1. It is painfull to setup, don't get me wrong - I've sat my time over configuration and I think I know it a little bit and I can easly set it up for like 100 hosts with some templates +includes +sed magic. But that is what I can do. Not all of my staff can do it and it really is not easy.
2. It is not distributed. The checks can be distributed. But you cannot have like 20 child Nagios nodes managed by local staff and parent nodes that gather data from children. This is a killer feature of Zabbix for me. I can send out a standard configured box/server with Zabbix to my local staff. Give them access via LDAP/AD. And tell them to configure it so it suits *their* local setup (well we have quite uncommon/unstandardized branches - historical/political reasons). Then I can gather data from their local system (they have configured it) and process it in central place so I can have a clear overview what is going on in infrastructure. I really have no clue on how to do it with Nagios - probably it is possible with some ninja-like-hacking but it is not something (ninja-like-hacking) you like for big organization. You need a clean, managable stuff.
3. Zabbix can collect and really process historical data. If for some reason I wish to know how in past year my network bandwith evolved I can quite easly click and get some nice graphs, reports and even prognose some stuff based on various trends.
To summarize Nagios for me seems like perfect tool for sysadmin. But it is not so good for enterprise monitoring where you have quite different goals.
I like Nagios but I can't really imagine how to apply it in large (think ten thousand hosts) setup in multiple regional/organizational branches and so on.
Also Nagios *is* painful to setup. First of all AFAIK there is no way to delegate administration f.e. to organizational branches. Configuration is just a big pile of config files included from some other config files etc. There is no autodiscovery/autoconfiguration of hosts since Nagios team belives it is BAD etc.
Well IMHO Nagios is grat but it is like, a big fat pile of hacked scripts and configs. Not too elegant but working.
Now... I am (well we are in my organization) using Zabbix and I find it great. It is much better organised/elegant than Nagios.
In Zabbix architecture you have well designed atomic elements like checks, items, services (groups), etc. It also gathers fine tuned historical data for trends and historical review. You can compact the data (lower the resolution) after a given time and so on. It is in fact a very complete monitoring framework with its own internal condition language, escalation engine. You can gather data from network checks, SNMP, custom scripts, Zabbix agents (aviable for most platforms) etc.
And it has normal configuration, not crude text config files. I have nothing against text files but sometime I don't really want to open my text editor only to quickly setup an ad-hoc overwiev screen with maps, graphs, status displays, clocks and you can have few screens of such rotating on your big screens in NOC. All with mouse clicking.
I can give it as a tool for sysadmin and he or she can work with it without having to study manuals. Not everybody in your organization is an unix hacker you know...
We have dozens of branch servers which are managed by local sysadmins and a farm of central servers which is managed by central staff.
Zabbix works in distributed manner so a local branch can have very detailed view on their infrastructure and at central level I can have an functional/business overview of entire infrastructure, core services (like business systems, transactions etc.) Not just simple checks if RAID is OK - I don't care if RAID in some server is OK. I need to know why (where, who to blame) given service (be it MQ/WebSphere) is not working as desired.
And also it is free, open source and aviable in most linux/unix distributions as a standard package. So when considering enterprise monitoring platform do yourself a favour and also check Zabbix.
It depends on what you need. This is an old and true as hell slogan - security as strong as the system's weakest element.
So for example it does not matter if you use the bestests the strongest the most sexy cryptographic algorithms for your Truecrypt installation if it is easy to get your keys from memory using other ways.
Such way would be for example *booting* the system into tiny supervisor.
This is fairly new concept of attack but it is possible as hell. All new VT technologies introduced sometime ago are now finding their way into consumer systems. Security researched warned about this since ca. 2003.
Now that MS is trying to think ahead and protect from such attacks it is Bad. But if they wouldn't it would also be Bad.
This is by design. If you are into the secure boot stuff you'll know why.
This is not about DRM and such (but may be) but about *your* data encrypted by BitLocker (the DRM is about protecting *somebody else's* data from you - that is why it is flawed concept).
