Guys, this as others have already asserted, is very old tech. It goes back to days of Morse code use in the military. Morse operators could authenticate another sender's identitiy (or whether he was sending his message under duress and potentially compromised) by what was called his "fist", or the rhythm of the transmission. Notably, Imprivata made an effort a couple of years ago to monetize this approach, but it is as many have pointed out fraught with multiple issues depending on how you enter and/or manage your passwords.
I'm not even a GPL/GNU zealot, but I think I can clear this all up. It does look like ESX has a problem.
Distribute any binary kernel-mode module alone under any license you like - OK
Distribute a product which in part consists of an unmodified kernel with no (neither by directly modifying existing kernel code nor by extending kernel via insmod or vmkmod or similar methods) added functionality in kernel mode space with GPL source for that kernel but none for your non-kernel mode functionality- Still OK
Distribute a nonfree kernel module and separately distribute a "stock" kernel with GPL source of that kernel - Still OK (consider nonfree trees separately available for many distros)
distribute the two mentioned immediately above together not separately - NOT OK, or at least generally not considered so by the people who have thought about this the most. Whether or no the judicial arm would side with them is obviously fodder for debate, but the intent has been made very clear and has been done for a while now. The whole point of GPL is that
the right to modify the function or the substance of the GPL work in any way you like is conferred upon you explicitly and without any restriction
the right to redistribute the GPL work is conferred upon you -- provided you
have not modified the GPL work - OR -
make the modified work and full source available under the terms of the GPL as well
So the whole thing can be distilled down to one simple question really: does a kernel running with a proprietary kernel-mode module constitue a modified kernel? LT would say unequivocally it does, and etymology would probably back him up. Mode, module, modify... hmmm... Module modifies mode.
Plenty has been made of the exception whereby a binary, proprietary kernel mode module may be distributed with the GPL work in question (the kernel) and sans source or conferred GPL rights for the module if said binary module can be proven to
implement standard interfaces that are not unique to the GPL kernel
otherwise be shown to run unmodified on some other kernel
A lot of pure idealists like to argue that this exception is bullshit and is Linus' way of worming aound the issue for ATI and NVidia because it would hurt the platform if he didn't. But that's a specious argument. The truth is, it allows the letter of the agreement to fit its spirit. Those modules do not hook the kernel functions in any unique ways. In fact, they are exported from implementations on other platforms. As such, they are not relying on unique features of the LINUX kernel to pull off functionality they couldn't pull off anywhere else or at least not without significant effort. That's why to Linus, distributing ATI or NVidia binary proprietary drivers is not that big a deal and why he came up with a special case for that scenario. Unfortunately for VMWare, the case for vmkmod/vmkernel is far less clear, and none of the people who know what the deal is have stepped up to dismiss that question, although they have made plenty of distracting gestures. And it is the ONLY question. I for one hope they can trot out a demo of something else loading and unmodified vmkmod + vmkernel and put it all to rest. But considering the bitching has gone on for over a year and they haven't so much as even implied they could, I'm doubtful. I'd surely think if they could have cleared the air on this before the IPO, they would have.
If VMWare can exhibit this module performing its functions without being loaded by the LINUX kernel, then they are acquitted before any trial. If they cannot and the GPL grantors want to indict, this could be the truest test of the GPL ever imagined, as it really gets down to the heart of it. I su
Yes, they were, and they re-wrote most of their stack to deal with it. They're still one of the best of breed. You just can't match their features for the money. I deploy about 50-60 of their units a year.
SpamHaus is one of the most conscientious, well-organized, ethical and reliable lists around. Their SBL-XBL list is nothing short of essential in weighting ham and spam. I don't rely upon RBL information alone when weighting ham and spam, but if I did, I'd use spamhaus and nothing else. I'd agree with poster that RBLs are not all that great a single measure and YMMV, but don't spread FUD about spamhaus. They're great.
Mod down, reactionary sputum, long on accusations and completely empty of facts. I'm not saying it isn't possible; I'm saying there has never been presented any evidence to support the claim that MS has bundled a backdoor in any product or for sure that there is anything more breakable about MS-Crypto in regards to email, SSL, etc. than anything else. Substitute money for mouth and maybe I'll recant.
Another exaple of our tax-dollar-paid servants not applying themsleves to the task mentally:
"A U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official warned today that if software distributors continue to sell products with dangerous rootkit software, as Sony BMG Music Entertainment recently did, legislation or regulation could follow."
