That's a problem with several distros. I wish I could tell the installer I don't have:
1) A scanner 2) A printer 3) A digital camera that needs drivers 4) A modem 5) A PDA or anything to sync with
It'd also be nice to be able to tell the installer that if X isn't going to work when I reboot, please don't set it to start by default.
Maybe this is a little too extreme, but I think installers should just install drivers, basic system software required on any Linux install, and X with a simple IceWM config as default. Make a nice package manager GUI, and make sure it's easy to get to on whatever desktop eventually gets installed. If home users want to install OO.org and Mozilla, make them install afterwards using the GUI. Corporate and OEM types could still make a script that installs everything they need, and everyone would be happy except those who want to install every app they might ever use during initial setup.
Many open, undocumented APIs. Inconsistant behaviour within the *same* version on different distros. An environment that is completely different between machines. Package dependency hell. Patchy driver support. Config files that only programmers can understand.
Developers write an app, and have to work their asses off to make sure it runs on anything besides their machine.
I'm not saying Windows is perfect in this regard, but Linux ain't much better. It's just representative of the vast numbers of different configurations out there. If I write a program on Linux, and I want it to run on every Linux computer, I have to jump through a few hoops. If I write a program on Windows, and I want it to run on every Windows computer, I have to jump through a few hoops. Neither is the silver bullet when it comes to easy deployment of applications.
I agree, and I think it might be a great service. If it looked half as good as the stuff I do with TeX, I might even pay for it. But their name choice and methods are morally questionable. If they want to sell PG texts as PDF, call it Project PDFBooks or something.
The graphic links to a site that seems to be a mirror of a page on Adobe's site. No indication other than the URL that it's not Adobe.com. I checked Adobe's site, and the software they're distributing is only available as part of Acrobat Reader 6. I smell something fishy...
This is just one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. If they want to sell access to PDF copies of Project Gutenberg texts, that's fine by me. However, they're quite clearly trying to use Project Gutenberg's good name to sell their material. True, they say that they are unafilliated on the page, but think about it. Their site is www.projectgutenberg.info. Not www.projectgutenberg2.info. The name, Project Gutenberg 2, means a sequel to Project Gutenberg. Most people would see "Project Gutenberg 2" and assume it's an extension of the original Project Gutenberg. They can claim they're not trying to exploit name confusion all they want, but they picked their name with full knowledge that it would be confused with another project with similar goals that already existed.
Re:actually this wsj story cannot be published in
on
Junkie Loves His Spam
·
· Score: 1
Deep linking (linking to individual articles) is legally vague. It's not clear whether they can legally demand money or disallow linking. If Slashdot were actually posting the entire text of the article, then they might have a slightly better legal position.
P for Parenthesis. E for Exponents M for Multiplication D for Division A for Addition S for Subtraction
As any quick check of Google for "pemdas" would tell you. Roots are fractional exponents, so they have the exact same priority. Get it right before you attack somebody else.
Well, I used to hang out in some "less than reputable" channels on IRC, and I've seen a few script kiddies earn their wings. Usually, they're introduced to the hacking scene via the Warez scene. A lot of warez is transferred and hosted on hacked boxes, so there's quite a demand for people who can 'r00t', basically meaning running a automated hacking tool on various subnets trying to get a collection of zombies used for dump sites or XDCC bots. Now, a side effect of this is that the kiddie will accumulate a large collection of zombies which don't have enough hard drive space or bandwidth to be useful to their warez ring. These are prime candidates for DDOS bots. I knew a person who had 40,000 or so bots, and could bring down our home IRC server by having them all connect at once. Or he could collect them all in a hidden channel on EFnet and randomly DDOS people in other channels. Eventually, people like that tend to find each other and either DDOS each other out of existence or exchange contacts and resources, and that's where they enter the serious hacking scene.
The reason White Hats don't get in on this is because you need to have an ante of a few thousand DDOS bots before you can even play the game. It's pretty sad that someone can enter an IP range, click a button, and have 5000 zombies in a few hours. Anyways, I hope that answered your question.
More likely they'll ban people from sending ZIP files. Of course, then the worms will just have a "rename attachment to.zip" step, but that's the way it goes.
That worm's running rampant on our campus email system, thanks mostly to the campus mailing lists. One person on the list gets it, and suddenly there's 10 in everybody's inbox. Proof that you really don't need a brain to get into college...
