started stripping wires. You reached way into the cabinet to unscrew some terminals in the back. It got dark and the building's outside lighting circuit turned on. Guess what? Someone ran the lighting circuit through the box.
oopsie.
You don't know what you're doing. Neither does the person who "told you how" to do this safely. Hire a professional.
Have a look at some of the practice tests you can review before you sit for your ticket. A licensed electrician is NOT "bubba with a wiggy". These folks are worth the money they earn. This is a safety issue. It matters if you screw it up. And if you've screwed it up, it may not be immediately obvious. Hire somebody who knows what the hell they're doing.
Find out who's responsible: Do you rent? Did you buy it? Did you build it? Is this your mess? Clean it up! Is is someone else's mess? Make sure they know that they're going to have a serious problem if they don't clean it up NOW!
No matter who's responsibility it is, you need to take care of the fire/electrocution hazard NOW! Your laws may vary (Napoleanic Code?), but over here if someone gets hurt while on your property, it's your fault. Pay for it yourself, or if you're so inclined, sue the responsible party.
In any case, do what the other folks have said: Have a licensed professional bring it up to code or hang a lock NOW
Political Reasons Is the source code an appropriate place to put a short, relevant political statement? My answer to that is YES. We're not talking about a manifesto here. This is a short relevant statement that becomes part of the "history" of GNU. Good place for it.
Discontinuing SCO support--Why do it?
Legal Does including SCO support in gcc undermine the legal position of the gcc developers and users w.r.t. the SCO situation? (My guess is NO). And even if that was true, would acknowledging the fact there MIGHT be a legal issue further undermine that position? (Again, my guess is NO). Legal Reason: No
Logistical Does continuing to include SCO support in gcc cost an unacceptable amount of resources--(developers time)? I know that after SCO has pissed everyone off, some would say that "One second of developer's time is unacceptable." That's a different issue. We'll get to that farther down. My guess here is SCO support does not delay gcc releases a whole lot, but the developers can answer better. Logistical Reason: Probably Not
Design Do developers sit around saying "Dammit, if we didn't have to support SCO, gcc could be twenty percent faster/smaller and we could add all these features people have been wanting." My guess no, but again, ask the developers. Design Reason" Probably Not
Retribution Did SCO offend the community who has worked so hard to develop the GNU they use and (used to) distribute? Yes. Does that community now have the opportunity to abandon SCO (and all the users unfortunate enough to be dependant on SCO)? Yes. Is Retribution against SCO a valid reason for the gcc project to modify their code? Ask the developers. Only the people doing the work can say what they want their role in this community to be.
Social(Don't Tread On Me)--Would discontinuing support for SCO send a message: "If you stand before the community and falsely accuse and harass us, you should not expect the community to continue to support you. You are now outcast." Why would the developers care how they are perceived?
Explicitly Removing SCO support--Why not do it? IF it is a good idea to discontinue SCO support, why not remove it altogether? What's the cost?
Functionality--What does removing SCO support break?
Logistics--How much time and effort do the developers want to commit to excising this code?
Collateral Damage--Who else would be hurt by the gcc project's retribution against SCO?
Social(...thine Enemies)--Would the gcc developers be perceived as vindictive for removing SCO support? Why would the developers care how they are perceived? How would this affect future collaboration?
I do my research, make my good-faith effort to solve the issue, and then post to the mailing list or newsgroup. Drivers?--I've gotten test code and patches from developers. "Try it; if it works, it's in the next release." Apps? I've gotten many immediate and useful responses from other users, often there are several solutions to my problem.
To be fair, I do pay for this. A little of my time, a little exercise of thought. And it's stuff I like to do! Paid no dollars, though. I get excellent support, the code does what I want it to do. Time to satisfactory solution is rarely more than a day when the problem is my ignorance. Time to satisfactory solution is rarely less than a week when there's actually a problem in drivers or code.
And you can't beat the price.