The important thing to keep in mind is that, while SONY may have a software division, the product sold wasn't even a software product at all, and no disclosure of a software product was discussed in any terms of sale, etc. The whole software angle was completely surrepetitious. It's not just "software distributors" that need policing here. When it boils down to it, this SONY division had no business "engineering" software into their product; they had little grasp of the ethics or the technical implications of what they were doing... or at least that's what they tell us now. For all we know, they were fully aware and just did it anyway thinking plausible deniability was all they would need when it came to light. If indeed they thought so, they would seem to have been prescient - nothing has happeded because of it. I for one am a bit surprised at that.
If you haven't very demanding third-party driver support, install Automated Deployment Services (the successor to RIS) and slipstream your source. Stop wasting CDs and ISO burn time and do it in a truly manageable way. Even involved driver dependencies can be integrated, but you have to actually learn about what you're doing to make that happen. But when you need to deploy a lot of windows servers at once or the same kind over and over, this is the most straightforward way to get a consistent build and keep the patches current.
Watch your ass. When he says "time to go", I get the distinct impression it is as in "go at it", or kick somebody's ass. Good, liberty-loving people will only take so much. Intimidation can work both ways and the various enemies of real freedom who have hijacked the process need to remind themselves what happens "when in the course of human events it becomes necessary..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Well, as far as Exchange 5.5 goes, you do indeed have a point beyond any contest I can muster.
But Netscape's server products really had little in the way of requiring the communicator suite on the client. Any browser, mail client, directory browser, etc. would do fine. They just happened to have a free (beer) one you could use, but you know you get what you pay for. But no, I still maintain Netscape server products didn't sell better because their administration apps were klunkier than alternatives by competitors.
I thought the same thing. The answer is they really didn't do anything revolutionary to the UI they bought from Netscape. Netscape's server products were actually pretty OK under the hood, but they never sold because they were even uglier in the UI than the current Redmond offerings of the time. Tsk, tsk.
You're of course assuming SONY didn't do the due dilligence and decide to go ahead anyway. They may have known but decided "hey it's binary AND it's hidden. Nobody's gonna find it, and if they do, they'll be so pissed about what it does they won't even worry about what it used to do it. Seriously, if somebody finds us out, we'll have bigger problems than the (L)GPL." Which they do, only it's with two parties: the infringed against (separate problem, really GPL has nought to do with it) and the very pissed off and seriously impacted customers. There are two massive and divergent cases here, and SONY deserves everything it gets with both of them.
Right, but you're arguing utility of diversity in disciplines now. Sorry to butt in on you two, but you're miles away from OP. He asked what DS he should run on his network.
The truth of the matter is that most corps who implement DS today don't view it as a business-critical endeavour until later when all the DS-aware apps come sit on top of it. By then there is often a painful lesson to be learned about planning properly from the start. My advice to OP would be to screw what his in-house techs know the most about if they are not multi-disciplinary DS experts.
Determine which apps you really need your DS to support, contract with certified experts to help you properly plan and provision for it. Have them deploy it and train your in-house staff on maintaining it, plus have a support contract with the experts to do monthly maintenance which includes continually increasing your in-house staff's awareness and knowledge on the inner workings and best practices, etc.
Involved implementing DS may be; rocket science it is not.
Many would argue that Strats sound best through vintage Fender amps and that Les Pauls and the lot are better though the Jim Marshall kit. I'm in that camp.
No, this is not looking at the big picture. The system works amazingly well. The problem is that the system has been repurposed and now performs a function nearly diametrically-opposed to its previous role. Point of origin: the day corporations were provided equal protection [as compared to individuals] under the law. Human beings have god-given rights... all theist systems generally accept this and even the atheist systems tend still to value the right of the individual person. But coporations are not persons and they are most certainly not citizens. At once the bad guys use the facade of a corporation to:
Garner protection under the law which individuals do not easily obtain
Abstract their own personal responsibility and liability
You have to be careful when making assertions like this. My first introduction to the 9.x series left me with the same impression, but I was wrong. What you have to take into account when using devices with this level of sophistication is that problems can arise at many different junctions, and it isn't necessarily f5 Networks' fault that it is difficult for you to find the root cause of a problem in your SSL termination, iRules chaining or whatever other LTM (local traffic manager) function you're using. It's sophisticated stuff. I had a moderate climb ahead of me when we first started using 4.5x, but 9.x was even more so. But it's not f5's fault that they have delivered a very versatile product that does many things which you may have to think about (hard!) to get a firm grasp upon them. There are to be sure some things in their UI that they could clean up in the way of settings that might be superfluous in a certain configuration (I suspect that it the type of thing you're complaining about above), but that is no reason to trash their whole product. In fact, if you point it out, they may well listen, which is all you could hope for out of your beloved OSS router. Show me a single OSS package that even hints at a claim to half the things a BigIP F5 LTM version 9 series does and I'll shut up.
