> Growing up in the 80's, I played video games quite frequently. Now, though, I find myself avoiding them.
You were (I assume) a child then so you've liked playing games in general. I guess if you were your 80's age now you would be gaming since games now are AWESOME... if you have time for gaming (which you don't)..
> One reason is cost. I realize the cost really has probably not gone > up that significantly from the NES days, but at that time it was my > parents paying for a new console and games. Now I have to figure > out how to justify a $60 game.
That is how I've justified building RaspberryPi ($40) +2 classic controllers ($6) +SD card ($4) and RetroPie ($0) and some hacking (and maybe a charger and HDMI cable and so on) so I casually can play Contra or Bomberman with my girlfriend and it rocks PLUS I get a feeling that I am a geek which is nice.;)
> No, you don't just ignore this problem and you absolutely don't put a system wide > rule in effect to ignore the problem. If you get such an error it indicates a very > fundamental problem wit the logic of the program. It is not trivial, and in real world > situations could be deadly.
First of all I don't object you - you just don't divide by zero cause math. And it is it.
But could you please describe one (or more if you wish) situation in which such behavior could be deadly?
Seriously I briefly thinked about it in this context (programing) and can't think of any serious practical aplication. I know I feel bad about myself about it... but I really don't know.
I only have experience with customer grade SSDs and not with enterprise ones. But as it comes for customer SSDs most of the ones I've used or maintained caused no problems. But I recall one HP made drive that used crash after about a year - total data loss after a year of usage. Reformat and the drive was ok - another year passed and crash and data loss. As it turned out the disk had some encryption procedures in firmware which were faulty - firmware upgrade (hopefully) fixed it but also said firmware update required to erease all data. I've always had decent backups as monthly system image and daily data so recovery was easy. But I am aware that SSD drives are much less reliable than HDDs due to controller/firmware problems. And this is IMHO a general known fact.
It is obvious by these limitations that Nintendo uses backward compatibility to ease up prev to next gen transition for users and thus drive up sales. The later editions as Game Boy Micro and so on are usually released some time after initial launch in time that game library is large enough for the new system that they can sell it. Also Nintendo is known for making revised editions to - again - drive up sales. Like the new versions of devices on which only few exclusive titles use the full potential of the hardware. And the new exclusives are not backward compatible (which is sane from a marketing point of view).
Nintendo handhelds were always technically inferior to competition (like Sega and Atari in GB days) so they figured out that backward compatibility will get them a heads start so each of their new (technically inferior to competition) handheld console would launch with broad game library and convince current users to switch. In my opinion it is a smart move but also induces some (minor) technical limitations. Nintendo has a tradition of one gen backward compatibility (in some way) for each of their systems and launch. Sony and MS should learn from that. MS is learning.:)
> The reason they didn't want this to begin with (i'm speculating here) is profit.
Duh. And what is wrong with doing anything for profit? I guess they want more sales. Duh. It is in my opinion good for Microsoft and good for the users with large Xbox360 games library that they can get a new console and benefit from playing prev and next gen games. What is wrong with that? It is how business should be done - everybody (supplier/consumer) is happy.,
> They wanted to make people buy newer and more games.
Duh. That is the way gaming industry works. Nothing wrong with that.
> That didn't work, so now they have to pretend when > they said it couldn't be done that they weren't lying.
> It's a password vault application. Remember local applications, > they run on your computer, that you physically have to be at to use(usually).
Usually Keepass and alike are used to store passwords for network services. So the computer storing your passwords in KeepassX is still networked and susceptible to attacks. Also people tend to use multiple machines (sometime even not own) so in order to use KeepassX you still need to transfer its data file somehow. You could keep this file on a pendrive probably with portable version of the app.
So KeepassX in my opinion is less convinient to use than Lastpass - with the latter I just login to service (using two factor authentication) and access my passwords. But mind you I use Keepass only for not-so-sensitive accounts like 100+ eshops, forums and crap like thant (not financial, medical, otherwise sensitive, essential internet authentication account hubs like Google or Facebook).
So for me in order to use Keepass would be to carry a medium with data file (which can be lost, stolen, copied) or to share the data file via some kind of authenticated network service like SFTP, HTTPS, Dropbox etc.
I know the Keepass/local pass file way would be probably slightly more secure but Lastpass method is just more convinient.
Oh and if I were to use password manager I would not go Keepass way - what for? Passwords are just some lines in text file. I would just use encrypted text file, shell utilities like grep and have access to it via SSH with two way authentication (I love Google Authenticator with PAM module for my private use).
