1) You're right, I didn't read what was cited. I was at work. I just thought it warranted a look-see. Judging from the response my post got (and the number of moderations), it looks like I did my good deed for the day.
2) Don't start with the LOGC 301-isms. It makes you look arrogant.
3) At what point did I ever say I believed SCO in the slightest? I am well aware of the knee-deep bullshit that SCO mires itself in. I have heard all of the arguments, refutations, declarations and exclaimations. You're preaching to the choir.
My point has nothing to do with whether or not the point of view was valid, but that it was new, and particularly ballsy when compared with previous baseless potshots and accusations.
You just want someone to be mad at, I think. You want an enemy in Slashdot's midsts to rally against; a representative of the SCO side of things that you can vent at. I am insulted that you would take that out on me. Go look at my posting history. OK?
1) I'm not saying I agreed with his point of view, just that should be aware that bring up serious issues...
2) It had nothing to do with 1 copy vs. multiple copies. It had to do with a (supposed) provision that prevents extending rights on top of Copyright. He may be talking out of his ass, but at least he cited a source. (and YOU get modded +5 insightful... my GOD)
3) So you go and put me on your foes list? Christ. I hate SCO more than the next guy but I can't sit back and let people let them pull a fast one on us. I wanted to start some serious discussion.
That's for a judge to decide, not you. Are you a lawyer?
He COULD be right about the non-extension provision (Section 300... I think) of the code nullifying the GPL, what, then, of IBM's counterpropsal?
But, you raise a good point about this never getting to court. I think it's a smart idea to call bullshit now, and force SCO to take a chance and show their cards, or fold.
But don't underestimate the creativity of their legal team if it ever came to that.
All I'm saying is that was probably the most level-headed, least-spun-out interview between the press and SCO's reps I've seen so far. Maybe that's not saying much...
I imagined myself reading that for the first time knowing little or nothing about the case or the GPL and realizing that the lawyer sounded quite reasonable from that point of view.
Now imagine you're an unbiased jury member (drawn from that same pool), and you here the same line of Q&A. Do you see where i'm going with this?
I'm going to get modded to hell and back with this.
That "barely coherent interview" was anything but. I'm tired of this hear-no-evil see-no-evil attitude, especially from the editors here.
For those of you who could care less about the article and want your daily SCO bashing, here's the thing: It was a pretty good angle that the lawyer was making, and the interviewer was asking tough questions, the same ones we all have. The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
These are important things to think about, and you have to worry about how they can muddle a jury, and whether IBM (Linux users) have a clear defense against these new angles.
Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier public domain sources.
He also tries to put some spin on the case later, but I think we all expected that, especially the parallels to Napster. Whatever. The interviewer was still concerned about SCO's litigous stance, which is a good sign that McBride's "silent majority" are just a figment of his imagination (otherwise the interviewer could have tried to address these thoughts for the readership). The funny part is towards the end, the lawyer defends that by saying the RIAA is worse, and that maybe they need to change, as he makes SCO out to be, like innovative.
(SCO doesn't want to sue you, they just want your money, like settling without serving you papers). ^_^
Please people, read the articles and THINK before you open your mouth. Things are not as rosy as they seem, and we should be prepared for a rough time, which we can all laugh about later. Now is not the time to be smart-assed or smug, because we could eat our words if we are not careful.
Are you listening to me slashdot? Editors? Bruuuuce? Back me up here...
Short-story: Install RedHat 9.0 (attach USB device) Browse automagically mounted drive in Nautilis. (appears on your desktop, hurrah)
Long-story: Enable {SCSI, SCSI Disks, USB Mass Storage with all options, USB controller, Hotplug, kernel module loading} in your kernel config. Rebuild, according to package direction. Pour, serve.
Attach camera via USB. This is enough to get the drivers loaded. dmesg output should confirm it's attached and detected as a SCSI disk.
Then, make sure you have a line like this in your/etc/fstab:/dev/sdXY/your/desired/camera/folder auto \ defaults,noexec,nodev,user 0 0
The "XY" comes from the output of dmesg after you attach the camera... this is just "sda1" if you don't have any other SCSI shit. And then you can just mount/your/desired/camera/folder whenever you plug it in if you don't have autofs set up to detect it. If you have autofs, you can try adding "auto" to the list of options after "user" in that line above.
This works for cameras, some PDAs and a lot of new MP3 players that let you do a similar trick in Windows. The easiest way to get this working is to use a recent distro of RedHat, Mandrake or SuSe where all this is already taken care of for you.