You can say "so I suspect that 'sound' of a pop group relies more on features such as the performer's voices and instrumentation than a particular 'style' embedded in the music itself." and get away with it, but not in reference to the Beatles. There is much about their stylings that is recognizable. That each of them cross-trained on many instruments helped them to transcend the instrumentation with their idioms too, so to say that they simply came from the instrumentation is erroneous, too. Had you been talking about the Monkees or the Partridges, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You're missing part of it. Your assumption is based on the only variances in a particular reading being timing, inflection, etc. This is just absurd and you're reducing the role of the performer to that of recitation, which is erroneous. Listen to instances of Miles' interpretations of the same tunes, separated by a few decades. Or if you need a living example, try, say, Santana. There's a lot more variation in musical performance than what you imply. Hell, listen to the Goldberg Variations to get what I mean. If you're any kind of performer at all, you're not just pulling it off the page, unless you're part of an orchestra or something. And those kinds of arrangements can have amazing variations as well. For example, listen to old recordings of Count Basie improvising a whole ensemble on the pipe organ while Joe Williams sings. That's the kind of expression these guys are talking about being able to simulate and find variations of. I think you missed that. The historic virtuosi of the pianofotre or WTC can be much more likened to these types than to some poor soul who plays it the same night after night.
That you "...fail to understand what makes digital systems inherently incapable of sounding exactly the same as analog systems" says it all. It is the same difference in principle (exactly, really) between (a) approximating the area under a curve and (b) actually calculating it. This is a pretty basic concept and if you can't master that you may need to stay in the kiddie pool.
Are you familiar with the mathematical constructs of differentials and integrals? You may need a visit from the Epsilon Man and his trusty sidekick, Delta Boy. If you are still early on in math, don't sweat it. But if (like your low SlashID would imply) you have reached beyond adolescence and you still don't grasp why a digital signal can never be as complete as the analog analogue, you might reconsider whether Slashdot is a place for you.
Windu: What does Sidious look like? Dooku: Hutt? Windu: What country you from? Dooku: Hutt? Windu: Hutt ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in Hutt? Dooku: Hutt? Windu: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT? Dooku: Yes! Windu: Then you know what I'm saying! Dooku: Yes! Windu: Describe what Sidious looks like! Dooku: Hutt, I-? Windu: [pointing his sabre] Say Hutt again. SAY Hutt AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker. Say Hutt one more goddamn time. Dooku: He's p-p-pale... Windu: Go on. Dooku: He's bald... Windu: Does he look like a bitch? Dooku: Hutt?
Slashdot Mirror
Guys, this as others have already asserted, is very old tech. It goes back to days of Morse code use in the military. Morse operators could authenticate another sender's identitiy (or whether he was sending his message under duress and potentially compromised) by what was called his "fist", or the rhythm of the transmission. Notably, Imprivata made an effort a couple of years ago to monetize this approach, but it is as many have pointed out fraught with multiple issues depending on how you enter and/or manage your passwords.
What about Gamma?
So the whole thing can be distilled down to one simple question really: does a kernel running with a proprietary kernel-mode module constitue a modified kernel? LT would say unequivocally it does, and etymology would probably back him up. Mode, module, modify... hmmm... Module modifies mode.
Plenty has been made of the exception whereby a binary, proprietary kernel mode module may be distributed with the GPL work in question (the kernel) and sans source or conferred GPL rights for the module if said binary module can be proven to
A lot of pure idealists like to argue that this exception is bullshit and is Linus' way of worming aound the issue for ATI and NVidia because it would hurt the platform if he didn't. But that's a specious argument. The truth is, it allows the letter of the agreement to fit its spirit. Those modules do not hook the kernel functions in any unique ways. In fact, they are exported from implementations on other platforms. As such, they are not relying on unique features of the LINUX kernel to pull off functionality they couldn't pull off anywhere else or at least not without significant effort. That's why to Linus, distributing ATI or NVidia binary proprietary drivers is not that big a deal and why he came up with a special case for that scenario. Unfortunately for VMWare, the case for vmkmod/vmkernel is far less clear, and none of the people who know what the deal is have stepped up to dismiss that question, although they have made plenty of distracting gestures. And it is the ONLY question. I for one hope they can trot out a demo of something else loading and unmodified vmkmod + vmkernel and put it all to rest. But considering the bitching has gone on for over a year and they haven't so much as even implied they could, I'm doubtful. I'd surely think if they could have cleared the air on this before the IPO, they would have.
