Is there any recommended table designer or query tools for postgress? I'm not expecting Toad but something functional like MySQL Administrator and Query browser.
I've been a loyal fedora user since Fedora 8 when I made the switch to it for my primary OS. I upgraded to Fedora 11 from Fedora 8, and now my system has been constantly becoming unresponsive, even the xconfig changes mentioned on their errata page reduced the freezing but still get it randomly. As for the commercial ATI drivers, they suck and all I get is a black screen with a blinking cursor so I for one am praying they have finally resolved this issue in the next release.
Last year when I got my new PC I needed to copy my employers source code tree from one directory to another, something I've done countless times under XP, yet under Vista it froze on me each time. I was shocked how crap like that could be certified for release - basically told the admin to reset the PC back to XP and don't ever intend on touching Vista ever again. At home Fedora rocks!
No I understand that aspect, but I personally believe that 99.9% of the population who are capable of writing extensions or have advanced developer experience (could hack a server if they wanted to) are good people, just that 0.1% of the population I feel that we are not addressing a rouge submission from. For instance after submitting, perhaps you still have to give some type of private/public key combination to further authenticate you - thus requiring two levels of security to be bypassed. Accidents will happen - such as this Vietnamese language pack being accidentally submitted from a corrupted PC or accidentally introducing a security exploit. Its the intentional ones we have to worry more about and the huge damage that could occur if something like tab mix plus or firebug code base were hacked.
Of the 4 or 5 addon's that I use, a few get updated every so often, yet no consistent interface to let me know what got changed and why - maybe its my risk management background but like I said I just feel we are potentially leaving the door wide open here. Even things like having a 'code signing off team' and hosting the source code with a online diff display. I myself wouldn't mind just doing a quick glance over the code to see if what was documented as being upgraded matches the code changes. These same issues even apply to RPM/APT package management yet another accident waiting to happen.
I don't know if this has been done yet, but each new extension submission or upgrade must be signed by Mozilla with some type of private exchange with the author. My concern right now is, I know some of my extensions come from third parties, whats stopping someone from hacking the server and introducing a fake upgrade that gets spread across to all users in the auto upgrade? Thus when the update downloads it, compares they checksum signatures it would know it was not an authorized release. Thus besides hacking the server, the person would of had to have gotten the users private communications password too.
The original article link is down, so can't tell if its old news, but I remember reading a similar article on slashdot earlier about the 'baffling' mystery of water striders being solved?
From a diversity point of view, its better to have a pluggable security architecture, in the event an application and security architecture was able to be compromised it might be limited to that distro (ie. Redhat = SELinux, Ubuntu = AppArmour).
I'm used to going to a web page and middle mouse clicking all the links that I find interesting, previously they would nicely open in the next tab, now if I have a dozen windows open, they aren't opening in the next tab anymore. You have to scroll across to the right and find the web page - I find that very annoying - more clicks. In this scenario they should of scrolled the other tabs to the left instead and continue placing the ones i selected on the tab bar. Hopefully the extensions will fix this scenerio.
Who cares, that's great, that means he's one of us, and just bringing to our attention the state Open Office, even myself I'm wondering at times if its still even actively developed.. Also I'm impressed how much manpower Sun is putting behind it, many forget that and go bashing them for their commitment.
This was probably one of the most intelligent attempts I've read at trying to rationalize the SCO/IBM lawsuit. Never under estimate your rival, and the more you understand their rationality, the more you can prepare your defense. Considering that little McBride has been quiet as of lately... I wish the author had attempted to converge other aspects of the case, it's not as clear cut as the author or for that matter SCO wishes it were.
Current Issues: - What does SCO own if Novell says they own the copyrights? If they own it, why royalty payments then?
- They don't even own the word 'UNIX'?
- SCO and Linux are implementations of POSIX standards?
- Prior implementations of AT&T Unix were BSD licensed by old SCO.
- Project Monterey contract's have expired... Why didn't they sue earlier? and in the State where
it's requird by the contract.
"IBM shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon the occurrence
of a Change of Control of SCO which IBM in its sole discretion determines will
substantially and adversely impact the overall purpose of the cooperation set forth by
this Agreement and applicable Project"
Does new SCO, thus automatically terminate this agreement?
- SCO itself shipping & working on Linux? (Who donated the original computers for Linux to even
support smp? - did they make it enterprise ready) Did they dilute their own IP then? Is this 'the Pot calling the Kettle black' -- all we need to show is just one situation where a SCO programmer contributed code to Linux?
If so does that mean IBM can sue SCO on the same clause of violating the Project Monterey contract?
- What exactly are they fighting about, originally it was 'Million's of line's of code copied' hence
that even the Judge is asking, in that 80's slogan 'Where's the Beef?'.
- IBM's Perpetual license with no sunset clause...
- Groklaw research, mentioning parties were aware Project Monterey was a stepping stone towards Linux?
- RCU, JFS, ELF, etc, etc... The GPL clearly states its viral, as for a reason, was this the intent
of the original AT&T license too? Was their intention 'All your bases belong to us' or the later
clarifications meant to state that all code, other than the OS code, belongs to their copyright holders.
- If this is strictly about Project Monterey, what exact 'ground breaking technology' was merged
into Linux?
- SCO demanding money from companies to 'license Linux', McBride writing a letter to congress about
copyright protection, The GPL is unconstitutional. I thought this was originally about copyrights
your argument, is now its about method's and concepts? If so, then copyright can't protect you, you need
patent's does SCO own those?
Also in the author's own words, Linux using Minix was legal, does that constitute reverse engineering then? If earlier Unix was BSD licensed, does that potentially mitigate the violations of 'concepts' that can be traced back to earlier 'open code' now? I'll give credits to the author though for his more sophisticated English style, clearly he's not McBride, I hope to aspire to one day write like that too...
That's nothing, the weather in India must be very unpredictable, since most times, it starts raining during the dance scene, and the poor girl's clothing gets soaking wet showing her cleavage...
What Linux really needs is one person assigned to all security related matters, any exploit is sent to him, and his job is to coorindate with Linus, the person responsible for the module, the organization/person that brought up the issue, and the bugtrack sites...
For Linus its actually very dangerous for him to 'ever' look at another operating system code again.
What happens if tomorrow Sun sues, cause we violated a patent on an implementation in Linux, its going to look very stupid if Linus was quoted "yeah I'm going to rip any technology i can out of it" - all he should know is just concepts and high level features, that are thrown out on the kernel mailing lists, and then the kernel team devises a a way of implementing them. Its a sad legal environment that we live in, but Linus will constantly need to worry about getting 'tainted' with other code, all he should be seeing is GPL submitted code, that the submitter authenticates that it came from him and is in a legal position to let others use it.
I would recommend other Slashdot members to read this article, probably one of the best interviews I've had the pleasure of reading about Linus. The comments he made would benefit any open source project leader and stress once again that a successful open source project is one where "People need to feel involved...If anybody feels like somebody is just a passenger, that's bad for everybody." Other comments about incremental improvements and Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome are worth reading too. Don't let the title about Solaris confuse you, and its nice to know Linus didn't resort to mud slinging, which is very common from the Sun camp...
What I would like to do with it, is assign each VM of zen its own usb keyboard/mouse and video card, that way I can run 2 linux boxes all on the same machine? Unlike terminal emulation, there would be less chance of me taking out the whole pc, if one virtual machines crashed? This would be handy so my wife and kid can both use the pc at the same time, and would be energy efficient since I would only need one pc...
For me the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the GPL are most definitely patents, the confusion around dynamic/static compiling + web services. Get rid of this issue of two licenses (GPL/LGPL/ or the new trend that is even more confusing GPL + Linking Clause?!?) which causes a lot of problems for reuse of code. Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code. Other issues are enforcement of trademarks, so that companies can have commercial offerings by offering a particular 'brand'. At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back - preferably in a free downloadable manner (mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles).
I just wanted to add, If Sun want's to appeal to the Slashdot crowed they should do so with their technology, Solaris is good, and with better hardware support and deeper Java integration, it would be even better... Spreading diatribes against Red Hat is ridiculous, showing that you offer more value, better technology, etc -- that makes sense... Do you see Linus insulting anyone?
As quoted from Andrew Morton:
Update: Linux keeper, SpikeSource CEO talk up open source
quote:
"Top contributors to the Linux kernel have been Red Hat Software and SuSE, he said. Also contributing have been IBM, SGI, Hewlett-Packard.and Intel"
For a company that has done so much to promote and --- BUILD ---- Linux, Sun insulting them is no different then them going after Debian or Gentoo, yeah so what they charge a premium for support, have you considered they must offer something of value to their customers for them to be willing to pay a premium, such as their expertise in Linux kernel development... We are not communists at the end of the day, we want all the Linux players to compete and succeed... Even the article quotes Mortan's view on that:
"Leading-edge projects are the exception in the open source world," he said. If anyone is developing leading-edge technology, "they should get their act together and form a company and take a shot at getting rich with it," said Morton.
It used to be funny when Sun's McNeally insulted Microsoft, since they are much smaller than Microsoft, so MS just probably laughed it off, but when they pick on RedHat which is an order of magnitude smaller company, they just appear like an arrogant bully...