My point being that if used correctly (only for not sensitive accounts, two form authentication enabled) a trusted service like Lastpass (I find them very concerned about security - they are targeted all the time) is quite secure and more convinient that Keepass.
Also I would love to have some offline device for my sensitive stuff like financial, medical and so on - I lone for something in form of small ipod-like MP3 player that can be fed with data and when prompted for authentication I could choose my credentials from it and display it would generate QR code with token that could be scanned via webcam to authenticate. Of coure it would be suspectible to MITM attacks and physical loss but in my opinion it would be the most secure way for using password store without sharing it via network.
They were probably aware that this would come up anyway so their PR department took action. To be hacked when you are a security focused company is hurting their image whatever advanced attack was used. I guess they were blackmailed that somebody will reveal information about breach so they took proactive but image hurting approach. Nevertheless it is curious.
But these statements that "entire network needs to be replaced" - who said that? Their CIO or just some politician (probably from the opposition)? I *really* find it hard to belive that in order to secure your network you need to replace ALL THE HARDWARE. Such statements (REPLACE ALL THE HARDWARE) just prove that the staff (or person issuing such statements) have no idea how the breach came to life. And if they have no idea what makes them think that replacing hardware (not security policies, not the staff, not the systems, not the software) would solve the problem?
I was once working under a guy trained in CS at Bundeswehr (German Federal Defence) and I recall this guy as the most sane CIO I happen to work with. It may be just the one guy was sane or more likely that his training was OK. Nevertheless in such scenario you do not relay on belief that your staff is competent - you just hire external auditing/security company to assure you (or not) about that. And that is what that guy would to. This has nothing to do with trust - it is IMO a good practice - have some guys that control each other.
This article is so full of WTF I just can't belive it. I guess it is some form of poor translation of german source.
1) All software and hardware in the German parliamentary network might need to be replaced.
So they will replace all servers, routers, switches etc.? Or just client machines?
2) Trojans introduced to the Bundestag network are still working and are still sending data from the internal network to an unknown destination
So maybe just fucking block all outbound traffic from the Bundestag network and enable it back on a white list basis like it should be anyway?
3) In May, parliament IT specialists discovered hackers were trying to infiltrate the network.
Just fucking WOW! Shouldn't it be an assumption (that hacker are trying to inflitrate government network) not a discover?
4) Some are also refusing help from the foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, because the agency would gain access to the legislative process.
I guess the legislative *process* should not be a secret to anyone?
IMO this is just some bullshit article citing politicians not technical piece. I guess it is really hard to work for any central government bureau since *any* of your action no matter sane or stupid will be judged not by technical merits but by political fucking around. I really do pity the actual IT staff behind this mess.
> You seems like you have been trying to use it, haven't you? Like most > open source solutions, you might have to tweak it a bit to get it to do what > you want and then again, you have to make compromise.
Sorry I am an professional - for my clients I advice and implement what is best for them so in general I avoid tweaking (as in unstadarised hacks). Tweaking is good for my home machines but what I do on home machines I would not recommend to clients who just wish to do their business.
> But be assured it works in a satisfactory way for me.
What? Rsync and NTFS? I don't know what is satisfactory for you but I assume you that it is not for me. In cases that I would choose to use rsync over f.e. Windows DFS it would just not work - like it will lose Active Directory ACL's. Rsync is fine tool for mirroring archives but it is not compatible in advanced Linux/Windows setups.
> Just get a proprietary solution if you can't make it work as you wish.
Which one?
> Oh my god, I just realized you sounded like a guy that would > choose the later solution;-)
I would - why not? I am not rms
> I know what you are saying although and there is some truth to it.
Why "some" truth? You haven't contradicted any of my arguments. The truth is that Linux and Windows filesystems differ in loads of subtle manners (like timestamping, ACLs, internal compression, namespaces) and rsync as codebase *shouldn't* implement a glue between those systems - that should be hadled *lower* (like Cygwin does).
Hopefully Microsoft will decide to act on that fact but keep in mind that in their best inerest it is to manage Linux systems, not the other way.
> tl;dr, both MS and Linux would win big. Especially if Windows had the > ability to run Linux applications in Hyper-V wrapped Docker containers.
Just run Linux kernel in hypervisor and do some glue to map Linux/UNIX convetions (process management/filesystem/networking/etc.) to Windows host. But that is problematic - you can do it in many ways (like you've said EMC is the way you like it). I guess the problem is that we need to have some standards regarding on how to map such things and the best way possible would be to the vendor (Microsoft) to define that with open and true intentions of interoperability. As you've said everyone would benefit from that.