Commercial tech support? Different story. I bought a MS product once. Windows 98, for my work computer. Paid real money for it, too. Wouldn't install even though the machine was listed as Win98 compliant. MS admitted it should work. "Reformat your HDD" was not a deterrent; I had a spare. I made those fsckers stay on the phone and waste their time while I wasted my time working on that turd. MS spent 12 hours on the phone with me over about a week. They had no clue. They never solved the problem. I sent the machine back to the mfr, they installed Win98, and I ghosted the HDD.
RFID readers are already available.
What's to prevent some industrious hardware hacker from developing a programmable device that responds to a RFID reader pulse?
Grab your portable reader. Go around scanning all sorts of products. Just walk down the street and see what you pick up. Post the ID strings to a web page or newsgroup.
Now, the fun begins...Anyone can download the RFID response strings for a multitude of products and retransmit them when a scan pulse is detected. Maybe you could even run an antenna wire to your annoying neighbor's house!
"Hey, you better radio the station!". "Why?" "Well, according to my property scanner, there's at least a hundred cases of steel-core 7.62 and fifty Norinco AK knockoffs over at the Flanders' house...And about a pallet of dildos (dildoes?)."
You mean they don't anymore? 'Course I bought mine 10 years ago...
It's called economy of scale, folks.
I was able to affoard the hardware because there's an operating system that the general public can use. And they can use it even if they don't want to invest a considerable amount of their time and skull-sweat to get it to work.
Don't tell me "Linux is easy". Bullsh|t. There's a learning curve. Once you learn it, it's a hell of a lot easier than Windows. But it takes work. The general public is NOT stupid. They are NOT lazy. They're just not as into computers as you might be.
But if the market for computer hardware was limited to lonely geeks or interested hobbyists with *very* patient spouses, we would not see computers being sold at Wal-Mart.
Home computing would be a hobby for the serious hobbyist. An expensive hobby.
So, all you slackers out there, raise a glass to Bill Gates. He's a rich bastard, and we all love to hate the rich, but he made all this possible.
And you really want the admins to fix the problem.
And you really do have a fix.
Write a report. Save it as a plain text file!!! (I don't know what editor you use, but some windows products have a nasty habit of including some data you DID NOT WANT to be in your document!).
tar up your exploit code and your suggested bugfix. You should send source, which, again can be plain text. If you must send compiled code, be careful as above.
Email it to the person(s) responsible for the product. Start with the vendor. Give the vendor some time (30 days? whatever you think is appropriate), after which the customers will be notified. Indicate that this notification WILL take place on such and such a date, so they'd better have a plan in place if they don't want to be embarrassed.
Repeat the process down the line. Next send a similar email to the IT department of the university, telling them you'll email the administration within 30 days and this is their fair warning and chance to save face.
Next, university faculty.
Finally the public. This last one is solely to motivate the people in charge to get off their butts.
Follow Good Security Practices when you do this. This does not mean using private idaho, mixmaster, or a hotmail account from a public terminal. Those tools are useful, and I encourage you to look into them. But...Good security practices mean Keep your farkin' mouth shut.. Don't brag about this to anyone.
If you seek legal counsel or public advice on this, remember phrases like "Hypothetically, if someone..." "It is my opinion that the law should allow..." Provide no traceable details. Never say "I would", "I did", "I could", "I know"...
If you don't rat yourself out, you'll be fine. You'll accomplish your ethically laudable goal, and you won't suffer retribution for doing good.
D'oh! Maybe you already blew it. Hope the account you posted this with is not traceable!
If you sling enough sh|t on the wall, some of it's gotta stick.
All this rating does is open the door a little. It's up to the marketing boys at IBM to bludgeon the pencil-pushers into submission.
Claiming some sort of "victory" for GNU/Linux as a whole is silly. This is another step in the right direction.
As GNU/Linux has become more utilized, it has attracted the attention of powerful (and some incompetent) enemies. Be careful what you wish for! GNU/Linux, by its nature will never present a unified front to defend itself. By binding the interestes of users to the interests of parties with power, we improve the chances that things will go our way.
Please include suppliers, manufacturers and product numbers.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks