Yeah but their power of 10 increase isn't globally applicable to many types of encryption breaking, it exists due to a flaw in Microsoft's specific implementation, so really the original poster is right, this isn't big news of any sort.
I can't imagine it would have made the front page at all if not for the usual "See how insecure Micro$oft is!" Slashdot biases.
Well... supposedly they shouldn't need support since they have all the source code and can read it at will, debug it, redeploy it, and resubmit all changes to VMWare;) Oh wait, that might require hiring even more folks...
Not to mention the fact that VMWare isn't even open source, so your post pretty much doesn't make any sense.
In my experience, the only way to wean users is to burn the bridges...Otherwise why won't they keep just using the VMWare's Windows install if that is what they know?
First off, the ideal *does* work in this world, or else open source software wouldn't have the impetus it does right now.
Great -- for him. For most people, going out to work on Free Software and hoping the grants follow just isn't a wise move...you know, people with families, etc.
First off, the ideal *does* work in this world, or else open source software wouldn't have the impetus it does right now.
Open Source's current surge in popularity is due mostly to greed. Companies see it as a way to get operating systems and other software FOR FREE. They don't care that the source is available..don't even kid yourself that they do.
No, I think the argument is that a (L)GPL body of code can link with a proprietary body of code, but vice versa is not the case.
Ah but my point is that if their interpretation of the rules for Java is correct, there IS NO vice versa. Because everything is late-bound. If everything is runtime-bound, how do you specify what 'direction' the linking is going?
However, Java programmers have generally believed that Section 6 does not apply to them, because Java is a late-binding language
I believe you've summed up the issue correctly, but my question is this... If Section 6 DOES apply to late-binding languages, how can anything written in Java be GPLed or LGPLed considering that these *GPLed libraries will have to link with Sun's Java base library set (for String and other base classes) which are "Shared Source" but aren't Free Source/*GPL?
Isn't this a catch-22 right out of the gate which disallows you from ever using those licenses with Java unless you somehow manage to avoid using any of the base Java runtime library code?
Re:the slashdot story is mis-interpreting the post
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The post states that you cannot import or "lift" any lgpl code * code * code into another project unless that project becomes lgpl'd also. This is correct; however, the resulting lgpl'd library (binary) can be called / used by a non-lgpl'd project. It is really not that confusing.
You are absolutely wrong. What they are really saying is that the LGPL works virtually the same as the GPL when it comes to Java code because Java code doesn't use early linking, everything is bound at runtime, thus there is no clear separation between one LGPL library and other libraries used by an application, or between the LGPL library and the application itself.
If you follow this to its logical conclusion (which I haven't seen done in by the 'FSF-license guy') what you wind up with is the fact that you just cannot use the LGPL license with Java at all since the LGPL license conflicts with Java's own base set of libraries, which are shared source, but not free software in the *GPL sense.
Matt: if you're reading this, I loved DICE, and all your other work on the Amiga - your compiler is one of the reasons I'm a programmer today. I hadn't been keeping up with your work but it's good to see you're still out there doing stuff.:)
(seems a lot of the old Amiga 'big names' have gone on to do interesting stuff in the time since)
I agree with what you wrote. Also he was great in Drugstore Cowboy and The Outsiders.
Not really. One qualifier here is that the movie did very well at the box office. For turkeys like Daredevil and Tears of the Sun, it isn't that uncommon to rush them out to video to try to recoup at least some of the filmmaking expenses without having to do a whole new marketing push.
5 lbs may not cause most people to fall over and die, but if it's something you're carrying around all day, the less weight the better. Even a few pounds can quickly become annoying.
Who is actually carrying around their laptop all day? And if they really are carrying around their laptop all day, why do they even have it, considering they aren't really usable while being carried? 5 pounds is nothing.
Microsoft isn't evil, it is just a corporation. If you can't deal with that maybe you should movie to Russia, you damn hippie -- wait, nevermind, they are capitalist too now. Ok, maybe you should KILL YOURSELF.
Actually, I have banking software that only works in windows (well it's more secure, what would you expect a bank to use?), it crashes 1 out 5 times I use it at a rough guess. But then that would probably be a hardware problem wouldn't it?
Uh, no, it would probably be a software problem with your banking software, not the OS.
What is it with all the shitheads who think lose is spelled LOOSE?
Yeah I'm talking to you. Maybe when you've mastered the English language people will give a fuck about your opinions on what the courts should or shouldn't do.
Galaxies LOOKS great (speaking of the graphics here), but playing it is a snorefest.
On the other hand Planetside (another SOE game) looks pretty average (at best) for an FPS game, but it is the most fun I've had gaming in a long while. If you like FPS games but you haven't tried Planetside, find a friend who has and see if they still have their 7 day "give to a friend" code so you can try it out.
You do need a pretty beefy computer and network connection to play it, but some of the large scale 100+ person battles with troops and vehicles (both ground and flying) have to be experienced to be believed.
Every hacker on the planet has full access to the code - which means that they can review it and find vulnerabilities in it.
Do you know how long it takes to read someone else's code on something like an Apache-level webserver and understand it to the point where you can make useful changes and fixes? The big lie of the "all bugs are shallow" argument is that such a thing is simple, when in fact it is not.
Fixing a non-obvious bug in a 100k or so line C or C++ project is hard enough when you wrote the code yourself. If someone else wrote the code, it is harder still.
None of that bug report is at all useful if there is no logical way for all of those preconditions they listed to actually be met.
I mean, yeah, it would be nice if code would explicitly check for a NULL before dereferencing, but if there's no earthly way for the pointer to actually BE a NULL pointer at that time (barring memory corruption -- in which case all bets are off and your code is doomed anyway) then I wouldn't call those errors.
How does your being a thief equate to him blowing it?
Perhaps he realizes that no amount of copy protection in the world will stop someone with access to the PrntScreen key and a copy of MS Paint from making perfect digital copies of his comic, eh?
What Stephen King tried, and what failed, was a donation system -- the book was available for free download to anyone who wanted it, and then you were expected to pay some amount of dollars if you supported the author's choice to make the book chapters available freely.
With these micropayments you pay first, then access the content. Just like a porn site, but cheaper and with less fake boobs.
Whether this is good or not might depend upon if you're a developer considering writing Linux software. While it might not seem that tough to just support "Linux", the minor differences in all the different distros can really balloon into major QA, tech support and release engineering (as each distro tends to have different preferred package handling systems) headaches.
I think this hurts Linux as an application target more than most people realize, and I hope one of the many announced standardization efforts actually produces something other than talk and press releases soon.
Well on the one hand this is great news, on the other hand despite what the press release says I don't see any way to configure a system to ship with Mandrake instead of Windows XP on their little site store page that is linked into that press release. All of the d220 models I see listed are shipping with Windows XP with no way to change that option (I was hoping to see what kind of price difference, if any, that option would cause).
Hopefully this is just a case of the press releasing being issued a bit before the website is changed to handle the new systems fully.
And clearly he's talking about GUI libraries... instead of multiple good C++ and C based multi-platform GUI libraries, he prefers another model, more like javas, where you get one crappy library and save yourself a lot of thinking!
He should use wxWindows. It isn't crappy, it is C++ based and it allows you to deploy your app on Win32, Mac, GNOME and QT, all with native look and feel for the specific platform you target. HUZZAH!
Slashdot Mirror
I can't imagine it would have made the front page at all if not for the usual "See how insecure Micro$oft is!" Slashdot biases.
I have? I haven't noticed. Do these pants make my ass look big?
Not to mention the fact that VMWare isn't even open source, so your post pretty much doesn't make any sense.
In my experience, the only way to wean users is to burn the bridges...Otherwise why won't they keep just using the VMWare's Windows install if that is what they know?
Great -- for him. For most people, going out to work on Free Software and hoping the grants follow just isn't a wise move...you know, people with families, etc.
Open Source's current surge in popularity is due mostly to greed. Companies see it as a way to get operating systems and other software FOR FREE. They don't care that the source is available..don't even kid yourself that they do.
Ah but my point is that if their interpretation of the rules for Java is correct, there IS NO vice versa. Because everything is late-bound. If everything is runtime-bound, how do you specify what 'direction' the linking is going?