If VMWare can exhibit this module performing its functions without being loaded by the LINUX kernel, then they are acquitted before any trial. If they cannot and the GPL grantors want to indict, this could be the truest test of the GPL ever imagined, as it really gets down to the heart of it. I su
to us.
Yes, they were, and they re-wrote most of their stack to deal with it. They're still one of the best of breed. You just can't match their features for the money. I deploy about 50-60 of their units a year.
SpamHaus is one of the most conscientious, well-organized, ethical and reliable lists around. Their SBL-XBL list is nothing short of essential in weighting ham and spam. I don't rely upon RBL information alone when weighting ham and spam, but if I did, I'd use spamhaus and nothing else. I'd agree with poster that RBLs are not all that great a single measure and YMMV, but don't spread FUD about spamhaus. They're great.
Mod down, reactionary sputum, long on accusations and completely empty of facts. I'm not saying it isn't possible; I'm saying there has never been presented any evidence to support the claim that MS has bundled a backdoor in any product or for sure that there is anything more breakable about MS-Crypto in regards to email, SSL, etc. than anything else. Substitute money for mouth and maybe I'll recant.
The important thing to keep in mind is that, while SONY may have a software division, the product sold wasn't even a software product at all, and no disclosure of a software product was discussed in any terms of sale, etc. The whole software angle was completely surrepetitious. It's not just "software distributors" that need policing here. When it boils down to it, this SONY division had no business "engineering" software into their product; they had little grasp of the ethics or the technical implications of what they were doing... or at least that's what they tell us now. For all we know, they were fully aware and just did it anyway thinking plausible deniability was all they would need when it came to light. If indeed they thought so, they would seem to have been prescient - nothing has happeded because of it. I for one am a bit surprised at that.
If you haven't very demanding third-party driver support, install Automated Deployment Services (the successor to RIS) and slipstream your source. Stop wasting CDs and ISO burn time and do it in a truly manageable way. Even involved driver dependencies can be integrated, but you have to actually learn about what you're doing to make that happen. But when you need to deploy a lot of windows servers at once or the same kind over and over, this is the most straightforward way to get a consistent build and keep the patches current.
Watch your ass. When he says "time to go", I get the distinct impression it is as in "go at it", or kick somebody's ass. Good, liberty-loving people will only take so much. Intimidation can work both ways and the various enemies of real freedom who have hijacked the process need to remind themselves what happens "when in the course of human events it becomes necessary..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Well, as far as Exchange 5.5 goes, you do indeed have a point beyond any contest I can muster. But Netscape's server products really had little in the way of requiring the communicator suite on the client. Any browser, mail client, directory browser, etc. would do fine. They just happened to have a free (beer) one you could use, but you know you get what you pay for. But no, I still maintain Netscape server products didn't sell better because their administration apps were klunkier than alternatives by competitors.
I thought the same thing. The answer is they really didn't do anything revolutionary to the UI they bought from Netscape. Netscape's server products were actually pretty OK under the hood, but they never sold because they were even uglier in the UI than the current Redmond offerings of the time. Tsk, tsk.
You're of course assuming SONY didn't do the due dilligence and decide to go ahead anyway. They may have known but decided "hey it's binary AND it's hidden. Nobody's gonna find it, and if they do, they'll be so pissed about what it does they won't even worry about what it used to do it. Seriously, if somebody finds us out, we'll have bigger problems than the (L)GPL." Which they do, only it's with two parties: the infringed against (separate problem, really GPL has nought to do with it) and the very pissed off and seriously impacted customers. There are two massive and divergent cases here, and SONY deserves everything it gets with both of them.
Right, but you're arguing utility of diversity in disciplines now. Sorry to butt in on you two, but you're miles away from OP. He asked what DS he should run on his network.