> I guess Microsoft finally got sick of seeing PuTTY's hegemony in > the terminal/SSH client market
You guess wrong. There is basically no market for terminal/ssh clients. And if it is it is peanuts. There is HUGE market for centralized management tools like OpenStack, Chief, Puppet, etc. - and that is at what Microsoft is aiming. Basically they need SSH compatibility to manage Linux boxes and they want and they do (Azure) manage Linux boxes.
> I shudder to think of how bastardized the command options are going > to be, given the PowerShell's habit of using stuff like > '-omgLookAtThisMassiveOptionNamingConvention', to the point where > they have to alias a frickin' option...
Oh like in GNU/Linux/BSD utils are just kosher and standardized... please... each tiny utility comes from few other schools of command line switches and are usually different. Threre is no standardisation of switches in commands used on Linux. Usually if you need to do something comples (that you haven't yet memorized) you need to open other terminal window with manual to do it. Of course this is a different *convention* from PowerShell but PS is not that bad - it is just different.
> Ah well, good on 'em. I'll stick with using Linux and OSX clients, thanks much.
Oh OSX clients and bastardized commands. Come on...;)
And for the record I really like Linux and use it all the time. I also happen to use Windows and OSX as clients and they are also fine. Any effort to bring more interoperability between those systems is welcome in my opinion.
Not to mention such trivial things as how to translate paths f.e. C:\Users\foo to/home/foo or whatever. I don't think it is a problem which rsync should solve - it (if Microsoft ever embraces such idea) should be solved in lower layer than userland.
Rsync fails on Windows/Unix interactions due to basic filesystem architecture. There are lot of differences betweeen NTFS and *nix filesystems like ACLs, timestamping and so on. So I don't really get how Microsoft could change rsync to work with NTFS since the problem is not in rsync but in general differences in which filesystems work - f.e. how to accurately map Windows ACLs to unix ACLs?
Also I don't think that rsync support is something Microsoft clients (as in people who buy their products) are looking for. Ability to run Linux systems via GPO or SCCM/SCOM/whatever it is named now is another matter.
They have no choice. Well they could just stick with Windows Server and Windows Clients but it actually happens that they are offering Linux as a product/service (in their Cloud). So why not embrace and extend methods to manage Linux via their tools? In my opinion this is good trend.
I've read Stanisaw Lems essay predicting it in late nineties. The essay was published in a polish "PC Magazine" and then released as part of collection as "Bomba megabitowa" which was also released in English:
IMO he is an idiot. He knew that what he was doing was illegal. He was taking big profit from it. Yet he decided to run his *internet* business from US. Which is stupid. Since it is an internet business you could run it from anywhere and given the income he had he would have settled him OK in any country. Yet he decided to reside in US where his sentence would be draconian for sure. Clearly an idiot.
WTF man - first of all you do not understand what it means to hold own the rights. I don't know which jurisdiction you are reffering to - I assume Murrica since everybody else would state that (not assuming that Murrica is the only country in the world). Second of all you don't get what the rights are - if you have written some code that is you who have written it and in sane juridictions that can't be changed (nobody else can claim he/she is the author). Monetary profit (licensing) is a different deal but you haven't stated exactly which rights you wan't to keep.
Going further... when you write software as an employee of some company it is assumed that you are licensing it - that is the law in Europe. If you are coding for your employer that basically means he holds the monetary rights to it (you are still the author). That is the sane default.
Now I don't know if it is suitable in your case but I would call for BSD type license - that way you will get your monetary rights for the software (as you can take it and sell it somewhere else). But this is not the "default" and you should talk about it with your employer.
I love the Pocket Chip flavor - already pledget for two piece set. I was looking for something similar for Raspi but couldn't find any decent enclosure with integrated input, display and battery in slick case. Also integated wifi and bluetooth are very nice.
The $9 basic board comes without any display port but the modular aproach in which you can add VGA or HDMI via addon board is IMHO better than all-in-one Raspi - the board is cheaper that way and you can own only one display adapter and use it in multiple headless projects.
Slashdot Mirror
> Growing up in the 80's, I played video games quite frequently. Now, though, I find myself avoiding them.
You were (I assume) a child then so you've liked playing games in general. I guess if you were your 80's age now you would be gaming since games now are AWESOME... if you have time for gaming (which you don't)..
> One reason is cost. I realize the cost really has probably not gone
> up that significantly from the NES days, but at that time it was my
> parents paying for a new console and games. Now I have to figure
> out how to justify a $60 game.
That is how I've justified building RaspberryPi ($40) +2 classic controllers ($6) +SD card ($4) and RetroPie ($0) and some hacking (and maybe a charger and HDMI cable and so on) so I casually can play Contra or Bomberman with my girlfriend and it rocks PLUS I get a feeling that I am a geek which is nice. ;)
> No, you don't just ignore this problem and you absolutely don't put a system wide
> rule in effect to ignore the problem. If you get such an error it indicates a very
> fundamental problem wit the logic of the program. It is not trivial, and in real world
> situations could be deadly.
First of all I don't object you - you just don't divide by zero cause math. And it is it.
But could you please describe one (or more if you wish) situation in which such behavior could be deadly?
Seriously I briefly thinked about it in this context (programing) and can't think of any serious practical aplication. I know I feel bad about myself about it... but I really don't know.
I only have experience with customer grade SSDs and not with enterprise ones. But as it comes for customer SSDs most of the ones I've used or maintained caused no problems. But I recall one HP made drive that used crash after about a year - total data loss after a year of usage. Reformat and the drive was ok - another year passed and crash and data loss. As it turned out the disk had some encryption procedures in firmware which were faulty - firmware upgrade (hopefully) fixed it but also said firmware update required to erease all data. I've always had decent backups as monthly system image and daily data so recovery was easy. But I am aware that SSD drives are much less reliable than HDDs due to controller/firmware problems. And this is IMHO a general known fact.
[Citation needed] - seriously are you sure?
It is obvious by these limitations that Nintendo uses backward compatibility to ease up prev to next gen transition for users and thus drive up sales. The later editions as Game Boy Micro and so on are usually released some time after initial launch in time that game library is large enough for the new system that they can sell it. Also Nintendo is known for making revised editions to - again - drive up sales. Like the new versions of devices on which only few exclusive titles use the full potential of the hardware. And the new exclusives are not backward compatible (which is sane from a marketing point of view).
Nintendo handhelds were always technically inferior to competition (like Sega and Atari in GB days) so they figured out that backward compatibility will get them a heads start so each of their new (technically inferior to competition) handheld console would launch with broad game library and convince current users to switch. In my opinion it is a smart move but also induces some (minor) technical limitations. Nintendo has a tradition of one gen backward compatibility (in some way) for each of their systems and launch. Sony and MS should learn from that. MS is learning. :)
> The reason they didn't want this to begin with (i'm speculating here) is profit.
Duh. And what is wrong with doing anything for profit? I guess they want more sales. Duh. It is in my opinion good for Microsoft and good for the users with large Xbox360 games library that they can get a new console and benefit from playing prev and next gen games. What is wrong with that? It is how business should be done - everybody (supplier/consumer) is happy.,
> They wanted to make people buy newer and more games.
Duh. That is the way gaming industry works. Nothing wrong with that.
> That didn't work, so now they have to pretend when
> they said it couldn't be done that they weren't lying.
They said that? Quote please.
> https://www.keepassx.org/ [keepassx.org]
> It's a password vault application. Remember local applications,
> they run on your computer, that you physically have to be at to use(usually).
Usually Keepass and alike are used to store passwords for network services. So the computer storing your passwords in KeepassX is still networked and susceptible to attacks. Also people tend to use multiple machines (sometime even not own) so in order to use KeepassX you still need to transfer its data file somehow. You could keep this file on a pendrive probably with portable version of the app.
So KeepassX in my opinion is less convinient to use than Lastpass - with the latter I just login to service (using two factor authentication) and access my passwords. But mind you I use Keepass only for not-so-sensitive accounts like 100+ eshops, forums and crap like thant (not financial, medical, otherwise sensitive, essential internet authentication account hubs like Google or Facebook).
So for me in order to use Keepass would be to carry a medium with data file (which can be lost, stolen, copied) or to share the data file via some kind of authenticated network service like SFTP, HTTPS, Dropbox etc.
I know the Keepass/local pass file way would be probably slightly more secure but Lastpass method is just more convinient.
Oh and if I were to use password manager I would not go Keepass way - what for? Passwords are just some lines in text file. I would just use encrypted text file, shell utilities like grep and have access to it via SSH with two way authentication (I love Google Authenticator with PAM module for my private use).
My point being that if used correctly (only for not sensitive accounts, two form authentication enabled) a trusted service like Lastpass (I find them very concerned about security - they are targeted all the time) is quite secure and more convinient that Keepass.