First thing that came to my head was I wonder how they put to rest MS Bob, and I googled for it and thought this was kinda funny and relevant.
"During his short, unhappy life, Bob was ridiculed, ignored and finally abandoned.
...
Sure, he was only a computer program, but still: Let us now pause a moment to pay our respects to Microsoft Bob.
RIP: Bob, 1995-96"
source:
Bob is dead; long live Bob
One of the reasons why Singapore even has to consider this is, is because they actually pay for the river water that comes through Malaysia. The problem is Malaysia wants more money, which is kinda wierd, considering the water is just going to flow to the ocean anyways... If you ever been there, Its quite amazing how much of the rain water they try to catch and hold, there only issue is they got little land so their water cachment area is small.
If you goto the second issue for Mozilla here
and then click on the citibank link, its interesting that it grabs text in the url textbox, or if you open any other XUL dialog box (New Bookmark Folder - Though in IE its not affected when adding a bookmark) it doesn't let you enter text... This same vuneribility exists in internet explorer (grabs text in url textbox too) but I wonder if it can be exploited in IE/Mozilla using a hidden frame, or inline? I tested it with autofill but that part was fine.
Does anyone still remember GBBS on Apple II, and its scripting language, quite an amazing piece of software engineering considering the limitations of the machines during that era. Along with ProTERM I would probably consider Greg Schaffer(sp) one of the best programmers for the Apple II during that time.
Interesting times those days, I remember saving my money for months, just to get an "HST" Modem...
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any recommended table designer or query tools for postgress? I'm not expecting Toad but something functional like MySQL Administrator and Query browser.
I've been a loyal fedora user since Fedora 8 when I made the switch to it for my primary OS. I upgraded to Fedora 11 from Fedora 8, and now my system has been constantly becoming unresponsive, even the xconfig changes mentioned on their errata page reduced the freezing but still get it randomly. As for the commercial ATI drivers, they suck and all I get is a black screen with a blinking cursor so I for one am praying they have finally resolved this issue in the next release.
Last year when I got my new PC I needed to copy my employers source code tree from one directory to another, something I've done countless times under XP, yet under Vista it froze on me each time. I was shocked how crap like that could be certified for release - basically told the admin to reset the PC back to XP and don't ever intend on touching Vista ever again. At home Fedora rocks!
No I understand that aspect, but I personally believe that 99.9% of the population who are capable of writing extensions or have advanced developer experience (could hack a server if they wanted to) are good people, just that 0.1% of the population I feel that we are not addressing a rouge submission from. For instance after submitting, perhaps you still have to give some type of private/public key combination to further authenticate you - thus requiring two levels of security to be bypassed. Accidents will happen - such as this Vietnamese language pack being accidentally submitted from a corrupted PC or accidentally introducing a security exploit. Its the intentional ones we have to worry more about and the huge damage that could occur if something like tab mix plus or firebug code base were hacked. Of the 4 or 5 addon's that I use, a few get updated every so often, yet no consistent interface to let me know what got changed and why - maybe its my risk management background but like I said I just feel we are potentially leaving the door wide open here. Even things like having a 'code signing off team' and hosting the source code with a online diff display. I myself wouldn't mind just doing a quick glance over the code to see if what was documented as being upgraded matches the code changes. These same issues even apply to RPM/APT package management yet another accident waiting to happen.
I don't know if this has been done yet, but each new extension submission or upgrade must be signed by Mozilla with some type of private exchange with the author. My concern right now is, I know some of my extensions come from third parties, whats stopping someone from hacking the server and introducing a fake upgrade that gets spread across to all users in the auto upgrade? Thus when the update downloads it, compares they checksum signatures it would know it was not an authorized release. Thus besides hacking the server, the person would of had to have gotten the users private communications password too.
The original article link is down, so can't tell if its old news, but I remember reading a similar article on slashdot earlier about the 'baffling' mystery of water striders being solved?
MIT Robot Walks On Water
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/26/0141229/
From a diversity point of view, its better to have a pluggable security architecture, in the event an application and security architecture was able to be compromised it might be limited to that distro (ie. Redhat = SELinux, Ubuntu = AppArmour).
I'm used to going to a web page and middle mouse clicking all the links that I find interesting, previously they would nicely open in the next tab, now if I have a dozen windows open, they aren't opening in the next tab anymore. You have to scroll across to the right and find the web page - I find that very annoying - more clicks. In this scenario they should of scrolled the other tabs to the left instead and continue placing the ones i selected on the tab bar. Hopefully the extensions will fix this scenerio.
Does anyone still remember Science International? I used to love watching that show when I was a kid...