The truth of the matter is that most corps who implement DS today don't view it as a business-critical endeavour until later when all the DS-aware apps come sit on top of it. By then there is often a painful lesson to be learned about planning properly from the start. My advice to OP would be to screw what his in-house techs know the most about if they are not multi-disciplinary DS experts.
Determine which apps you really need your DS to support, contract with certified experts to help you properly plan and provision for it. Have them deploy it and train your in-house staff on maintaining it, plus have a support contract with the experts to do monthly maintenance which includes continually increasing your in-house staff's awareness and knowledge on the inner workings and best practices, etc.
Involved implementing DS may be; rocket science it is not.
Mod up. Always forgotten, no less true!
Many would argue that Strats sound best through vintage Fender amps and that Les Pauls and the lot are better though the Jim Marshall kit. I'm in that camp.
You have to be careful when making assertions like this. My first introduction to the 9.x series left me with the same impression, but I was wrong. What you have to take into account when using devices with this level of sophistication is that problems can arise at many different junctions, and it isn't necessarily f5 Networks' fault that it is difficult for you to find the root cause of a problem in your SSL termination, iRules chaining or whatever other LTM (local traffic manager) function you're using. It's sophisticated stuff. I had a moderate climb ahead of me when we first started using 4.5x, but 9.x was even more so. But it's not f5's fault that they have delivered a very versatile product that does many things which you may have to think about (hard!) to get a firm grasp upon them. There are to be sure some things in their UI that they could clean up in the way of settings that might be superfluous in a certain configuration (I suspect that it the type of thing you're complaining about above), but that is no reason to trash their whole product. In fact, if you point it out, they may well listen, which is all you could hope for out of your beloved OSS router. Show me a single OSS package that even hints at a claim to half the things a BigIP F5 LTM version 9 series does and I'll shut up.
Fair enough. Well said, too.
You can say "so I suspect that 'sound' of a pop group relies more on features such as the performer's voices and instrumentation than a particular 'style' embedded in the music itself." and get away with it, but not in reference to the Beatles. There is much about their stylings that is recognizable. That each of them cross-trained on many instruments helped them to transcend the instrumentation with their idioms too, so to say that they simply came from the instrumentation is erroneous, too. Had you been talking about the Monkees or the Partridges, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's unfortunate, but you are right.
You're missing part of it. Your assumption is based on the only variances in a particular reading being timing, inflection, etc. This is just absurd and you're reducing the role of the performer to that of recitation, which is erroneous. Listen to instances of Miles' interpretations of the same tunes, separated by a few decades. Or if you need a living example, try, say, Santana. There's a lot more variation in musical performance than what you imply. Hell, listen to the Goldberg Variations to get what I mean. If you're any kind of performer at all, you're not just pulling it off the page, unless you're part of an orchestra or something. And those kinds of arrangements can have amazing variations as well. For example, listen to old recordings of Count Basie improvising a whole ensemble on the pipe organ while Joe Williams sings. That's the kind of expression these guys are talking about being able to simulate and find variations of. I think you missed that. The historic virtuosi of the pianofotre or WTC can be much more likened to these types than to some poor soul who plays it the same night after night.
That you "...fail to understand what makes digital systems inherently incapable of sounding exactly the same as analog systems" says it all. It is the same difference in principle (exactly, really) between (a) approximating the area under a curve and (b) actually calculating it. This is a pretty basic concept and if you can't master that you may need to stay in the kiddie pool.
Are you familiar with the mathematical constructs of differentials and integrals? You may need a visit from the Epsilon Man and his trusty sidekick, Delta Boy. If you are still early on in math, don't sweat it. But if (like your low SlashID would imply) you have reached beyond adolescence and you still don't grasp why a digital signal can never be as complete as the analog analogue, you might reconsider whether Slashdot is a place for you.
Windu: What does Sidious look like?
Dooku: Hutt?
Windu: What country you from?
Dooku: Hutt?
Windu: Hutt ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in Hutt?
Dooku: Hutt?
Windu: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?
Dooku: Yes!
Windu: Then you know what I'm saying!
Dooku: Yes!
Windu: Describe what Sidious looks like!
Dooku: Hutt, I-?
Windu: [pointing his sabre] Say Hutt again. SAY Hutt AGAIN. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker. Say Hutt one more goddamn time.
Dooku: He's p-p-pale...
Windu: Go on.
Dooku: He's bald...
Windu: Does he look like a bitch?
Dooku: Hutt?