Also I would love to have some offline device for my sensitive stuff like financial, medical and so on - I lone for something in form of small ipod-like MP3 player that can be fed with data and when prompted for authentication I could choose my credentials from it and display it would generate QR code with token that could be scanned via webcam to authenticate. Of coure it would be suspectible to MITM attacks and physical loss but in my opinion it would be the most secure way for using password store without sharing it via network.
Maybe just put all printers in separated VLAN and allow client access them only via print servers?
They were probably aware that this would come up anyway so their PR department took action. To be hacked when you are a security focused company is hurting their image whatever advanced attack was used. I guess they were blackmailed that somebody will reveal information about breach so they took proactive but image hurting approach. Nevertheless it is curious.
Some technical explanation that I TL'DR as for now ;)
https://securelist.com/files/2...
But these statements that "entire network needs to be replaced" - who said that? Their CIO or just some politician (probably from the opposition)? I *really* find it hard to belive that in order to secure your network you need to replace ALL THE HARDWARE. Such statements (REPLACE ALL THE HARDWARE) just prove that the staff (or person issuing such statements) have no idea how the breach came to life. And if they have no idea what makes them think that replacing hardware (not security policies, not the staff, not the systems, not the software) would solve the problem?
> I call BS.
I call it too.
> There's no competent network/system admins?
I was once working under a guy trained in CS at Bundeswehr (German Federal Defence) and I recall this guy as the most sane CIO I happen to work with. It may be just the one guy was sane or more likely that his training was OK. Nevertheless in such scenario you do not relay on belief that your staff is competent - you just hire external auditing/security company to assure you (or not) about that. And that is what that guy would to. This has nothing to do with trust - it is IMO a good practice - have some guys that control each other.
This article is so full of WTF I just can't belive it. I guess it is some form of poor translation of german source.
1) All software and hardware in the German parliamentary network might need to be replaced.
So they will replace all servers, routers, switches etc.? Or just client machines?
2) Trojans introduced to the Bundestag network are still working and are still sending data from the internal network to an unknown destination
So maybe just fucking block all outbound traffic from the Bundestag network and enable it back on a white list basis like it should be anyway?
3) In May, parliament IT specialists discovered hackers were trying to infiltrate the network.
Just fucking WOW! Shouldn't it be an assumption (that hacker are trying to inflitrate government network) not a discover?
4) Some are also refusing help from the foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, because the agency would gain access to the legislative process.
I guess the legislative *process* should not be a secret to anyone?
IMO this is just some bullshit article citing politicians not technical piece. I guess it is really hard to work for any central government bureau since *any* of your action no matter sane or stupid will be judged not by technical merits but by political fucking around. I really do pity the actual IT staff behind this mess.
> You seems like you have been trying to use it, haven't you? Like most
> open source solutions, you might have to tweak it a bit to get it to do what
> you want and then again, you have to make compromise.
Sorry I am an professional - for my clients I advice and implement what is best for them so in general I avoid tweaking (as in unstadarised hacks). Tweaking is good for my home machines but what I do on home machines I would not recommend to clients who just wish to do their business.
> But be assured it works in a satisfactory way for me.
What? Rsync and NTFS? I don't know what is satisfactory for you but I assume you that it is not for me. In cases that I would choose to use rsync over f.e. Windows DFS it would just not work - like it will lose Active Directory ACL's. Rsync is fine tool for mirroring archives but it is not compatible in advanced Linux/Windows setups.
> Just get a proprietary solution if you can't make it work as you wish.
Which one?
> Oh my god, I just realized you sounded like a guy that would ;-)
> choose the later solution
I would - why not? I am not rms
> I know what you are saying although and there is some truth to it.
Why "some" truth? You haven't contradicted any of my arguments. The truth is that Linux and Windows filesystems differ in loads of subtle manners (like timestamping, ACLs, internal compression, namespaces) and rsync as codebase *shouldn't* implement a glue between those systems - that should be hadled *lower* (like Cygwin does).
Hopefully Microsoft will decide to act on that fact but keep in mind that in their best inerest it is to manage Linux systems, not the other way.
> tl;dr, both MS and Linux would win big. Especially if Windows had the
> ability to run Linux applications in Hyper-V wrapped Docker containers.