Who cares, that's great, that means he's one of us, and just bringing to our attention the state Open Office, even myself I'm wondering at times if its still even actively developed.. Also I'm impressed how much manpower Sun is putting behind it, many forget that and go bashing them for their commitment.
This was probably one of the most intelligent attempts I've read at trying to rationalize the SCO/IBM lawsuit. Never under estimate your rival, and the more you understand their rationality, the more you can prepare your defense. Considering that little McBride has been quiet as of lately... I wish the author had attempted to converge other aspects of the case, it's not as clear cut as the author or for that matter SCO wishes it were.
Current Issues:
- What does SCO own if Novell says they own the copyrights? If they own it, why royalty payments then?
- They don't even own the word 'UNIX'?
- SCO and Linux are implementations of POSIX standards?
- Prior implementations of AT&T Unix were BSD licensed by old SCO.
- Project Monterey contract's have expired... Why didn't they sue earlier? and in the State where
it's requird by the contract.
"IBM shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon the occurrence
of a Change of Control of SCO which IBM in its sole discretion determines will
substantially and adversely impact the overall purpose of the cooperation set forth by
this Agreement and applicable Project"
Does new SCO, thus automatically terminate this agreement?
- SCO itself shipping & working on Linux? (Who donated the original computers for Linux to even
support smp? - did they make it enterprise ready) Did they dilute their own IP then? Is this 'the Pot calling the Kettle black' -- all we need to show is just one situation where a SCO programmer contributed code to Linux?
If so does that mean IBM can sue SCO on the same clause of violating the Project Monterey contract?
- What exactly are they fighting about, originally it was 'Million's of line's of code copied' hence
that even the Judge is asking, in that 80's slogan 'Where's the Beef?'.
- IBM's Perpetual license with no sunset clause...
- Groklaw research, mentioning parties were aware Project Monterey was a stepping stone towards Linux?
- RCU, JFS, ELF, etc, etc... The GPL clearly states its viral, as for a reason, was this the intent
of the original AT&T license too? Was their intention 'All your bases belong to us' or the later
clarifications meant to state that all code, other than the OS code, belongs to their copyright holders.
- If this is strictly about Project Monterey, what exact 'ground breaking technology' was merged
into Linux?
- SCO demanding money from companies to 'license Linux', McBride writing a letter to congress about
copyright protection, The GPL is unconstitutional. I thought this was originally about copyrights
your argument, is now its about method's and concepts? If so, then copyright can't protect you, you need
patent's does SCO own those?
Also in the author's own words, Linux using Minix was legal, does that constitute reverse engineering then? If earlier Unix was BSD licensed, does that potentially mitigate the violations of 'concepts' that can be traced back to earlier 'open code' now? I'll give credits to the author though for his more sophisticated English style, clearly he's not McBride, I hope to aspire to one day write like that too...
I curious how patent law, refers to 'prior art' work when the fundamental concepts for a product were released to public way before they even filed for a patent? So all these years, I can sell/show a product, and then go back and say now i'm going to patent a new spin on my technology, yet the previous fundamental concept had been out there for all those years?. ms-windows.announce/browse_thread/thread/236721196 5fd5297/6853e6cc94c408fd?q=ip+world+map&_done=%2Fg roups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff% 26num%3D10%26q%3Dip+world+map%26qt_s%3DSearch+Grou ps%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_ miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D25%26as_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy %3D2001%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#6853e6cc94 c408fd/
:-)
e ms.www.servers.unix/browse_thread/thread/412853115 09679c0/546595d3a6b0b0e5?q=world+ip+mapping&_done= %2Fgroups%3Fas_q%3Dworld+ip+mapping%26num%3D10%26s coring%3Dr%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_epq%3D%26as _oq%3D%26as_eq%3D%26as_ugroup%3D%26as_usubject%3D% 26as_uauthors%3D%26lr%3D%26as_qdr%3D%26as_drrb%3Db %26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1981%26as _maxd%3D25%26as_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D2000%26safe%3 Doff%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#546595d3a6b0b 0e5/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.archives
I'm sure this guy back in '96 in the url below when mentioning 'access logs' was referring to his firewall logs
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosyst
That's nothing, the weather in India must be very unpredictable, since most times, it starts raining during the dance scene, and the poor girl's clothing gets soaking wet showing her cleavage...
What Linux really needs is one person assigned to all security related matters, any exploit is sent to him, and his job is to coorindate with Linus, the person responsible for the module, the organization/person that brought up the issue, and the bugtrack sites...
