Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)?
Linux is licensed under the GPL. Hurd is licensed under the GPL. Neither has any exceptions or additional grants. GPL goes as far as the copyright does. Everything that is derived from Linux and Hurd will have to be GPL. Now it happens to be that not all kernel modules can be considered to be derived from Linux so whatever Linux copyright would be (be it BSD, GPL or any Microsoft license), it wouldn't matter.
Proprietary binary modules for the Linux kernel can be written in some circumstances because in those circumstances the Linux license (the GNU GPL) is irrelevant. The situation with the Hurd is exactly the same. What Linux developers and Hurd developers think about binary modules that are not derived from Linux and Hurd, is irrelevant.
So preempt must still be broken, as it has been since test10. Don't use it.
Actually it was figured out that the reported problems with preempt were really caused by user errors.
No kernel bug -> no fix needed.
Re:Applies, but has not taken effect
on
UK Spam Law Goes Live
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Interesting. Finland has had anti-spam legislation since 1999, opt-in for individuals and opt-out for companies. Its enforcement and interpretation has been a problem, though. I believe a new law is being drafted (or is it already proposed?).
At the moment the law is being processed in the parliamentary committees. As far as I understand, the law will probably bring no signigicant changes to spam legislation (although the law itself covers many areas other than spam). EFFI has been heard in the process and their latest statement (in Finnish) on the law looks good.
A certain amount of pragmatism has to prevail here -- were binary modules disallowed, the phrase 'shoot yourself in the foot' jumps to mind.
I don't know if you've fallen for this but one common misunderstanding is that Linus or some other individual kernel developer would be able to decide to what extent binary modules are allowed. In reality, this decision was made when the GPL version 2 was adopted as the license for Linux. Now there is only speculation about what the copyright law says, what the GPL says, and what the courts would say if it ever got to court some day. Each kernel contributor has the option to sue or not to sue but the license and copyright law are what they are and there is very little any kernel contributor can do about them. They can speculate how things are but they really can't make a decision to change anything. Relicensing Linux would require permission from all the contributors which is, for practical purposes, a mission impossible.
Follow the link - either the quoter typed rather than cut and paste, or the BBC have already corrected it...
Yeah, I followed the link when I wrote my comment and now after your comment. It was 1987 then, it is 1997 now. It seems that BBC has really edited it afterwards.
If they wish to impose such a fee for Internet, just call it Information Tax and at least be honest with it. It is a tax because it's a legal obligation set by the government that requires people to pay a fixed amount of money. It's Information Tax because it is imposed on all people doing generic information exchange. It's obvious that if you don't pay the Information Tax, you are not allowed to access any information on the net.
According to This article on BBC News Michael Foale is no stranger to this: "He was onboard the Mir space station in 1987 when a Progress supply tanker crashed into it - one of the most dangerous incidents to have ever taken place in space."
BBC must be wrong. There were certainly no western astronauts onboard the Mir in 1987. I guess they probably mean 1997.
How does this change the fact that Debian is just not good enough, and has compromised thousands of machines across the globe? Sheesh, the denial... This is just like the Mandrake frying standard PC hardware story.
As far as I understand, no machines apart from the several Debian computers have been compromised. Compromising a machine that hosts the central Debian APT repositories is a perfect opportunity for backdooring thousands of machines In this case, that didn't happen. "Thousands of machines across the globe" have not been compromised. I guess it's only good luck but Debian users were not affected by this security breach.
The fedora.info site of the complaining fedora project is using a tm symbol next to thier name on the site, but they have not registered it with the US trademark office.
As far as I know, there are basically two ways of getting a trademark: the first is by registering and the second is by using something commercially long enough for it to become clearly associated with a company or a product. The first kind of trademark is denoted by having an R inside a circle whereas the second is denoted with the small tm symbol.
In other words:
(R) = Trademark through registration
tm = Trademark through established use
Using the tm symbol in the press release is consistent with their position because they're saying that they have become associated with the name 'Fedora'. They can have a trademark claim to the word even when they haven't registered it.
Has it occured to anyone that by patenting an anti-anti-spam technique, AT&T can legally forbid spammers from using that technique?'
If the technique is well-known and utilized prior the patent as well as extensively discussed in public forums (like nearly all ways of bypassing the spam filters are), then the patent can be nullified. In other words:
If the spammers have been using this patented method, the patent is void
If the spammers haven't been using this patented method, the patent has very little effect on spam
There have been many comments suggesting pretty much anything from a total lack of monitoring to constant monitoring. One thing that should be kept in mind is that the children and the parents are unique individuals. There are no universal answers to questions like this. What's good for one teen might not be good for another teenager and vice versa.
They are getting information in its natural state.
Actually, when people speak of free speech/free software/free society or whatever, I don't think they really mean that abstract concepts like "speech", "software", or "society" would be free. They mean that the people speaking, the people using software, and the people in the society are free.
Information by itself is not free or non-free. It's the people who use the information who enjoy freedom or then don't enjoy it. Now it's fair to say that if you can use information in freedom, it's free information, but stamping ethical values to physical or abstract concepts isn't very straight thinking.
