The zlib packages and some other affected packages were included in 8.2RC1, but more updates came later due to the zlib bug that weren't included initially. Regardless, updates have been issued for all of the official releases and fixed packages will be included in the final 8.2, so it's really a non-issue.
KDE 3 is early beta software? I agree, however it shouldn't be labeled as a release candidate, and therein is the problem. An RC is an almost final product that if no more bugs are found, will ship as is. KDE 3 doesn't even compile at the moment, and doing a hack job to get it to compile results in an almost unusable system. This is what his beef is with the KDE 3 release process, and his claims are fully substantiated.
The problem is that it doesn't only include the missing patch from -rc4. A lot of stuff considered too experimental for the 2.4.18 kernel was saved until 2.4.19-pre1, but that version is now required for most non-x86 platforms. Suddenly people are locked into testing experimental code if they're using a non-x86 architecture and require updates in the 2.4.18-pre's, and this is a BAD THING.
Re:Sience this patch seems mostly for the Sparc.
on
Linux 2.4.18 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The patch in -rc4 causes major problems on all non-x86 platforms. This includes Alpha, SPARC, and PPC, just to name a few.
Policy and legal issues? How about "illegal filesharing is making the network unusable for educational purposes?" I think that'd let them clear out the problem real fast, and I KNOW it's in the policies.
You know what's really great, though? U2 can say anything they want, and it WON'T MATTER. Why? Because U2 doesn't own their music, their record label does. The same goes for Dave Matthews, Offspring, or anyone else that's supposedly "in favor of music sharing." They can say anything they want, it the RIAA is still going to bust down your door if they catch you pirating their music and a conspicuous way. What tops if off, though, is that there is a single band in popular music today who has somewho managed to retain all the copyrights on their works: Metallica. I think we know how far we'll get on that front.;-)
Re:Did I read this right?
on
LinuxWorld Preview
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actual, Compaq's support does go back 10 years if you include Digital (now owned and assimilated by Compaq, of course), which gave Linus an Alpha to port Linux to oh-so-long ago. I'm not really a fan of those ads stating Compaq's age-old commitment to Linux, since for the most part it wasn't even them, but I guess you could look at it that way.
One important thing to note (and left out of this announcement) is that Darren will be including bootable ISOs with his releases. This is a great move, as I've always run into trouble with the hacked together OpenBSD unofficial ISOs. I'm also not too keen on using a 6-month-old firewall with who knows how many fixes needed in the future, and am glad IPF is back in the game with a OpenBSD-alike release that I can grab and run with. Good job to everyone involved!
Who said anything about one being a worse offense or another? I stated more harm than good would be done by this software (meaning false accusations versus actual copying offenses) in an introductory class where all the students are completing the same basic assignments with few ways to go about completing them, versus students copying larger, complex assignments line for line. I agree with your points completely, but they weren't what I was addressing
You've hit the nail on the head (though this has been discussed before plenty). Something like this is going to do more harm than good in an intro computer science class because the programs will all be virtually the same in design. Perhaps in a large, upper-level class it would make sense, but the again, no professor's I've ever had (or TAs for that matter) have had much trouble spotting identical "structure" on students' assignments.
I see comments like this one regularly, and I'm really not sure why. I'm a subscriber to the kernel mailing list, and rarely get over 100 emails a day (max 150), all of which get dumped into a kernel-traffic folder which is quite easy to browse through and delete, as well as keep one's self up-to-date on kernel developments. I would think the more people involved in Linux kernel development with _constructive_ bug reports the better things would be. Comments like this really aren't doing anything besides giving a false impression, and would certainly encourage anyone looking for some good reading material to sign up and set aside a mail folder for it.
It's a release for security updates. This is very different from a bugfix release, which would generally be a much greater undertaking and require a lot more packages to be upgraded to newer versions. Think of it this way: a security update would be when Slash code allows users to gain the access levels of other users, including elevated privileges. A bugfix release would be an increment in the Slash code that fixes broken features that do not include security compromises. Makes sense? =)
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but only changes to GPL sofware need to be released. They can do whatever they want with Wine (not GPL), and if they made any kernel changes they will be released. I dunno who told you that about bash, but it's incorrect, RMS has no say in who uses or packages bash as long as no changes are made or those changes are released. Something being reliant or using GPL software means absolutely nothing in regards to the GPL.
It doesn't get hit by viruses, and do to the true multiuser nature of a *NIX system, a virus would be completely ineffective unless run as root by a very foolish person that would have to consciously do so. Feel free to point me out one that isn't a story by a company trying to sell a virus software product. In regards to your second point, my system has NEVER crashed. I've done extensive CD burning, DRI-enabled gaming, and played around with peripherals regularly (USB camera, SCSI scanner, printer), all without ever a crash or a glitch. I'm kinda curious...what ARE you talking about?
Obscurity would imply that they hid it; what they in fact did was block the exploit completely.
That is incorrect. They've stopped people from sending the bogus messages through their servers. How long do you think it would take to write a program that scans IP ranges for clients that are STILL SUSCEPTIBLE and attack them directly? 5 minutes? 10 minutes for a Code Red for AIM? This is not a fix by any means.