Right now there are some kinds of attacks that let you compromise the entire system right from boot (using other than approved bootloader and unsecure boot proces) puting it into hypervisor and thus being able to retrive keys and such directly from memory.
In fact I don't see any other option as to control entire boot proces. And if you wish to control it you need to use tools that support it.
So in fact it is not a Bad Thing. It could be a bad thing if you are casual-security user - but this 'casual security' is not so secure isn't it?
I bet BitLocker documentation covers that. But why bother checking? It is better to set the "secure" option to "on" and dumbly belive it.
WTF? Who are you? These drives (I assume) came from desktop PCs. You say you keep them in antistatic bags. They *still* hold data. Maybe that data is not security critical but it is compilance critical.
What you should do is either destroy them - you can buy disk destroying machines (but DO install them in the cellar). Such machines will literally shred them to pieces - great stuff for health-dangerous confetti at the party.
You can also wipe them out - but keep in mind that procedure would mean like fewteen hours of processing per disk (an all maintainance of operator).
Really - just WTF? No responsibility, no security policies. Just plain horror.
And I come from post soviet countries and still your attitude for the matter scares me...
The guy is clueless. All he wrote is that they use new version of IIS and Windows and nothing else. He does not have a clue on how it is all run. The OS they run is not important. I think the application stack is roughly equivalent to unix stuff. Despite the license fees which M$ doesn't have to pay.
1. For what I understand they don't handle data that needs some audit trail in transactions and so on so they don't need firewall. I don't see any logic in his statement.
2. 650GB/day (of what exactly?) may seem a lot but in fact a quite regular database cluster and a proper design would handle that easily if it is well scaled.
3. He is probably just quoting somebody else. Maybe he is right here but it is hard to judge with no knowledge on how exactly does this setup use? And what he means as firewall is another mystery for me.
4. He is stating that some form of NLB made by MS in their web server architecture is bad since it makes normal network design complex and expensive. Is that what he is stating?
5. This point also makes no sense to me. Of course application security is essential since it has nothing to do with firewall. A firewall merely passes or not the traffic based on simple, low-level protocol parameters. Firewall does not protect against application flaws. Application flaws occur at very different level. He is even clueless about OSI model...
The rest is just bullshit about how it is cool to use untested software in production. Actually it is very uncool.
Also this "knowledge" of his is useless. I would love to see some insights on such large setups from somebody who is not M$ and actually did research and testing on which platform to use. Like Google for example.:)
And also how does microsoft.com compares to google.com? Which is bigger in means of traffic/application load/databases and so on?
Maybe because the judge wanted him to be punished (home arrest) but not exactly make him a retard.
I mean nowdays Internet access is *essential*. It is like having a phone or a car. Imagine you have a job and do DUI. You will be only allowed to use car like 8-9am and 4-5pm (so you can go to work). Without your car you wouldn't be able to work and thus you will loose your job and become a citizen that parasites on others. I don't think that law system is built to punish citizens this way that they loose their jobs and became parasites on others. That would be stupid.
So with that in mind the judge allowed the man to use Internet (maybe for working from home - quite usual) but he wishes to monitor his activity.
I don't see anything wrong here.
But I don't know why don't they force him (if he wishes to use the Internet) to just use a special broadband service for convicts which is monitored server-side. Such setup would not require any client side software.
Still I don't see how it is RMS fault. He just wrote the license (GPLv3) and it *is* compatible with GPLv2 - Linux uses *modified* GPLv2 license (so in fact modified GPL license is not really a GPL license).
And maybe it is impossible to relicense Linux just because the problems you have stated. The fact that is impossible (or very hard) to relicense Linux has nothing to do with RMS nor with GPL. It is a matter of ownership. If Linus had used unmodified GPLv2 license there would be no problem. Right?
But still - it is not the fault of RMS that Linus used incompatible modified-GPLv2 license. It is also not the fault of RMS that other projects that _are_not_Linux_exclusive_ (like maybe Solaris) will choose GPLv3.
If Linus does not like GPLv3 maybe he can write other one. But I don't think that it would help with Linux ownership problems anyway.
But still it does not answer my question. When *Linux* developers (not RMS) will decide to relicense Linux under whatever (but I don't see how it will be possible) license how it is RMS fault? They are not *forced* to do so. They can do so if they *wish*.
RMS writes licence named GPLv3 - so what? Nobody is forced to use that license so I don't think there is a problem here. When somebody uses his license it is not his (RMS) fault. It is fault of the entity which choosed this license. Or isn't it?
So basically Linus is yelling that if *I* use f.e. GPLv3 for *my* project it somehow not my fault but RMS?
I don't get it. I must have not understood something since Linus usually speaks quite sane and I belive him.
So again - somebody please explain what is the problem here?
> Myself, i have 2 copies of important data DVD's/CD's. One offsite, > and one that i 'use'.
And you have no clue if the offsite copy still works.
> If the 'on site' copy acts strange in the least during a restore, then > the off site one gets duplicated.
Yes but the offsite one may not work - do you always check them if they are OK? Filesystem like ZFS has self-healing capabilities so paired with redundant data storage (meaning the data is copied over two discs) it can detect faults "on the fly" and fix them.
But here I am talking about storage for backup you would probably want to copy important data to tape. And still it is not enough - you need to test your backup procedures sometimes. Like simulation - check if it works. It is hard to check 2000 CDs if they still work or you are left with only one copy. With harddisks it is not so hard since you don't need to swap the disks every few minutes and you can let the process to run automagically.
> And while you may not have discounted the use of backups > WITH the hardrives, many people really do think they don't > have to have backups. " i have raid... "
I didn't said that RAID is a backup. And also the question/problem we are trying to solve here in this topic IS NOT THE BACKUP issue.
The person is asking about indexing a large amount of data. Not about backing them up.
My point is that you can not efectively search/index/use a large amount (be it 1TB like OP states) of data on CDs. Well - just imagine - 1TB is like ~1500 CDs - can you even imagine how 1500 CDs look like? I can't. And you have proposed to copy them so now we have 3000 CDs - are they properly labeled? Where do you store them? How can you access the 1042nd disc? How do you know that gile foo.baz is on 301th disc and its copy is on 894th?
You've mentioned hundreds of gigabytes - that transfers to 999GB of data - this is not THAT much. Actually right now you can get like a PC (with lowest spec - these are not important here) with 4 disks of 500GB capacity each. Use SATA2 devices - they are fastest in cheap range. When you'll get your 4 drives put them into PC. Install OpenSolaris and spawn them into Z-RAID and ZFS - you will get yourself quite cheap storage.
You will get 1TB of redundant and self-healing data storage. Comparing to bunch of CDs you have much faster access time - like disk seek vs. your hand seeking the CD which and you don't even know which one you seek.:)
Then transfer all your data to this system. Use some open source indexing system on it - if you want to index the contents. But if you only need to search for filename just use "find" command.
> Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at > UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as > a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page > of Windows Defender,
If he could actually install the software it would be news.:) Getting to download some shit is not importand. I've downloaded Defender from genuine (pffft) copy of Windows at work and placed it on my pendrive. Then I've ran that copy of installer on ungenuine (pffffft) copy of Windows and it didn't pass the _instalation_ genuineness (pfffft) check. An mind you that was my friend's computer - I don't pirate software - I use Linux - I don't have to since it is free.:)
So anyway what is the point of downloading software that you can't install? Or maybe you can install Defender on unlicensed copy of Windows? Can you? And if you can - how is piracy good anyway?
> using IE4Linux and Wine. Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology,
You probably could use also the advancement of floppy technology. Get few floppies. Download Defender from using licensed copy of Windows. Put it on floppies (software to split stuff over few floppies would probably be useful - like RAR or smth. go google). Then put the floppies in another computer and transfer the file to it! Wow! This is cool!
> this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."
How about beating the living shit out of Red Hat. Fucking Red Hat does not give binary updates to people who do not pay for their service. I've always known that RH = MS.
Anyway. How this shit *even* got to frontpage of Slashdot?!