Is there anyway I can moderate this entire story -1: Flamebait?
I'm not sure if it's a flamebait. Maybe it was intended as a flamebait but failed? At least I don't even understand what was the point he was trying to make. Yeah, he doesn't seem to like free software but it was more like random mindless babbling than anything like a good parody or a flamebait.
Now that I look what the article says about the author, "Howard Strauss is the manager of technology strategy", I'm thinking just what the heck is that kind of a job title? Is it a somewhat humorous AI experiment some Princeton students have submitted to Slashdot? Or is this one of the cases where one just has to say "60 lines of LISP can hardly be called an AI"?
So, what about these Linux-o-philes that post that Bill Gates = Hitler - and they get modded 5:Insightfull?
I think it's rather safe to say that there are lots of clueless Linux zealots out there. Since there are quite a many of them, they can also moderate and you know the consequences. If people wish to read truly insightful comments, they will have to look somewhere else.
As for me, I think that Slashdot is an accidental meta-parody of a parody of a real news site that gets its entertainment value of its twisted wickedness.
Posting a story on Slashdot about that article is a flamebait while the story itself might not be. It's not only about what is said but also about the audience the speaker is talking to. When you are talking to a friendly or a neutral audience, you can use rather harsh words of people who are not a part of the audience. However, if you use harsh words of your audience, you must be very, very careful and have very solid backing for every statement you present. Clearly, the article linked in this Slashdot story was not written with Slashdot-readers in mind.
On the other hand, comparing Linux zealots to terrorists implies a rather severe lack of a sense of proportions just like comparing your opponent with Hitler. If you compare someone you disagree with, be it OS zealots, political opponents or whatever, with mass-murderers, there is really something wrong with a person making such comparisons. Even if a zealot acts like an idiot, being an idiot does not imply that one is a mass-murderer.
They still haven't fixed the problems in the framebuffers. Anyone know why this is so low priority?
As far as I understand, there is still a significant body of new framebuffer code that hasn't been merged to Linus' tree. There is a message from the framebuffer maintainer on the Linux framebuffer development list saying that the merge will happen, quoting him directly, "Very soon. I have new software cursor code that I'm debugging right now. This is the only thing holding back the syning."
It seems that Microsoft is attacking the system, not the kernel.
I havent really heard anything about Linux, really.
There have been local root compromises and remote DoS issues this year. I'm not sure about remote root compromises. (I've just patched the systems without trying to understand every single detail in security advisories.)
and besides, when there is a Linux KERNEL exploit its fixed in hours, or minutes!
No, they just hate copyleft. If one goes along with the assumption that "intellectual property" is just like private property in general, copyleft might indeed seem like a communist plot to promote a concept of The United Soviet States of America (or something like that).
It's one reason why "intellectual property" isn't such a good word. Where I live, there is a rather widely understood word for copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other similar things. It's immaterial rights and it would be great if it caught on to wider use. Speaking of immaterial rights is rather neutral and doesn't carry any positive or negative payload that I could see.
Slashdot Mirror
There is evidence to the contrary.
Linux is licensed under the GPL. Hurd is licensed under the GPL. Neither has any exceptions or additional grants. GPL goes as far as the copyright does. Everything that is derived from Linux and Hurd will have to be GPL. Now it happens to be that not all kernel modules can be considered to be derived from Linux so whatever Linux copyright would be (be it BSD, GPL or any Microsoft license), it wouldn't matter.
Proprietary binary modules for the Linux kernel can be written in some circumstances because in those circumstances the Linux license (the GNU GPL) is irrelevant. The situation with the Hurd is exactly the same. What Linux developers and Hurd developers think about binary modules that are not derived from Linux and Hurd, is irrelevant.
Actually it was figured out that the reported problems with preempt were really caused by user errors.
No kernel bug -> no fix needed.
At the moment the law is being processed in the parliamentary committees. As far as I understand, the law will probably bring no signigicant changes to spam legislation (although the law itself covers many areas other than spam). EFFI has been heard in the process and their latest statement (in Finnish) on the law looks good.
That was not funny at all. The moderators will chown you.
If I recall correctly, Debian defaults to MD5. The traditional way is offered as an alternative if you need it for compatibility.
I don't know if you've fallen for this but one common misunderstanding is that Linus or some other individual kernel developer would be able to decide to what extent binary modules are allowed. In reality, this decision was made when the GPL version 2 was adopted as the license for Linux. Now there is only speculation about what the copyright law says, what the GPL says, and what the courts would say if it ever got to court some day. Each kernel contributor has the option to sue or not to sue but the license and copyright law are what they are and there is very little any kernel contributor can do about them. They can speculate how things are but they really can't make a decision to change anything. Relicensing Linux would require permission from all the contributors which is, for practical purposes, a mission impossible.
Yeah, I followed the link when I wrote my comment and now after your comment. It was 1987 then, it is 1997 now. It seems that BBC has really edited it afterwards.