For Linus its actually very dangerous for him to 'ever' look at another operating system code again. What happens if tomorrow Sun sues, cause we violated a patent on an implementation in Linux, its going to look very stupid if Linus was quoted "yeah I'm going to rip any technology i can out of it" - all he should know is just concepts and high level features, that are thrown out on the kernel mailing lists, and then the kernel team devises a a way of implementing them. Its a sad legal environment that we live in, but Linus will constantly need to worry about getting 'tainted' with other code, all he should be seeing is GPL submitted code, that the submitter authenticates that it came from him and is in a legal position to let others use it.
I would recommend other Slashdot members to read this article, probably one of the best interviews I've had the pleasure of reading about Linus. The comments he made would benefit any open source project leader and stress once again that a successful open source project is one where "People need to feel involved...If anybody feels like somebody is just a passenger, that's bad for everybody." Other comments about incremental improvements and Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome are worth reading too. Don't let the title about Solaris confuse you, and its nice to know Linus didn't resort to mud slinging, which is very common from the Sun camp...
What I would like to do with it, is assign each VM of zen its own usb keyboard/mouse and video card, that way I can run 2 linux boxes all on the same machine? Unlike terminal emulation, there would be less chance of me taking out the whole pc, if one virtual machines crashed? This would be handy so my wife and kid can both use the pc at the same time, and would be energy efficient since I would only need one pc...
For me the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the GPL are most definitely patents, the confusion around dynamic/static compiling + web services. Get rid of this issue of two licenses (GPL/LGPL/ or the new trend that is even more confusing GPL + Linking Clause?!?) which causes a lot of problems for reuse of code. Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code. Other issues are enforcement of trademarks, so that companies can have commercial offerings by offering a particular 'brand'. At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back - preferably in a free downloadable manner (mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles).
I just wanted to add, If Sun want's to appeal to the Slashdot crowed they should do so with their technology, Solaris is good, and with better hardware support and deeper Java integration, it would be even better... Spreading diatribes against Red Hat is ridiculous, showing that you offer more value, better technology, etc -- that makes sense...
Do you see Linus insulting anyone?
As quoted from Andrew Morton:
Update: Linux keeper, SpikeSource CEO talk up open source
quote: "Top contributors to the Linux kernel have been Red Hat Software and SuSE, he said. Also contributing have been IBM, SGI, Hewlett-Packard.and Intel" For a company that has done so much to promote and --- BUILD ---- Linux, Sun insulting them is no different then them going after Debian or Gentoo, yeah so what they charge a premium for support, have you considered they must offer something of value to their customers for them to be willing to pay a premium, such as their expertise in Linux kernel development... We are not communists at the end of the day, we want all the Linux players to compete and succeed... Even the article quotes Mortan's view on that: "Leading-edge projects are the exception in the open source world," he said. If anyone is developing leading-edge technology, "they should get their act together and form a company and take a shot at getting rich with it," said Morton. It used to be funny when Sun's McNeally insulted Microsoft, since they are much smaller than Microsoft, so MS just probably laughed it off, but when they pick on RedHat which is an order of magnitude smaller company, they just appear like an arrogant bully...
As they saying goes, 'You Reap What You Sow' one frivolous patent for another... I only have 5 words for them "You want fries with that?"...
First thing that came to my head was I wonder how they put to rest MS Bob, and I googled for it and thought this was kinda funny and relevant.
...
"During his short, unhappy life, Bob was ridiculed, ignored and finally abandoned.
Sure, he was only a computer program, but still: Let us now pause a moment to pay our respects to Microsoft Bob.
RIP: Bob, 1995-96"
source: Bob is dead; long live Bob
One of the reasons why Singapore even has to consider this is, is because they actually pay for the river water that comes through Malaysia. The problem is Malaysia wants more money, which is kinda wierd, considering the water is just going to flow to the ocean anyways... If you ever been there, Its quite amazing how much of the rain water they try to catch and hold, there only issue is they got little land so their water cachment area is small.
If you goto the second issue for Mozilla here and then click on the citibank link, its interesting that it grabs text in the url textbox, or if you open any other XUL dialog box (New Bookmark Folder - Though in IE its not affected when adding a bookmark) it doesn't let you enter text... This same vuneribility exists in internet explorer (grabs text in url textbox too) but I wonder if it can be exploited in IE/Mozilla using a hidden frame, or inline? I tested it with autofill but that part was fine.
Does anyone still remember GBBS on Apple II, and its scripting language, quite an amazing piece of software engineering considering the limitations of the machines during that era. Along with ProTERM I would probably consider Greg Schaffer(sp) one of the best programmers for the Apple II during that time.
Interesting times those days, I remember saving my money for months, just to get an "HST" Modem...