The documents are available in Word and.PDF format. These are pretty industry standard at this point, and.pdf can be read a multitude of ways. What's the problem?
You realize you can re-use your old.config, right? There's even an option to load or save old non-.config files in the various menuconfig/xconfig/whatever menus.
You can download the Solaris source code to your heart's content here. You can edit, change, and rebuild all you like if it will really suit your needs. You can send patches back to Sun if you feel so inclined for incorporation. The only thing you can't do is redistribute it, which from what it sounds like your needs are, really isn't that important anyways.
As a user of SpeakEasy.net, one of the few good DSL providers left who don't use the broken-by-design PPPoE protocol, I'm definitely relieved to hear that Covad will be sticking around for a while. SpeakEasy assured all of their customers that in the event of Covad going under they would provide service by some other means, though that's always questionable at best. Great job, guys!
I have a good deal of experience with MIT and their network, and for some reason the administration there thinks that any and all network activites should be allowed and are for some reason granted under free speech (as evidenced by, among other things, fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu), including piracy of software, music, and movies. I'm really not sure what's going through their heads or why they consistently look the other way (join MIT, pay to pirate all you want and we'll protect you!), but I've SERIOUSLY seen less piracy in a number of Asian cities selling "questionable" goods on recorded media. What a disgrace.
Michael, please click the link to Mplayer's site. They took the entirety of the mplayer source, changed the output plugin for OS/2, and released it as binary-only. It appears that source has now been released and the issue has been resolved, but at least read the article before letting them off light. They tried to pull a fast one on Mplayer using very little or no code of their own. I don't know if you call that imitation, I call it stealing.
Whether or not it works as intended (yes, WEP is broken), it still functions as a deterant, and that's important. It's much more like having a locked door with the key buried somewhere underground in the yard versus an unlocked door. Someone could take the time to find it eventually, sure, but it's much easier to go up to the house with the unlocked door/wireless network.
* the ports collection can't be beat by any distro
Actually, it can very easily be beat by many distros. Ports is nice if you're installing a program from scratch and leaving it, but if you update your ports collection, there's no method to update a single package! You need to uninstall every package that depends on the one you're trying to upgrade by hand, then install all of them AGAIN through ports. Until there's a 'make update' that updates a single package (or a package and everything that depends on it) after updating the ports tree, it won't be nearly as flexible as a simple 'rpm -Fvh file.rpm' or the apt-get equivalent.
Slashdot Mirror
The zlib packages and some other affected packages were included in 8.2RC1, but more updates came later due to the zlib bug that weren't included initially. Regardless, updates have been issued for all of the official releases and fixed packages will be included in the final 8.2, so it's really a non-issue.
KDE 3 is early beta software? I agree, however it shouldn't be labeled as a release candidate, and therein is the problem. An RC is an almost final product that if no more bugs are found, will ship as is. KDE 3 doesn't even compile at the moment, and doing a hack job to get it to compile results in an almost unusable system. This is what his beef is with the KDE 3 release process, and his claims are fully substantiated.
The problem is that it doesn't only include the missing patch from -rc4. A lot of stuff considered too experimental for the 2.4.18 kernel was saved until 2.4.19-pre1, but that version is now required for most non-x86 platforms. Suddenly people are locked into testing experimental code if they're using a non-x86 architecture and require updates in the 2.4.18-pre's, and this is a BAD THING.
The patch in -rc4 causes major problems on all non-x86 platforms. This includes Alpha, SPARC, and PPC, just to name a few.
Policy and legal issues? How about "illegal filesharing is making the network unusable for educational purposes?" I think that'd let them clear out the problem real fast, and I KNOW it's in the policies.
That's news to me. I could swear a friend of mine just jumped in on the UltraSPARC 4 project.
You know what's really great, though? U2 can say anything they want, and it WON'T MATTER. Why? Because U2 doesn't own their music, their record label does. The same goes for Dave Matthews, Offspring, or anyone else that's supposedly "in favor of music sharing." They can say anything they want, it the RIAA is still going to bust down your door if they catch you pirating their music and a conspicuous way. What tops if off, though, is that there is a single band in popular music today who has somewho managed to retain all the copyrights on their works: Metallica. I think we know how far we'll get on that front. ;-)
Actual, Compaq's support does go back 10 years if you include Digital (now owned and assimilated by Compaq, of course), which gave Linus an Alpha to port Linux to oh-so-long ago. I'm not really a fan of those ads stating Compaq's age-old commitment to Linux, since for the most part it wasn't even them, but I guess you could look at it that way.
One important thing to note (and left out of this announcement) is that Darren will be including bootable ISOs with his releases. This is a great move, as I've always run into trouble with the hacked together OpenBSD unofficial ISOs. I'm also not too keen on using a 6-month-old firewall with who knows how many fixes needed in the future, and am glad IPF is back in the game with a OpenBSD-alike release that I can grab and run with. Good job to everyone involved!
