I participate in a local TV show about computers, the Internet, and the technologies surrounding them. Me, along with a friend, talk about Linux. Another friend talks about Apple, and a fourth one about Windows. In this week edition, we got a rep. from Microsoft and one from Apple, and we made a forum with the pros and cons of every Operating System. One of the arguments of the Microsoft people against Linux is that the code has no property at all, and all the legal problems that come with it, putting the SCO as an example to scare customers off.
This kind of reactions just give them more material to put over their mouths to argue about the illegality of Linux and the people behind it, and that we are just a bunch of hackers with no respect for IP or whatsoever.
The bad thing is that the (un)especialised media likes to generalize and now the Linux community is putting an ultimatum on Microsoft for them to release something that they don't even intend to, and that will not lead them to biggest sales.
I'm afraid you're not paying enough attention here, kid. The 55808 number which the article and news sources refers to is the window-size of the TCP packet header, not the size of the packet itself.
You can't blame and even sue free software developers because it's free, you haven't paid anything for it and it's expressed so in the license. See points 11 and 12 of the GPL as an example (it's even all in capital letters):
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
(Another) security bug is discovered on Microsoft software, which affects Windows NT 4. It also affectes Windows 2000 and Windows XP, which clearly means that the later two are direct derivates of NT 4 (which we all already know).
So now Microsoft is refusing to issue a fix for NT 4, arguing that there is no way they could make it so that no other existing apps stop working. But a fix for 2k and XP has already been done. That's because of the great differences between NT 4 and 2k/xp, nonetheless they are based on the same product.
So how come that, being 2k and xp SO different from NT, that they can still run the same apps without needing any modification? How come there is no way to patch a NT4 system so that it can still run the same apps but they can surely do it over 2k and XP, and the same applications will still run without a problem over the same system.
This is clearly a move from Microsoft to force their customers to either upgrade their NT 4 installations, or else they are left to their own luck. Many people WON'T upgrade their NT 4 because that just works for them, because their hardware is not powerful enough for a 2k/xp system, or because any other reason they can think of.
Windows NT 4 has been in the market for about seven or eight years now (if my memory isn't failing it was released almos alongside with Win95). This recently discovered vulnerability has always been there since then. What would have happened if someone discovered before w2k was released? Would still Microsoft be unable to release a patch for it because it would break the whole system down?
I've seen many posts saying that noone should have port 135 open to the world. That port shouldn't be listening for request from the whole world, in the first place. There is no way you can know which ports that (for some obscure reason, valid for Microsoft of course) are listening represents a threat to the security of the system. Sure, the same could be said (no) about Linux and other systems, but there's always a way to shut them off and not let the system in a non working state.
This Internet Connection Sharing thing you're talking about, my friend, is what is called NAT - Network Address Translation. It is often referred to as the way to connect more than one host through a single IP connection, as the one you have (and most domestic users has). The document here talks about a way to trace over those users which are using a single connection to 'share' to more than one host, and how the ISPs could use it to put an end on their contract with you in case they detect this. I know most users does this, and I don't understand why ISPs prohibit this behavior, further than economical reasons.
LOL, if I had mod points today I would rate the parent as being Funny.
Jokes aside, the groundhog day is one of my favorite movies, even tho it's a very strange one... it sure reflects the reality here on Slashdot, when you wake up a day and run to your browser in the morning just to check out the latest headlines, and being sure you already knew them:)
I live in Chile, which is very close to Brazil, and the situation is almost the same down here. The biggest computer sales are from integrators, leaving the known brands to a very few customers.
Most of them (if not all) buys the computers with everything installed ('yeah, I can give you that software, and this other one as well') but without the licences, just a Windows XP licence costs as much as a complete low end Duron system (which is what most non-gamer people buys). This situation barely changes into the companies, where they are somewhat forced to get their software licenced when they get a notification from the ADS (think of it as the local BSA) saying they'll be inspected.
So, the thing is slowly beggining to change. I don't sell hardware, but I do give Linux consulting services to companies. I've already migrated a bunch of M$ servers on small networks to the Linux platform, mostly because server licences are far more expensives than client ones (and this way you also eliminate the CAL licences costs), and also because most companies don't feel that Linux is quite there yet to replace Windows on the desktop, leave alone the lack of the specific applications they work with.
On a study sponsored by the MPAA, scientist have found that watching movies on your computer screen will cause serious damage to your eyeglobes. This holds even more true if the movies are your legally bought DVD discs under a non-M$ operating system, or some divx copy downloaded from your favorite p2p network. The latter could make your eyes bleed.
Slashdot Mirror
The nvu FAQ states explicitly that it's based off Mozilla Composer....
High quality version here. And there is also a text-only version of the script here.
I participate in a local TV show about computers, the Internet, and the technologies surrounding them. Me, along with a friend, talk about Linux. Another friend talks about Apple, and a fourth one about Windows. In this week edition, we got a rep. from Microsoft and one from Apple, and we made a forum with the pros and cons of every Operating System. One of the arguments of the Microsoft people against Linux is that the code has no property at all, and all the legal problems that come with it, putting the SCO as an example to scare customers off.
This kind of reactions just give them more material to put over their mouths to argue about the illegality of Linux and the people behind it, and that we are just a bunch of hackers with no respect for IP or whatsoever.
The bad thing is that the (un)especialised media likes to generalize and now the Linux community is putting an ultimatum on Microsoft for them to release something that they don't even intend to, and that will not lead them to biggest sales.