I believe you've summed up the issue correctly, but my question is this... If Section 6 DOES apply to late-binding languages, how can anything written in Java be GPLed or LGPLed considering that these *GPLed libraries will have to link with Sun's Java base library set (for String and other base classes) which are "Shared Source" but aren't Free Source/*GPL?
Isn't this a catch-22 right out of the gate which disallows you from ever using those licenses with Java unless you somehow manage to avoid using any of the base Java runtime library code?
You are absolutely wrong. What they are really saying is that the LGPL works virtually the same as the GPL when it comes to Java code because Java code doesn't use early linking, everything is bound at runtime, thus there is no clear separation between one LGPL library and other libraries used by an application, or between the LGPL library and the application itself.
If you follow this to its logical conclusion (which I haven't seen done in by the 'FSF-license guy') what you wind up with is the fact that you just cannot use the LGPL license with Java at all since the LGPL license conflicts with Java's own base set of libraries, which are shared source, but not free software in the *GPL sense.
I agree with what you wrote. Also he was great in Drugstore Cowboy and The Outsiders.
Not really. One qualifier here is that the movie did very well at the box office. For turkeys like Daredevil and Tears of the Sun, it isn't that uncommon to rush them out to video to try to recoup at least some of the filmmaking expenses without having to do a whole new marketing push.
Um, brush up on your English?
Who is actually carrying around their laptop all day? And if they really are carrying around their laptop all day, why do they even have it, considering they aren't really usable while being carried? 5 pounds is nothing.
Microsoft isn't evil, it is just a corporation. If you can't deal with that maybe you should movie to Russia, you damn hippie -- wait, nevermind, they are capitalist too now. Ok, maybe you should KILL YOURSELF.
Some other noteworthy lessons...
I learned how to jack a car from GTA3.
How to fire a machine gun from Quake 2.
How to run over pedestrians efficiently in Carmageddon.
Uh, no, it would probably be a software problem with your banking software, not the OS.
What is it with all the shitheads who think lose is spelled LOOSE?
Yeah I'm talking to you. Maybe when you've mastered the English language people will give a fuck about your opinions on what the courts should or shouldn't do.
On the other hand Planetside (another SOE game) looks pretty average (at best) for an FPS game, but it is the most fun I've had gaming in a long while. If you like FPS games but you haven't tried Planetside, find a friend who has and see if they still have their 7 day "give to a friend" code so you can try it out.
You do need a pretty beefy computer and network connection to play it, but some of the large scale 100+ person battles with troops and vehicles (both ground and flying) have to be experienced to be believed.
Do you know how long it takes to read someone else's code on something like an Apache-level webserver and understand it to the point where you can make useful changes and fixes? The big lie of the "all bugs are shallow" argument is that such a thing is simple, when in fact it is not.
Fixing a non-obvious bug in a 100k or so line C or C++ project is hard enough when you wrote the code yourself. If someone else wrote the code, it is harder still.
I mean, yeah, it would be nice if code would explicitly check for a NULL before dereferencing, but if there's no earthly way for the pointer to actually BE a NULL pointer at that time (barring memory corruption -- in which case all bets are off and your code is doomed anyway) then I wouldn't call those errors.
This whole exercise seems very suspect to me.
Perhaps he realizes that no amount of copy protection in the world will stop someone with access to the PrntScreen key and a copy of MS Paint from making perfect digital copies of his comic, eh?
What Stephen King tried, and what failed, was a donation system -- the book was available for free download to anyone who wanted it, and then you were expected to pay some amount of dollars if you supported the author's choice to make the book chapters available freely.
With these micropayments you pay first, then access the content. Just like a porn site, but cheaper and with less fake boobs.
I think this hurts Linux as an application target more than most people realize, and I hope one of the many announced standardization efforts actually produces something other than talk and press releases soon.
Hopefully this is just a case of the press releasing being issued a bit before the website is changed to handle the new systems fully.
He should use wxWindows. It isn't crappy, it is C++ based and it allows you to deploy your app on Win32, Mac, GNOME and QT, all with native look and feel for the specific platform you target. HUZZAH!