If they wish to impose such a fee for Internet, just call it Information Tax and at least be honest with it. It is a tax because it's a legal obligation set by the government that requires people to pay a fixed amount of money. It's Information Tax because it is imposed on all people doing generic information exchange. It's obvious that if you don't pay the Information Tax, you are not allowed to access any information on the net.
BBC must be wrong. There were certainly no western astronauts onboard the Mir in 1987. I guess they probably mean 1997.
But the easiest way to change it is to simply type:
...and let debconf allow you to choose the nice value with the normal debconf configuration dialog.
dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common
As far as I understand, no machines apart from the several Debian computers have been compromised. Compromising a machine that hosts the central Debian APT repositories is a perfect opportunity for backdooring thousands of machines In this case, that didn't happen. "Thousands of machines across the globe" have not been compromised. I guess it's only good luck but Debian users were not affected by this security breach.
As far as I know, there are basically two ways of getting a trademark: the first is by registering and the second is by using something commercially long enough for it to become clearly associated with a company or a product. The first kind of trademark is denoted by having an R inside a circle whereas the second is denoted with the small tm symbol.
In other words:
(R) = Trademark through registration
tm = Trademark through established use
Using the tm symbol in the press release is consistent with their position because they're saying that they have become associated with the name 'Fedora'. They can have a trademark claim to the word even when they haven't registered it.
Disclaimer: IANAL etc.
If the technique is well-known and utilized prior the patent as well as extensively discussed in public forums (like nearly all ways of bypassing the spam filters are), then the patent can be nullified. In other words:
There have been many comments suggesting pretty much anything from a total lack of monitoring to constant monitoring. One thing that should be kept in mind is that the children and the parents are unique individuals. There are no universal answers to questions like this. What's good for one teen might not be good for another teenager and vice versa.
My personal guess is that there is some confusion between SCO's IP over facts lawsuit and IBM's voice over IP project.
Actually, when people speak of free speech/free software/free society or whatever, I don't think they really mean that abstract concepts like "speech", "software", or "society" would be free. They mean that the people speaking, the people using software, and the people in the society are free.
Information by itself is not free or non-free. It's the people who use the information who enjoy freedom or then don't enjoy it. Now it's fair to say that if you can use information in freedom, it's free information, but stamping ethical values to physical or abstract concepts isn't very straight thinking.
I'm not sure if it's a flamebait. Maybe it was intended as a flamebait but failed? At least I don't even understand what was the point he was trying to make. Yeah, he doesn't seem to like free software but it was more like random mindless babbling than anything like a good parody or a flamebait.
Now that I look what the article says about the author, "Howard Strauss is the manager of technology strategy", I'm thinking just what the heck is that kind of a job title? Is it a somewhat humorous AI experiment some Princeton students have submitted to Slashdot? Or is this one of the cases where one just has to say "60 lines of LISP can hardly be called an AI"?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic but Yasser Arafat has already won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
I think it's rather safe to say that there are lots of clueless Linux zealots out there. Since there are quite a many of them, they can also moderate and you know the consequences. If people wish to read truly insightful comments, they will have to look somewhere else.
As for me, I think that Slashdot is an accidental meta-parody of a parody of a real news site that gets its entertainment value of its twisted wickedness.
Posting a story on Slashdot about that article is a flamebait while the story itself might not be. It's not only about what is said but also about the audience the speaker is talking to. When you are talking to a friendly or a neutral audience, you can use rather harsh words of people who are not a part of the audience. However, if you use harsh words of your audience, you must be very, very careful and have very solid backing for every statement you present. Clearly, the article linked in this Slashdot story was not written with Slashdot-readers in mind.
On the other hand, comparing Linux zealots to terrorists implies a rather severe lack of a sense of proportions just like comparing your opponent with Hitler. If you compare someone you disagree with, be it OS zealots, political opponents or whatever, with mass-murderers, there is really something wrong with a person making such comparisons. Even if a zealot acts like an idiot, being an idiot does not imply that one is a mass-murderer.
As far as I understand, there is still a significant body of new framebuffer code that hasn't been merged to Linus' tree. There is a message from the framebuffer maintainer on the Linux framebuffer development list saying that the merge will happen, quoting him directly, "Very soon. I have new software cursor code that I'm debugging right now. This is the only thing holding back the syning."
There have been local root compromises and remote DoS issues this year. I'm not sure about remote root compromises. (I've just patched the systems without trying to understand every single detail in security advisories.)
Dream on.
No, they just hate copyleft. If one goes along with the assumption that "intellectual property" is just like private property in general, copyleft might indeed seem like a communist plot to promote a concept of The United Soviet States of America (or something like that).
It's one reason why "intellectual property" isn't such a good word. Where I live, there is a rather widely understood word for copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other similar things. It's immaterial rights and it would be great if it caught on to wider use. Speaking of immaterial rights is rather neutral and doesn't carry any positive or negative payload that I could see.
I don't know... but whatever it is, don't tell the kids. It might be bad influence.