I don't know of any centralized place online where this process is outlined. There is no "USB camera guide" or tool because, as is the linux way, it's handeled by a bunch of smaller things that by default will work exactly as they should, without trouble, provided you care to find out what might be involved.
USB-storage standard, autofs, recent mount command, and hotplug are the extent of what you need. You might also try googling for "usb mass storage linux" along with those other keywords.
I've tried it, and it kicks major ass. It's about 10 times better than using XP by itself: think all of the convience features of XP, with the performance characteristics and interfaces of it's lighterweight sister, Win2k.
Sure, you can turn on theming if you want, it's in there. It supports DirectX9 and everything else.
Also, it's IE is (finally) secure by default, and it has gobs of cool management tools for policies, etc, and not just with TweakUI. Stuff that you used to need a registry editor and google or seperate tool to manage.
It rocks. It feels faster than Windows XP on the same box, and it exposes control over more features through the services/administrative tools.
and treat it like a SCSI disk in Windows, it'll work in Linux.
Most every player nowadays does this (except for a few Rios and the iPod, and they are MORE expensive than the competition). Usually listed under features you'll see some revolutionary "Carry your files on it!!!" thing or whatever.
I mean, come on, the Nex IIe, for example, is practically free (minus flash cards) and you're complaining?
THAT's what hurts the theatre, who also pays through the nose for the priveledge to play the Matrix just like you. They're in the same boat. The least you could do is have the decency to buy an overpriced bag of Skittles, as a token of your understanding.
What we have is actually a very thorough response and rebuttal to Darl's proferring of HANDSE to the GIVER (investors who have nothing better to do than hang around Las Vegas). When the enforcer (Perens) puts down the law, all those trash-talking hos (McBride) are besmote and put IN THEIR respective PLACES.
On the other hand, now THIS is goatse.cx. Get it right, AC. You also forgot to post as PARENT IS A GOATSE.C, asshat. ^_^
The lightweight aspect is covered by a much better-known solution (datagrams and all) called TFTP.
FTP servers have become much more tolerant, configurable, and featureful. Plus we have sftp and scp which make command-line coddling + security a reality.
Finally, if you want to keep directories updated between sites passively or sporadically, you can always use rsync, which uses less bandwidth by virtue than FSP right off the bat.
Where does FSP fit in? Nowhere, anymore. I don't feel nostalgic as I'd never even heard of it.::shrugs::
designating states with platforms, and letting people move to where they share common values. Like how in Utah they are all LIDS. Or in Nevada you can be a prostitute.
Because once you've formed an opinion (whether informed or not), people tend to stick to it, and there's not much you can do about it.
The Fed should only be concerned therefore for efficiently providing human services, infrastructure and national defense, and enforcing few if any laws, especially wrt. social practice.
Can't slashdot suceede and become a city-state? Come on people!
I was basing that on past accusations of Heise being very pro-microsoft and linux critical (not OS in general). Since I don't speak German I can only go by what others say.
The Register, it ain't. And that's probably a good thing.
they list as duplicated is freely available in the SysV-7 releases, which anyone has access to.
It's from an implementation of malloc, and the codes is pretty simple (no reason to deviate).
If this is a shining example, it is a very poor one. It only looks the same because everyone had access to it and no one thought to change it, renaming variables or otherwise.
is a bit condencending towards those who believe SCO doesn't have a case. A sort of, "we told you so" and it reproduces a lot of McBride's rhetoric about the evils of open source.
Heise is not a very open-source friendly news outlet. So take this with a grain of salt.
But, having seen duplicated comments alread makes me worrysome. What is in the sc/*.c files anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
1) You're right, I didn't read what was cited. I was at work.
I just thought it warranted a look-see. Judging from the response my post got (and the number of moderations), it looks like I did my good deed for the day.
2) Don't start with the LOGC 301-isms. It makes you look arrogant.
3) At what point did I ever say I believed SCO in the slightest? I am well aware of the knee-deep bullshit that SCO mires itself in. I have heard all of the arguments, refutations, declarations and exclaimations. You're preaching to the choir.
My point has nothing to do with whether or not the point of view was valid, but that it was new, and particularly ballsy when compared with previous baseless potshots and accusations.
You just want someone to be mad at, I think. You want an enemy in Slashdot's midsts to rally against; a representative of the SCO side of things that you can vent at.
I am insulted that you would take that out on me. Go look at my posting history. OK?
Truce?
1) I'm not saying I agreed with his point of view, just that should be aware that bring up serious issues...
2) It had nothing to do with 1 copy vs. multiple copies. It had to do with a (supposed) provision that prevents extending rights on top of Copyright. He may be talking out of his ass, but at least he cited a source. (and YOU get modded +5 insightful... my GOD)
3) So you go and put me on your foes list? Christ. I hate SCO more than the next guy but I can't sit back and let people let them pull a fast one on us. I wanted to start some serious discussion.
I take back a lot of what I said. That's pretty funny.
^_^;;;
Cough cough... excuse me my dear boy but where is the rest of my illustrious family ::stuff chuckle, cough cough::
-some annoying mammoth guy
That's for a judge to decide, not you.
Are you a lawyer?
He COULD be right about the non-extension provision (Section 300... I think) of the code nullifying the GPL, what, then, of IBM's counterpropsal?
But, you raise a good point about this never getting to court. I think it's a smart idea to call bullshit now, and force SCO to take a chance and show their cards, or fold.
But don't underestimate the creativity of their legal team if it ever came to that.
Oh wait, they'll never agree to that.
All I'm saying is that was probably the most level-headed, least-spun-out interview between the press and SCO's reps I've seen so far. Maybe that's not saying much...
I imagined myself reading that for the first time knowing little or nothing about the case or the GPL and realizing that the lawyer sounded quite reasonable from that point of view.
Now imagine you're an unbiased jury member (drawn from that same pool), and you here the same line of Q&A. Do you see where i'm going with this?
I'm going to get modded to hell and back with this.
That "barely coherent interview" was anything but.
I'm tired of this hear-no-evil see-no-evil attitude, especially from the editors here.
For those of you who could care less about the article and want your daily SCO bashing, here's the thing:
It was a pretty good angle that the lawyer was making, and the interviewer was asking tough questions, the same ones
we all have. The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
These are important things to think about, and you have to worry about how they can muddle a jury, and whether IBM (Linux users)
have a clear defense against these new angles.
Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier
public domain sources.
He also tries to put some spin on the case later, but I think we all expected that, especially the parallels to Napster.
Whatever. The interviewer was still concerned about SCO's litigous stance, which is a good sign that McBride's "silent majority"
are just a figment of his imagination (otherwise the interviewer could have tried to address these thoughts for the readership).
The funny part is towards the end, the lawyer defends that by saying the RIAA is worse, and that maybe they need to change,
as he makes SCO out to be, like innovative.
(SCO doesn't want to sue you, they just want your money, like settling without serving you papers). ^_^
Please people, read the articles and THINK before you open your mouth. Things are not as rosy as they seem, and we should be prepared for a rough time,
which we can all laugh about later. Now is not the time to be smart-assed or smug, because we could eat our words if we are not careful.
Are you listening to me slashdot? Editors? Bruuuuce? Back me up here...
AOL is around here. Physical proximity breeds scores of users, who then use it to keep touch with relatives, friends, and so it goes.
The only reason why I switched to AIM from ICQ was because more and more people starting using it here. It was a real grassroots network effect.
Short-story:
/etc/fstab: /dev/sdXY /your/desired/camera/folder auto \
/your/desired/camera/folder whenever you plug it in if you don't have autofs set up to detect it. If you have autofs, you can try adding "auto" to the list of options after "user" in that line above.
Install RedHat 9.0
(attach USB device)
Browse automagically mounted drive in Nautilis. (appears on your desktop, hurrah)
Long-story:
Enable {SCSI, SCSI Disks, USB Mass Storage with all options, USB controller, Hotplug, kernel module loading} in your kernel config. Rebuild, according to package direction. Pour, serve.
Attach camera via USB. This is enough to get the drivers loaded. dmesg output should confirm it's attached and detected as a SCSI disk.
Then, make sure you have a line like this in your
defaults,noexec,nodev,user 0 0
The "XY" comes from the output of dmesg after you attach the camera... this is just "sda1" if you don't have any other SCSI shit.
And then you can just mount
This works for cameras, some PDAs and a lot of new MP3 players that let you do a similar trick in Windows. The easiest way to get this working is to use a recent distro of RedHat, Mandrake or SuSe where all this is already taken care of for you.
I don't know of any centralized place online where this process is outlined. There is no "USB camera guide" or tool because, as is the linux way, it's handeled by a bunch of smaller things that by default will work exactly as they should, without trouble, provided you care to find out what might be involved.
USB-storage standard, autofs, recent mount command, and hotplug are the extent of what you need. You might also try googling for "usb mass storage linux" along with those other keywords.
Come on, don't be a fucking pansy.
Love, Rei
I've tried it, and it kicks major ass. It's about 10 times better than using XP by itself: think all of the convience features of XP, with the performance characteristics and interfaces of it's lighterweight sister, Win2k.
Sure, you can turn on theming if you want, it's in there. It supports DirectX9 and everything else.
Also, it's IE is (finally) secure by default, and it has gobs of cool management tools for policies, etc, and not just with TweakUI. Stuff that you used to need a registry editor and google or seperate tool to manage.
It rocks. It feels faster than Windows XP on the same box, and it exposes control over more features through the services/administrative tools.
Okay, I'm done blabbing. This guide explains it better than I can.
and treat it like a SCSI disk in Windows, it'll work in Linux.
Most every player nowadays does this (except for a few Rios and the iPod, and they are MORE expensive than the competition). Usually listed under features you'll see some revolutionary "Carry your files on it!!!" thing or whatever.
I mean, come on, the Nex IIe, for example, is practically free (minus flash cards) and you're complaining?
In short, get a clue.
THAT's what hurts the theatre, who also pays through the nose for the priveledge to play the Matrix just like you. They're in the same boat. The least you could do is have the decency to buy an overpriced bag of Skittles, as a token of your understanding.
Oops, sorry, you'll need a P2P app to download them from my PC.
HAND!
What we have is actually a very thorough response and rebuttal to Darl's proferring of HANDSE to the GIVER (investors who have nothing better to do than hang around Las Vegas).
When the enforcer (Perens) puts down the law, all those trash-talking hos (McBride) are besmote and put IN THEIR respective PLACES.
On the other hand, now THIS is goatse.cx. Get it right, AC. You also forgot to post as PARENT IS A GOATSE.C, asshat. ^_^
The lightweight aspect is covered by a much better-known solution (datagrams and all) called TFTP.
::shrugs::
FTP servers have become much more tolerant, configurable, and featureful. Plus we have sftp and scp which make command-line coddling + security a reality.
Finally, if you want to keep directories updated between sites passively or sporadically, you can always use rsync, which uses less bandwidth by virtue than FSP right off the bat.
Where does FSP fit in? Nowhere, anymore. I don't feel nostalgic as I'd never even heard of it.
He's Korean and he DEFINITELY looks evil. He's got frickin diamonds in his face!
So I can appreciate Korean == evil too.
designating states with platforms, and letting people move to where they share common values. Like how in Utah they are all LIDS. Or in Nevada you can be a prostitute.
Because once you've formed an opinion (whether informed or not), people tend to stick to it, and there's not much you can do about it.
The Fed should only be concerned therefore for efficiently providing human services, infrastructure and national defense, and enforcing few if any laws, especially wrt. social practice.
Can't slashdot suceede and become a city-state? Come on people!
Gnarly, Mondo, Yoshi's House, etc. from beating Star Road and finding the secret exits. That was a lot of fun, and kinda cool.
I'm so fucking embarassed to be associated with you uncouth, cumfaced wretches.
They must have bought the book!!! :-)
::blushing::
I can't read German (without babelfish), and I've heard people badmouth Heise. See my previous retraction.
Gomen!!!
Subsequent runs of said binaries will be just as fast (and perhaps faster) as your cache usage will be optimized with libc mapped once.
Isn't this the tradeoff for lots of neat optimizations? A little extra overhead at the start for amortized gains?
I was basing that on past accusations of Heise being very pro-microsoft and linux critical (not OS in general). Since I don't speak German I can only go by what others say.
The Register, it ain't. And that's probably a good thing.
they list as duplicated is freely available in the SysV-7 releases, which anyone has access to.
It's from an implementation of malloc, and the codes is pretty simple (no reason to deviate).
If this is a shining example, it is a very poor one. It only looks the same because everyone had access to it and no one thought to change it, renaming variables or otherwise.
is a bit condencending towards those who believe SCO doesn't have a case. A sort of, "we told you so" and it reproduces a lot of McBride's rhetoric about the evils of open source.
Heise is not a very open-source friendly news outlet. So take this with a grain of salt.
But, having seen duplicated comments alread makes me worrysome. What is in the sc/*.c files anyway?