No, that's not the best I can come up with. It's the first thing I thought of, and the thing that bugged me the most. I'm not going to list any problems, because I'm sure you have a smartass response to each and every one about why they aren't actually problems, and how KDE is "superior" to everything else out there just because it supports your preferred method of doing things. If you want some, search on Google for "kde usability problem", no quotes.
Even if it's perfect for you, it's just stupid to say that it has absolutely no usability problems for everyone. If KDE fits you, fine. It doesn't fit me, and, judging by the number of people who use other systems, it doesn't fit a lot of other people either. I'd love to dump Windows and switch to KDE if it was more polished and there weren't assholes like you who claim the software's perfect and there's no need to fix these "usability problems" that everybody else seems to have. The bottom line is, whether you'd like to admit it or not, KDE is not perfect. It's good, but there's lots of room for improvement.
There's a problem with that. VHS backups weren't made with the explicit permission of the cable broadcaster. With iTunes, CD burning is specifically allowed. Unless you actually point out a part of the license that makes those copies unlicensed at some point in the future, you're just waving your hands. In regards to the link you posted, I'd like to comment on a part of the license you posted there:
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
This is just standard lawyer-speak for saying that they are not giving up their rights. It doesn't somehow negate the part before where they state that making copies for personal, non-commercial use is allowed.
How can you claim that i'm creating a derivative work when I burn the AAC files to a CD? I also don't see how my CDs would somehow become unlicensed because I'm not using iTunes any more. Could you back that up, with an excerpt from the license if possible?
As far as I know, Apple cannot retroactively change my license unless I start paying money. That's called extortion. In regards to Apple never charging for iTunes, they might in the future. However, that can't affect my use of the software I already have. Even if there's a license provision for Apple to change the license without warning, that's not legally enforcable.
How do you figure? I've never bought any Apple hardware, and I still have just as much "defacto" right to play as anybody else. I'm paying $0.99 for a file which requires Apple's permission to move to another computer, but certainly not to play. If Apple goes out of business, I can keep listening to my music just as legally, and continue to burn said files onto CD's as much as I want.
I'm on a college campus, and I don't know anybody who uses or would use the new Napster. However, iTunes is quite large. On our dorm subnet, there's probably around 50 people sharing their iTunes playlists at any given time. Given that that gives pretty much the same benefits as Napster would, there's just no benefit to using Napster besides "legality".
multiple desktops, session management, copy-paste, 3-mouse button support and single-click consistency
These are things that KDE does the way you like. They're not examples of KDE superiority. Don't make the mistake of claiming that everybody likes the same things you do. I've used KDE, and while it's a decent desktop, there's no way in hell I could say that it has no usability problems.
Example: The menus all have "More Programs" submenus. Why can't all the programs for a group be on the same level?
I have used KDE, so I do know what I'm talking about. I don't use Windows because of the marketing. I use it because right now, it's not practical for me to switch to Linux and KDE. I do agree that documentation and binary compatibility are problems, but they're hardly the only ones facing KDE.
The security concern I'm worried about is that this could be used to control devices that could cause harm to data or infrastructure, like a network card.
Say someone plugs into my network with a rogue device, which sends packets in some protocol my network card doesn't understand. My network card sees these strange packets on the wire, and asks rogue device to send code to interpret them. Rogue device sends back code that pingfloods the whole network and spoofs the source IP so it looks like our company fileserver is doing it.
Hopefully there will be controls in place to prevent this type of thing, but it's still another possible vector of attack. Judging by the track records for implementing security-related stuff, I just think we should be *very* careful in how this is implemented.
It works for Java applets, but what the article discusses is a whole nother matter. The sandbox that Java applets run under is very restrictive. If they can come up with a suitable sandbox that allows devices to run transmitted code and be able to do something useful, that's great. However, since this deals with hardware configuration, you have to give the code access to the actual hardware. That's a big security no-no. Once you have access to the hardware, you can do all sorts of nasty things.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but it'll be far harder than the Java applets that you give as an example of how easy it is. It's also worth noting that the article doesn't talk about a VM or any kind of concrete details, presumably because they hope to sell it.
The general program is Software Express, which is what you described. The specific program which gives access to a preview of Solaris 10 is called Solaris Express. So the article is using the right term.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a problem with several distros. I wish I could tell the installer I don't have:
1) A scanner
2) A printer
3) A digital camera that needs drivers
4) A modem
5) A PDA or anything to sync with
It'd also be nice to be able to tell the installer that if X isn't going to work when I reboot, please don't set it to start by default.