Rumors say that iPhone does ~25KBps on data connection. This really sucks. 3.5G network is really spread in Europe so with iPhone's pathetic ~25KBps (I easly 200KBps with my phone and laptop right now) bandwith is not really attractive for retailers in Europe. Well this is hardly a "Breakthrough Internet Device" isn't it?
Maybe next version could manage do something sane.
I mean for networks in Europe the main selling point right now is data transfer. It is like revolution - real mobile Internet. Well iPhone does not catch that. People everywhere here use phones (via their laptops) to access Internet. You have like plenty of billboards, press adverts, TV commercials focusing on GSM data transfer abilities.
Well lets see what iPhone can do... uhm... it can do phone calls and text messaging - hmm. Like any other phone really. It is not a selling point. Right now in Poland (at belive me - it is not the most advanced country in Europe) the selling point is 4Mbps data transfer.
So concluding - there is not a market (beside of really small fashion accessory one) for iPhone unless it can work as all other phones on the market (do HDSPA and modern data transfer).
> Games will be made. Fun will be had. New communities will form, > and old ones will rise like the phoenix.
Yes but one thing - during the mentioned fade time PC (Windows exactly) gaming has advanced while Macs stagnated. And now they (Macs) wish to come back to gaming. But PC (Windows exactly) is few steps ahead of Apple. One word DirectX.
Even until now OSX releases do not have any significant gaming technology. Apple has failed to either jump into DirectX or move the alternatives. Like bunch of OpenGL, OpenAL and even that does not come close to DirectX.
So you are of course right that more Mac popularity spawns more games but also the long absence from the gaming market leaves Macs few steps behind PC (Windows exactly) technology.
Most of the games I know on Mac (I am Mac user as well as Linux and Windows) were lagging features from PC versions - like positional sound and stuff.
So I think it actually *is* a PR bullshit. Apple partnering with some gamehouses means nothing. It would mean something if Apple were to release CoreGames that would unify and ease the developement of games for Macs. I mean something that would allow easly switching from DirectX to CoreWhateverAppleGames. I don't mean emulating - I mean a set of components that ease handling of advanced graphics, I mean something to handle advanced sound, I mean something to handle input etc. In a package.
> Maybe this cycle won't dip as low as they once did, since the x86 allows for > using Winelib (and it's bastard child "Cider"). We can only hope.
> They dont have to release code.. just give out a 100% accurate specification,
But if there is no documentation of the format the only documentation is the code itself! Have you considered that?
I bet that they don't have one! There is no MS Office formats specification there is just only one implementation in software and that is it. It is not a standard and I bet even internaly in MS it is not documented/standardized throughly. They probably just add new functions to new versions and make the old functions also work. They have the code of older versions so it is possible for them.
There is only one engine (probably some DLLs/components) that they use in their various products - but it is the same code. So maybe consider such possibility - there is no documentation, no standard, no nothing. There is just one working implementation and everything that wants to work with MS Office formats must somehow use (via f.e. MS Office components) existing MS Office installation - so it is OK for you to write a program manipulating MS Office files as long as this program needs MS Office installed.:) And I bet it is like this.
***
Actually it would be lovely to hear from some (maybe former) MS Office developers how it looks in reality and if my bets were right?
And also (this must be said) anybody thinking that MS could open source Windows NT, Office and so on is just plain retarded.
>>> 5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based >>> boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
>> What are BSD boxes?
> A Computer running BSD. Genius.
And does it changes anything in terms of GPL? I mean the posterd doesn't even know what he is asking for. He is not asking about linking with some specific libary (then go check it's license). He is basically asking if on BSD boxes different license goes for the same things? If you wish to use some GPL library it is GPLed no matter if your un it on BSD, Linux, Solaris, Win32 etc.
> the EULA, which requires that users give up their right to sue
Is it even possible in US to get in such agreement? I am Polish.;) I don't know much about US law system but the whole idea looks awkard. In my country you can state whatever bullshit you wish in license agreement or whatever - but it is void unless it is valid with the law. So I could make a license that you own me your liver if you use my software while not drinking milk - but it would be pointless.