Who said anything about one being a worse offense or another? I stated more harm than good would be done by this software (meaning false accusations versus actual copying offenses) in an introductory class where all the students are completing the same basic assignments with few ways to go about completing them, versus students copying larger, complex assignments line for line. I agree with your points completely, but they weren't what I was addressing
You've hit the nail on the head (though this has been discussed before plenty). Something like this is going to do more harm than good in an intro computer science class because the programs will all be virtually the same in design. Perhaps in a large, upper-level class it would make sense, but the again, no professor's I've ever had (or TAs for that matter) have had much trouble spotting identical "structure" on students' assignments.
I see comments like this one regularly, and I'm really not sure why. I'm a subscriber to the kernel mailing list, and rarely get over 100 emails a day (max 150), all of which get dumped into a kernel-traffic folder which is quite easy to browse through and delete, as well as keep one's self up-to-date on kernel developments. I would think the more people involved in Linux kernel development with _constructive_ bug reports the better things would be. Comments like this really aren't doing anything besides giving a false impression, and would certainly encourage anyone looking for some good reading material to sign up and set aside a mail folder for it.
It's a release for security updates. This is very different from a bugfix release, which would generally be a much greater undertaking and require a lot more packages to be upgraded to newer versions. Think of it this way: a security update would be when Slash code allows users to gain the access levels of other users, including elevated privileges. A bugfix release would be an increment in the Slash code that fixes broken features that do not include security compromises. Makes sense? =)
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but only changes to GPL sofware need to be released. They can do whatever they want with Wine (not GPL), and if they made any kernel changes they will be released. I dunno who told you that about bash, but it's incorrect, RMS has no say in who uses or packages bash as long as no changes are made or those changes are released. Something being reliant or using GPL software means absolutely nothing in regards to the GPL.
It doesn't get hit by viruses, and do to the true multiuser nature of a *NIX system, a virus would be completely ineffective unless run as root by a very foolish person that would have to consciously do so. Feel free to point me out one that isn't a story by a company trying to sell a virus software product. In regards to your second point, my system has NEVER crashed. I've done extensive CD burning, DRI-enabled gaming, and played around with peripherals regularly (USB camera, SCSI scanner, printer), all without ever a crash or a glitch. I'm kinda curious...what ARE you talking about?
Obscurity would imply that they hid it; what they in fact did was block the exploit completely.
That is incorrect. They've stopped people from sending the bogus messages through their servers. How long do you think it would take to write a program that scans IP ranges for clients that are STILL SUSCEPTIBLE and attack them directly? 5 minutes? 10 minutes for a Code Red for AIM? This is not a fix by any means.
The documents are available in Word and .PDF format. These are pretty industry standard at this point, and .pdf can be read a multitude of ways. What's the problem?
You realize you can re-use your old .config, right? There's even an option to load or save old non-.config files in the various menuconfig/xconfig/whatever menus.
You can download the Solaris source code to your heart's content here. You can edit, change, and rebuild all you like if it will really suit your needs. You can send patches back to Sun if you feel so inclined for incorporation. The only thing you can't do is redistribute it, which from what it sounds like your needs are, really isn't that important anyways.
As a user of SpeakEasy.net, one of the few good DSL providers left who don't use the broken-by-design PPPoE protocol, I'm definitely relieved to hear that Covad will be sticking around for a while. SpeakEasy assured all of their customers that in the event of Covad going under they would provide service by some other means, though that's always questionable at best. Great job, guys!
I have a good deal of experience with MIT and their network, and for some reason the administration there thinks that any and all network activites should be allowed and are for some reason granted under free speech (as evidenced by, among other things, fuck-the-skull-of-jesus.mit.edu), including piracy of software, music, and movies. I'm really not sure what's going through their heads or why they consistently look the other way (join MIT, pay to pirate all you want and we'll protect you!), but I've SERIOUSLY seen less piracy in a number of Asian cities selling "questionable" goods on recorded media. What a disgrace.
Michael, please click the link to Mplayer's site. They took the entirety of the mplayer source, changed the output plugin for OS/2, and released it as binary-only. It appears that source has now been released and the issue has been resolved, but at least read the article before letting them off light. They tried to pull a fast one on Mplayer using very little or no code of their own. I don't know if you call that imitation, I call it stealing.
Whether or not it works as intended (yes, WEP is broken), it still functions as a deterant, and that's important. It's much more like having a locked door with the key buried somewhere underground in the yard versus an unlocked door. Someone could take the time to find it eventually, sure, but it's much easier to go up to the house with the unlocked door/wireless network.
What are you talking about? The nVidia kernel drivers are released under the GPL, and they work just fine on any 2.4 kernel.
* the ports collection can't be beat by any distro
Actually, it can very easily be beat by many distros. Ports is nice if you're installing a program from scratch and leaving it, but if you update your ports collection, there's no method to update a single package! You need to uninstall every package that depends on the one you're trying to upgrade by hand, then install all of them AGAIN through ports. Until there's a 'make update' that updates a single package (or a package and everything that depends on it) after updating the ports tree, it won't be nearly as flexible as a simple 'rpm -Fvh file.rpm' or the apt-get equivalent.