Maybe this is a little too extreme, but I think installers should just install drivers, basic system software required on any Linux install, and X with a simple IceWM config as default. Make a nice package manager GUI, and make sure it's easy to get to on whatever desktop eventually gets installed. If home users want to install OO.org and Mozilla, make them install afterwards using the GUI. Corporate and OEM types could still make a script that installs everything they need, and everyone would be happy except those who want to install every app they might ever use during initial setup.
How do you draw the line between "remix without permission and distribute" and just plain distribute?
If I take a popular single and speed it up 0.1%, does that qualify as a remix, and can I then distribute it as long as I don't make a profit?
Compare that to Linux.
Many open, undocumented APIs. Inconsistant behaviour within the *same* version on different distros. An environment that is completely different between machines. Package dependency hell. Patchy driver support. Config files that only programmers can understand.
Developers write an app, and have to work their asses off to make sure it runs on anything besides their machine.
I'm not saying Windows is perfect in this regard, but Linux ain't much better. It's just representative of the vast numbers of different configurations out there. If I write a program on Linux, and I want it to run on every Linux computer, I have to jump through a few hoops. If I write a program on Windows, and I want it to run on every Windows computer, I have to jump through a few hoops. Neither is the silver bullet when it comes to easy deployment of applications.
I agree, and I think it might be a great service. If it looked half as good as the stuff I do with TeX, I might even pay for it. But their name choice and methods are morally questionable. If they want to sell PG texts as PDF, call it Project PDFBooks or something.
The graphic links to a site that seems to be a mirror of a page on Adobe's site. No indication other than the URL that it's not Adobe.com. I checked Adobe's site, and the software they're distributing is only available as part of Acrobat Reader 6. I smell something fishy...
This is just one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. If they want to sell access to PDF copies of Project Gutenberg texts, that's fine by me. However, they're quite clearly trying to use Project Gutenberg's good name to sell their material. True, they say that they are unafilliated on the page, but think about it. Their site is www.projectgutenberg.info. Not www.projectgutenberg2.info. The name, Project Gutenberg 2, means a sequel to Project Gutenberg. Most people would see "Project Gutenberg 2" and assume it's an extension of the original Project Gutenberg. They can claim they're not trying to exploit name confusion all they want, but they picked their name with full knowledge that it would be confused with another project with similar goals that already existed.
Deep linking (linking to individual articles) is legally vague. It's not clear whether they can legally demand money or disallow linking. If Slashdot were actually posting the entire text of the article, then they might have a slightly better legal position.
P for Parenthesis.
E for Exponents
M for Multiplication
D for Division
A for Addition
S for Subtraction
As any quick check of Google for "pemdas" would tell you. Roots are fractional exponents, so they have the exact same priority. Get it right before you attack somebody else.
KMail works fine with Wiscmail IMAP access ;)
> Is that an Imperial pint or an American pint?
Whichever one holds more beer...
Well, I used to hang out in some "less than reputable" channels on IRC, and I've seen a few script kiddies earn their wings. Usually, they're introduced to the hacking scene via the Warez scene. A lot of warez is transferred and hosted on hacked boxes, so there's quite a demand for people who can 'r00t', basically meaning running a automated hacking tool on various subnets trying to get a collection of zombies used for dump sites or XDCC bots. Now, a side effect of this is that the kiddie will accumulate a large collection of zombies which don't have enough hard drive space or bandwidth to be useful to their warez ring. These are prime candidates for DDOS bots. I knew a person who had 40,000 or so bots, and could bring down our home IRC server by having them all connect at once. Or he could collect them all in a hidden channel on EFnet and randomly DDOS people in other channels. Eventually, people like that tend to find each other and either DDOS each other out of existence or exchange contacts and resources, and that's where they enter the serious hacking scene.
The reason White Hats don't get in on this is because you need to have an ante of a few thousand DDOS bots before you can even play the game. It's pretty sad that someone can enter an IP range, click a button, and have 5000 zombies in a few hours. Anyways, I hope that answered your question.
I agree, and add the reason that whoever gets snipers on the hill in the middle practically owns the map. It's definately needs a little rebalancing.
More likely they'll ban people from sending ZIP files. Of course, then the worms will just have a "rename attachment to .zip" step, but that's the way it goes.
