There are many people who will not use Windows for idealogical and/or security reasons but still need to interoperate with Windows machines. There are standards in technology for a reason. My computer should work with every other computer. Linux actively promotes this with open standards (just as it had been long before MS) but MS locks in their users. Since MS won't open up, then Linux has to do whatever it takes to open them up. THIS IS A GOOD THING. It is keeping the competition even. Anything to increase competition and bring down barriers in the software business is a good thing. What don't you get about that?
Edit any ebuild you want to add your compromise. Make it break out of the gentoo sandbox and erase that system straight from the ebuild. Or make it install a tainted binary.
You make it sound so easy. Just "break out" of the sandbox and erase the system. No system is ever going to be 100% secure, but things like sandboxing make it safer. I'll take my chances with Gentoo. The RPC exploits alone have convinced me to never even look at a Windows box again. It's just too much hassle.
I cant understand why Linux people are so desperate to always take Windows stuff. They have to use WINE (should be whine) because they dont have any good games, they need to make SAMBA because they dont have a real NOS, and now they need to 'borrow' NTFS because they cant make a NTFS driver of their own.
And 'of course' they are going to use an ntfs.sys which is on their licensed copy of Windows... Im sure they wouldnt dare get it off a warez site...
This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Linux uses WINE because Windows programs are the most prevalent and some people won't switch without them. SAMBA is needed for similar reasons. People need to share with Windows. Same deal with NTFS. This is not about taking anything from Windows. No one really wants to use Windows crap but it is a necessity if you want interoperation. MS doesn't seem to believe in open standards so this process is necessary.
I guess you just can't win in the Linux world. One person screams that Linux will never win out because there is not 100% interoperation between Windows and Linux. Then when interoperation is attempted someone screams about ripping Windows off. Get over it and make up your mind already.
Of course Wine has an emulation layer. What do you think it does when an application calls a win32api function... calls up Redmond and asks what to do?
No. It runs on a re-implementation of the win32 api, not an emulation. An emulator is like a translator, that translates from one api to another. WINE does not do this. It is a re-implementation of DLL's, not a translation.
You're absolutely right about system security. The question is which one is more secure out of the box? Red Hat Linux? If you think so, then you're dead wrong. FreeBSD asks you if you want to enable a higher kernel security mode after setup. If you go with extreme, only way on the box is through the console. Linux allows users to su to root without being in the wheel group, which is also a security risk. I'm not going to point out the security hazzards with Linux and FreeBSD, I just wanted to give a point of view. Ultimately the only way to make a computer truely secure is to not plug in the power.
One distribution does not cover them all. Gentoo does not allow you to su unless you are in the wheel group. There are also many security options you can configure. I'll take my hardened-sources (selinux + other seurity related patches and programs) box over your FreeBSD one anyday.
So? You would think that since Caldera itself sold GPL'ed stuff, that would stop SCO from suing, period. But it hasn't.
They could simply say that Hellwig was doing this in his spare time, or that he and his boss were coding for Linux in their spare time. The problem here is, Hellwig is a peon. Just another worker bee. Doesn't matter what employees do, it's a question of whether the top executive know. Did they know what Hellwig was doing? Did they realize all the implications? Those are the real questions. And here we enter the realm of plausible deniability (lawyers can jump in to correct me anytime now). Did the executives know what one worker bee was doing? Hell no! Why do they care what one of their workers was doing in his free time?
Wake me up when Hellwig's boss's boss's boss's boss knew about the problem, understood the implications, wrote a letter, and forwarded it to his boss, who then fired it up through management to the upper echelons.
You're wrong actually. A CEO is entirely responsible even if he is not aware of what is happening. This is the first thing anyone learns in asset protection. You have to be aware because if you are not you will still be held liable. CEO's have been held liable in the past. This is not theory, it has happened.
Doesn't this company have a history of this? If memory serves, Caldera (which is just SCO by another name, no?), made a pile a number of years ago by buying DR DOS from Digital Research and then turning around an suing Microsoft for alledgedly sabotaging versions of Windows 3.1x such that it would not run properly on DR DOS.
Funny though, I'll bet most of the/. crowd was on the Caldera side of that one. How times change.
That's because MS did actually sabotage DR DOS. DR DOS was better than MS DOS but if you tried to run it underneath windows instead of MS DOS, you would get error messages about using an incompatible version of DOS. Everything still worked but it would pop up error messages anyway.
FYI, firing squad are actually less painless, at least for those who're light weighted. Hanging take a long while to die. While with firing squad, as long as they hit your vital (Head, heart, etc.), you die pretty quick or instant.
Unfortunately they usually don't hit you in a vital organ. Only one bullet is actually fired. Only one gun has a live round, while the other members of the firing squad have blanks. This is to make the deaths more impersonal. Know one knows who actually fired the deadly shot. This also makes the likelihood of a quick death even more unlikely. The weapons used in those days were far from accurate.
On the other hand, hanging, if done properly, will snap your neck in an instant.