Just run Linux kernel in hypervisor and do some glue to map Linux/UNIX convetions (process management/filesystem/networking/etc.) to Windows host. But that is problematic - you can do it in many ways (like you've said EMC is the way you like it). I guess the problem is that we need to have some standards regarding on how to map such things and the best way possible would be to the vendor (Microsoft) to define that with open and true intentions of interoperability. As you've said everyone would benefit from that.
> I guess Microsoft finally got sick of seeing PuTTY's hegemony in
> the terminal/SSH client market
You guess wrong. There is basically no market for terminal/ssh clients. And if it is it is peanuts. There is HUGE market for centralized management tools like OpenStack, Chief, Puppet, etc. - and that is at what Microsoft is aiming. Basically they need SSH compatibility to manage Linux boxes and they want and they do (Azure) manage Linux boxes.
> I shudder to think of how bastardized the command options are going
> to be, given the PowerShell's habit of using stuff like
> '-omgLookAtThisMassiveOptionNamingConvention', to the point where
> they have to alias a frickin' option...
Oh like in GNU/Linux/BSD utils are just kosher and standardized... please... each tiny utility comes from few other schools of command line switches and are usually different. Threre is no standardisation of switches in commands used on Linux. Usually if you need to do something comples (that you haven't yet memorized) you need to open other terminal window with manual to do it. Of course this is a different *convention* from PowerShell but PS is not that bad - it is just different.
> Ah well, good on 'em. I'll stick with using Linux and OSX clients, thanks much.
Oh OSX clients and bastardized commands. Come on... ;)
And for the record I really like Linux and use it all the time. I also happen to use Windows and OSX as clients and they are also fine. Any effort to bring more interoperability between those systems is welcome in my opinion.
Not to mention such trivial things as how to translate paths f.e. C:\Users\foo to /home/foo or whatever. I don't think it is a problem which rsync should solve - it (if Microsoft ever embraces such idea) should be solved in lower layer than userland.
> Next proposal: implement rsync natively...
Rsync fails on Windows/Unix interactions due to basic filesystem architecture. There are lot of differences betweeen NTFS and *nix filesystems like ACLs, timestamping and so on. So I don't really get how Microsoft could change rsync to work with NTFS since the problem is not in rsync but in general differences in which filesystems work - f.e. how to accurately map Windows ACLs to unix ACLs?
Also I don't think that rsync support is something Microsoft clients (as in people who buy their products) are looking for. Ability to run Linux systems via GPO or SCCM/SCOM/whatever it is named now is another matter.
They have no choice. Well they could just stick with Windows Server and Windows Clients but it actually happens that they are offering Linux as a product/service (in their Cloud). So why not embrace and extend methods to manage Linux via their tools? In my opinion this is good trend.
Sorry it wasn't translated to English - my mistake.
I've read Stanisaw Lems essay predicting it in late nineties. The essay was published in a polish "PC Magazine" and then released as part of collection as "Bomba megabitowa" which was also released in English:
http://www.bookinstitute.pl/ks...
IMO he is an idiot. He knew that what he was doing was illegal. He was taking big profit from it. Yet he decided to run his *internet* business from US. Which is stupid. Since it is an internet business you could run it from anywhere and given the income he had he would have settled him OK in any country. Yet he decided to reside in US where his sentence would be draconian for sure. Clearly an idiot.
WTF man - first of all you do not understand what it means to hold own the rights. I don't know which jurisdiction you are reffering to - I assume Murrica since everybody else would state that (not assuming that Murrica is the only country in the world). Second of all you don't get what the rights are - if you have written some code that is you who have written it and in sane juridictions that can't be changed (nobody else can claim he/she is the author). Monetary profit (licensing) is a different deal but you haven't stated exactly which rights you wan't to keep.
Going further... when you write software as an employee of some company it is assumed that you are licensing it - that is the law in Europe. If you are coding for your employer that basically means he holds the monetary rights to it (you are still the author). That is the sane default.
Now I don't know if it is suitable in your case but I would call for BSD type license - that way you will get your monetary rights for the software (as you can take it and sell it somewhere else). But this is not the "default" and you should talk about it with your employer.
Which right now I can plug to exactly nothing I own. ;) But I guess the Pocket edition uses that for display.
I love the Pocket Chip flavor - already pledget for two piece set. I was looking for something similar for Raspi but couldn't find any decent enclosure with integrated input, display and battery in slick case. Also integated wifi and bluetooth are very nice.
The $9 basic board comes without any display port but the modular aproach in which you can add VGA or HDMI via addon board is IMHO better than all-in-one Raspi - the board is cheaper that way and you can own only one display adapter and use it in multiple headless projects.