That worm's running rampant on our campus email system, thanks mostly to the campus mailing lists. One person on the list gets it, and suddenly there's 10 in everybody's inbox. Proof that you really don't need a brain to get into college...
No, that's not the best I can come up with. It's the first thing I thought of, and the thing that bugged me the most. I'm not going to list any problems, because I'm sure you have a smartass response to each and every one about why they aren't actually problems, and how KDE is "superior" to everything else out there just because it supports your preferred method of doing things. If you want some, search on Google for "kde usability problem", no quotes.
Even if it's perfect for you, it's just stupid to say that it has absolutely no usability problems for everyone. If KDE fits you, fine. It doesn't fit me, and, judging by the number of people who use other systems, it doesn't fit a lot of other people either. I'd love to dump Windows and switch to KDE if it was more polished and there weren't assholes like you who claim the software's perfect and there's no need to fix these "usability problems" that everybody else seems to have. The bottom line is, whether you'd like to admit it or not, KDE is not perfect. It's good, but there's lots of room for improvement.
There's a problem with that. VHS backups weren't made with the explicit permission of the cable broadcaster. With iTunes, CD burning is specifically allowed. Unless you actually point out a part of the license that makes those copies unlicensed at some point in the future, you're just waving your hands. In regards to the link you posted, I'd like to comment on a part of the license you posted there:
This is just standard lawyer-speak for saying that they are not giving up their rights. It doesn't somehow negate the part before where they state that making copies for personal, non-commercial use is allowed.
How can you claim that i'm creating a derivative work when I burn the AAC files to a CD? I also don't see how my CDs would somehow become unlicensed because I'm not using iTunes any more. Could you back that up, with an excerpt from the license if possible?
As far as I know, Apple cannot retroactively change my license unless I start paying money. That's called extortion. In regards to Apple never charging for iTunes, they might in the future. However, that can't affect my use of the software I already have. Even if there's a license provision for Apple to change the license without warning, that's not legally enforcable.
How do you figure? I've never bought any Apple hardware, and I still have just as much "defacto" right to play as anybody else. I'm paying $0.99 for a file which requires Apple's permission to move to another computer, but certainly not to play. If Apple goes out of business, I can keep listening to my music just as legally, and continue to burn said files onto CD's as much as I want.
I'm on a college campus, and I don't know anybody who uses or would use the new Napster. However, iTunes is quite large. On our dorm subnet, there's probably around 50 people sharing their iTunes playlists at any given time. Given that that gives pretty much the same benefits as Napster would, there's just no benefit to using Napster besides "legality".
These are things that KDE does the way you like. They're not examples of KDE superiority. Don't make the mistake of claiming that everybody likes the same things you do. I've used KDE, and while it's a decent desktop, there's no way in hell I could say that it has no usability problems.
Example: The menus all have "More Programs" submenus. Why can't all the programs for a group be on the same level?
I have used KDE, so I do know what I'm talking about. I don't use Windows because of the marketing. I use it because right now, it's not practical for me to switch to Linux and KDE. I do agree that documentation and binary compatibility are problems, but they're hardly the only ones facing KDE.
The security concern I'm worried about is that this could be used to control devices that could cause harm to data or infrastructure, like a network card.
Say someone plugs into my network with a rogue device, which sends packets in some protocol my network card doesn't understand. My network card sees these strange packets on the wire, and asks rogue device to send code to interpret them. Rogue device sends back code that pingfloods the whole network and spoofs the source IP so it looks like our company fileserver is doing it.
Hopefully there will be controls in place to prevent this type of thing, but it's still another possible vector of attack. Judging by the track records for implementing security-related stuff, I just think we should be *very* careful in how this is implemented.
It works for Java applets, but what the article discusses is a whole nother matter. The sandbox that Java applets run under is very restrictive. If they can come up with a suitable sandbox that allows devices to run transmitted code and be able to do something useful, that's great. However, since this deals with hardware configuration, you have to give the code access to the actual hardware. That's a big security no-no. Once you have access to the hardware, you can do all sorts of nasty things.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but it'll be far harder than the Java applets that you give as an example of how easy it is. It's also worth noting that the article doesn't talk about a VM or any kind of concrete details, presumably because they hope to sell it.
Interesting. That's not what Sun says, and I'm more inclined to believe them over you.
Software Express for Solaris home pageThe general program is Software Express, which is what you described. The specific program which gives access to a preview of Solaris 10 is called Solaris Express. So the article is using the right term.