Why don't you look it up yourself, or, for that matter, call him up and ask him yourself. It's not my fault that you don't read. This is not exaclty a big secret.
as for the awol comments there's no true proof he was, both sides say one thing or the other so until real proof comes out on one side or the other your comments are just further proof you will buy into anything
Sorry buddy but you are wrong. He got a transerfer and NEVER showed up. General William Turnispeed, the unit's commander, claims he never once saw Bush for the entire year from May 1972 to May 1973.
Algore is not a very bright man, in spite of all the hype spread around. He's a classic example of someone born with a silver spoon in his mouth (both his father and his grandfather were in national government before him). And he got shit grades in school consistently.
Incorrect. Communism has been attempted several times. It just happens that every single time the end result has been an oppressive dictatorship. Oh I know that you are going to say that "Yes, but that isn't REALLY communism!". But you know what? I don't care! All I care what communism is like in real-life! I don't care what some whacko theories and books say how it should be, I care about what it's reality is.
If you care about reality so much then maybe you would like to know that in "reality" Communism has never been tried. The theories and books were around long before people started branding themsevles or others communists. So in effect you are misrepresenting what Communism is really about when you call the former Soviet Union "Communist". Anything representing Communist values are prematurely being discarded as a failure based on past experience. Unfortunately past experience is not based on Communism. Therein lies the problem.
And reality is that communism is a monumental failure. If you need proof, take a look at the communistic countries and their actions.
The US military hogs all of the good technology, and poor countries are denied the ability to improve their armed forces because of proprietary technology.
The military will not have to release the source though. I don't believe that they would have any reason to distribute binaries for the system so they won't have to release any code.
Well thank god that's the exception and not the rule, especially since NT may or may not have been responsible for crippling one of those cruisers back in 98 or 99. I have a friend who is an electrical engineer who worked on a project for the navy involving nuclear submarines. While on board he noticed the computers (which were running Windows) and thought it was odd that something so high tech would have computers running Windows on them. He asked the tech guy on board why they used Windows and the guy said it was only for sending email and other menial tasks for the crew members. The "real" computers, that actually did "real" work were all running UNIX.
SCO needs to specify whether IBM can't release it because it has 10 lines that look a little bit like Sys V code or whether IBM can't release it because it was ported to AIX at one point.
SCO is not claiming that JFS contains sys V code. They are claiming that they own JFS, even though IBM invented it, just because they use it for AIX. Their arguemnt makes no sense.
Talk about viral licensing!
When you have a house and it's broken into, you're going to hope that the kids that did it are caught and put in jail. Just remember that it's your fault because you didn't put unbreakable glass in your windows, and encase the entire house in armor plating.
True, but if you buy a lock and it gets broken very easily then you're not going to be too happy with the lock either. An unsecure operating system is not acceptable today. Large amounts of stored data and personal information is being exposed to the world. Business is being halted by teenagers writing worms and viruses. If a kid and cause several companies to lose millions of dollars, don't you think Microsoft would be guilty of at least neglect? Most of these kids can't even code very well. They just make it too easy.
Did you RTFA? If those programs suck then no one will use then and they will die. The whole point of sourceforge anyway is to advertise for people to test and possibley join projects.
A copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyright. Imagine you write a hit song, and hold the copyright to it. Elton John wants to perform it at the grammies - you decide to charge him a half million dollars to do so..
You find out that some kids garage band played it at their high school talent show - you can look the other way, grant them a 0 cost license.. Whatever you want.
That's not true. You can't charge someone for singing a song written by someone else at a concert. You can only receive royalties from recorded instances of a song.
Which part of the constitution would the seperation of church and state be in, It's cool if it is, but I thought that seperation of curch and state was federal law not constitutional law.
Article VI states..'but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Unied States.'
The First Amendment first phrase; 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..'
I am really sorry to say this to you but Atheists do not have a right not to see the word god.
Your assumption is wrong. I am not an atheist. You are right though, atheists don't have a right to not see the word God, but they also have a right to have it removed from their governement. Your opinion would be different if it were Allah instead of God.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many people who will not use Windows for idealogical and/or security reasons but still need to interoperate with Windows machines. There are standards in technology for a reason. My computer should work with every other computer. Linux actively promotes this with open standards (just as it had been long before MS) but MS locks in their users. Since MS won't open up, then Linux has to do whatever it takes to open them up. THIS IS A GOOD THING. It is keeping the competition even. Anything to increase competition and bring down barriers in the software business is a good thing. What don't you get about that?
You make it sound so easy. Just "break out" of the sandbox and erase the system. No system is ever going to be 100% secure, but things like sandboxing make it safer. I'll take my chances with Gentoo. The RPC exploits alone have convinced me to never even look at a Windows box again. It's just too much hassle.
And 'of course' they are going to use an ntfs.sys which is on their licensed copy of Windows... Im sure they wouldnt dare get it off a warez site...
This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Linux uses WINE because Windows programs are the most prevalent and some people won't switch without them. SAMBA is needed for similar reasons. People need to share with Windows. Same deal with NTFS. This is not about taking anything from Windows. No one really wants to use Windows crap but it is a necessity if you want interoperation. MS doesn't seem to believe in open standards so this process is necessary.