I'm afraid you're not paying enough attention here, kid. The 55808 number which the article and news sources refers to is the window-size of the TCP packet header, not the size of the packet itself.
But anyways, thanks for playing.
If I would have checked slashdot twenty years ago, this could have been really useful!
So does this means that we won't be able to get any more unofficial Atari t-shirts with the Atari logo on it?
On a side note, the slashdot guys couldn't have chosen an uglier color scheme for the games section of the site?
You can't blame and even sue free software developers because it's free, you haven't paid anything for it and it's expressed so in the license. See points 11 and 12 of the GPL as an example (it's even all in capital letters):
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Take a look at the open_basedir directive in php.ini, it will allow you to specify the relative root path for which PHP has access to files.
/home/web/masterslate.org/htdocs />o cation>
Of course this would be useless if you couldn't set it on a per virtualhost basis (asuming you use Apache):
<VirtualHost www.masterslate.org>
ServerName www.masterslate.org
DocumentRoot
<Location
php_admin_value open_basedir "/home/web/masterslate.org/:/usr/lib/php/"
</L
<VirtualHost>
That would do the trick.
(Another) security bug is discovered on Microsoft software, which affects Windows NT 4. It also affectes Windows 2000 and Windows XP, which clearly means that the later two are direct derivates of NT 4 (which we all already know).
So now Microsoft is refusing to issue a fix for NT 4, arguing that there is no way they could make it so that no other existing apps stop working. But a fix for 2k and XP has already been done. That's because of the great differences between NT 4 and 2k/xp, nonetheless they are based on the same product.
So how come that, being 2k and xp SO different from NT, that they can still run the same apps without needing any modification? How come there is no way to patch a NT4 system so that it can still run the same apps but they can surely do it over 2k and XP, and the same applications will still run without a problem over the same system.
This is clearly a move from Microsoft to force their customers to either upgrade their NT 4 installations, or else they are left to their own luck. Many people WON'T upgrade their NT 4 because that just works for them, because their hardware is not powerful enough for a 2k/xp system, or because any other reason they can think of.
Windows NT 4 has been in the market for about seven or eight years now (if my memory isn't failing it was released almos alongside with Win95). This recently discovered vulnerability has always been there since then. What would have happened if someone discovered before w2k was released? Would still Microsoft be unable to release a patch for it because it would break the whole system down?
I've seen many posts saying that noone should have port 135 open to the world. That port shouldn't be listening for request from the whole world, in the first place. There is no way you can know which ports that (for some obscure reason, valid for Microsoft of course) are listening represents a threat to the security of the system. Sure, the same could be said (no) about Linux and other systems, but there's always a way to shut them off and not let the system in a non working state.
And that's all I have to say about it.
That's because, if you would bother checking, you'd find out that the samba vulnerability news were published las t saturday.
ptrace is a function, not a program.
This Internet Connection Sharing thing you're talking about, my friend, is what is called NAT - Network Address Translation. It is often referred to as the way to connect more than one host through a single IP connection, as the one you have (and most domestic users has). The document here talks about a way to trace over those users which are using a single connection to 'share' to more than one host, and how the ISPs could use it to put an end on their contract with you in case they detect this. I know most users does this, and I don't understand why ISPs prohibit this behavior, further than economical reasons.
Does this mean that the GNU/iPod (lol) will be able to play OGG files?
But does it have a dupe-story-checker? ;-)
LOL, of all the Jar Jar related posts, this one really made me laugh
LOL, if I had mod points today I would rate the parent as being Funny.
:)
Jokes aside, the groundhog day is one of my favorite movies, even tho it's a very strange one... it sure reflects the reality here on Slashdot, when you wake up a day and run to your browser in the morning just to check out the latest headlines, and being sure you already knew them
How come that most of these companies are the ones behind all the Palladium/TCPA stuff? I guess they need to make up their minds...
At this or any other thread here on slashdot mentioning the need for a portable music player with OGG support!
I live in Chile, which is very close to Brazil, and the situation is almost the same down here. The biggest computer sales are from integrators, leaving the known brands to a very few customers.
Most of them (if not all) buys the computers with everything installed ('yeah, I can give you that software, and this other one as well') but without the licences, just a Windows XP licence costs as much as a complete low end Duron system (which is what most non-gamer people buys). This situation barely changes into the companies, where they are somewhat forced to get their software licenced when they get a notification from the ADS (think of it as the local BSA) saying they'll be inspected.
So, the thing is slowly beggining to change. I don't sell hardware, but I do give Linux consulting services to companies. I've already migrated a bunch of M$ servers on small networks to the Linux platform, mostly because server licences are far more expensives than client ones (and this way you also eliminate the CAL licences costs), and also because most companies don't feel that Linux is quite there yet to replace Windows on the desktop, leave alone the lack of the specific applications they work with.
Only 8 comments and the poor guy's webcam site is already slashdotted.
As I understood, those hoverboards were powered by superconductors, but again there would be a temperature issue there.
On a study sponsored by the MPAA, scientist have found that watching movies on your computer screen will cause serious damage to your eyeglobes. This holds even more true if the movies are your legally bought DVD discs under a non-M$ operating system, or some divx copy downloaded from your favorite p2p network. The latter could make your eyes bleed.
sponsored by the RIAA?
Here's the Google Cache Google Cache [google.com].
So google has a cached copy of its own cache? Damn that must take a whole lot of RAID disks, imagine a beowulf cluster of those!
Unreal Tournament, of course.