I guess you just can't win in the Linux world. One person screams that Linux will never win out because there is not 100% interoperation between Windows and Linux. Then when interoperation is attempted someone screams about ripping Windows off. Get over it and make up your mind already.
No. It runs on a re-implementation of the win32 api, not an emulation. An emulator is like a translator, that translates from one api to another. WINE does not do this. It is a re-implementation of DLL's, not a translation.
One distribution does not cover them all. Gentoo does not allow you to su unless you are in the wheel group. There are also many security options you can configure. I'll take my hardened-sources (selinux + other seurity related patches and programs) box over your FreeBSD one anyday.
They could simply say that Hellwig was doing this in his spare time, or that he and his boss were coding for Linux in their spare time. The problem here is, Hellwig is a peon. Just another worker bee. Doesn't matter what employees do, it's a question of whether the top executive know. Did they know what Hellwig was doing? Did they realize all the implications? Those are the real questions. And here we enter the realm of plausible deniability (lawyers can jump in to correct me anytime now). Did the executives know what one worker bee was doing? Hell no! Why do they care what one of their workers was doing in his free time?
Wake me up when Hellwig's boss's boss's boss's boss knew about the problem, understood the implications, wrote a letter, and forwarded it to his boss, who then fired it up through management to the upper echelons.
You're wrong actually. A CEO is entirely responsible even if he is not aware of what is happening. This is the first thing anyone learns in asset protection. You have to be aware because if you are not you will still be held liable. CEO's have been held liable in the past. This is not theory, it has happened.
Funny though, I'll bet most of the /. crowd was on the Caldera side of that one. How times change.
That's because MS did actually sabotage DR DOS. DR DOS was better than MS DOS but if you tried to run it underneath windows instead of MS DOS, you would get error messages about using an incompatible version of DOS. Everything still worked but it would pop up error messages anyway.
Unfortunately they usually don't hit you in a vital organ. Only one bullet is actually fired. Only one gun has a live round, while the other members of the firing squad have blanks. This is to make the deaths more impersonal. Know one knows who actually fired the deadly shot. This also makes the likelihood of a quick death even more unlikely. The weapons used in those days were far from accurate. On the other hand, hanging, if done properly, will snap your neck in an instant.
Quote from William Turnispeed
Why don't you look it up yourself, or, for that matter, call him up and ask him yourself. It's not my fault that you don't read. This is not exaclty a big secret.
Sorry buddy but you are wrong. He got a transerfer and NEVER showed up. General William Turnispeed, the unit's commander, claims he never once saw Bush for the entire year from May 1972 to May 1973.
I guess graduating with high honors at Harvard means nothing then. Bush never pulled his average above a C in college.
Without that not-so-bright politician you wouldn't on the internet right now. Keep that in mind, bud.
You misspelled George W. Bush.
When did PC's running Linux get expensive?
If you care about reality so much then maybe you would like to know that in "reality" Communism has never been tried. The theories and books were around long before people started branding themsevles or others communists. So in effect you are misrepresenting what Communism is really about when you call the former Soviet Union "Communist". Anything representing Communist values are prematurely being discarded as a failure based on past experience. Unfortunately past experience is not based on Communism. Therein lies the problem.
And reality is that communism is a monumental failure. If you need proof, take a look at the communistic countries and their actions.
That statement proves my point.
The military will not have to release the source though. I don't believe that they would have any reason to distribute binaries for the system so they won't have to release any code.
Well thank god that's the exception and not the rule, especially since NT may or may not have been responsible for crippling one of those cruisers back in 98 or 99. I have a friend who is an electrical engineer who worked on a project for the navy involving nuclear submarines. While on board he noticed the computers (which were running Windows) and thought it was odd that something so high tech would have computers running Windows on them. He asked the tech guy on board why they used Windows and the guy said it was only for sending email and other menial tasks for the crew members. The "real" computers, that actually did "real" work were all running UNIX.
SCO is not claiming that JFS contains sys V code. They are claiming that they own JFS, even though IBM invented it, just because they use it for AIX. Their arguemnt makes no sense. Talk about viral licensing!
True, but if you buy a lock and it gets broken very easily then you're not going to be too happy with the lock either. An unsecure operating system is not acceptable today. Large amounts of stored data and personal information is being exposed to the world. Business is being halted by teenagers writing worms and viruses. If a kid and cause several companies to lose millions of dollars, don't you think Microsoft would be guilty of at least neglect? Most of these kids can't even code very well. They just make it too easy.
Did you RTFA? If those programs suck then no one will use then and they will die. The whole point of sourceforge anyway is to advertise for people to test and possibley join projects.
You find out that some kids garage band played it at their high school talent show - you can look the other way, grant them a 0 cost license.. Whatever you want.
That's not true. You can't charge someone for singing a song written by someone else at a concert. You can only receive royalties from recorded instances of a song.
It doesn't appear to be causing problems in Europe.
Article VI states..'but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Unied States.'
The First Amendment first phrase; 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..'
Your assumption is wrong. I am not an atheist. You are right though, atheists don't have a right to not see the word God, but they also have a right to have it removed from their governement. Your opinion would be different if it were Allah instead of God.