It is possible in US to just make a license that disallows you to sue by the other party? That is kind of retarded - even if it is possible - what it is for?
I thought that you _ALLWAYS_ have a right to sue (fight for your rights) and nobody can take it from you?
>>> And this is precisely what Apple wants. X11 on the Mac is >>> for Geeks, not for "regular" users.
>> Yeah so maybe just throw out some source code of X11 >> that barely compiles and you need to fix it yourself. >> No binary release - then it would be even geekier.:)
> Not sure what you're trying to say here.
I mean wouldn't it be more "for geeks than regular use" to must compile your own X11?:) Following your argumentation that X11 in OSX is broken since it is for geeks so it should be hard to use decently (?).
>>> The existing issues with X11 are intentional.
>> Yeah.:) That is what I love Mac fanatics - if >> something is broken in OSX it must be intentional. LoL.
> Labelling people "mac fanatics" because you don't understand their
I understand what you stated. I state that X11 in OSX is crap because it is *broken*. You sugest that it is OK that it is broken since it is for geeks which is mac fanatism of your side
(Cut some unrelated crap)
> X11 is awesome if you want to run all kinds of apps on > the Mac, but these apps don't behave like Mac apps.
I don't want it to behave like Aqua - I wan't like basic functionality like keyboard working duh. Your inflated theories do not change anything here. X11 in OSX is old nearly unusable. This is why OOo needs to be ported to Aqua.
> (by breaking X11) thus they are discouraging the use > of X11 for Mac apps.
How microsoftish of them. Maybe if they discourage the use they shouldn't bundle X11 with OSX in the first place?
I've mean keyboard layout so you can input national characters like etc.
X11 on OSX generally works. But try f.e. typing something with above characters. You need to edit some config files add some layout definition files etc. etc. - in Linux f.e. it works out of the box.
> And this is precisely what Apple wants. X11 on the Mac is for Geeks, not for "regular" users.
Yeah so maybe just throw out some source code of X11 that barely compiles and you need to fix it yourself. No binary release - then it would be even geekier.:)
> The existing issues with X11 are intentional.
Yeah.:) That is what I love Mac fanatics - if something is broken in OSX it must be intentional. LoL.
> Although the 'normal' version works like a dream on the Mac, > having it work without X11 is a bit handier.
Well maybe OOo/Mac/X11 itself works well. The problem is that Apple X11 implementation is crap. You actually need to do stuff from like early 90s Linux to make it work with non-US keyboard layout and this is pain. It can be done via some hacking (like editing cryptic text files and so on) but it disqualifies X11 apps on OSX to rest of the world (apart from geeks).
So native version of OOo is always welcomed. Also I would love to see better X11 from Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Well for me what ruled out Nagios was:
1. It is painfull to setup, don't get me wrong - I've sat my time over configuration and I think I know it a little bit and I can easly set it up for like 100 hosts with some templates +includes +sed magic. But that is what I can do. Not all of my staff can do it and it really is not easy.
2. It is not distributed. The checks can be distributed. But you cannot have like 20 child Nagios nodes managed by local staff and parent nodes that gather data from children. This is a killer feature of Zabbix for me. I can send out a standard configured box/server with Zabbix to my local staff. Give them access via LDAP/AD. And tell them to configure it so it suits *their* local setup (well we have quite uncommon/unstandardized branches - historical/political reasons). Then I can gather data from their local system (they have configured it) and process it in central place so I can have a clear overview what is going on in infrastructure. I really have no clue on how to do it with Nagios - probably it is possible with some ninja-like-hacking but it is not something (ninja-like-hacking) you like for big organization. You need a clean, managable stuff.
3. Zabbix can collect and really process historical data. If for some reason I wish to know how in past year my network bandwith evolved I can quite easly click and get some nice graphs, reports and even prognose some stuff based on various trends.
To summarize Nagios for me seems like perfect tool for sysadmin. But it is not so good for enterprise monitoring where you have quite different goals.
I like Nagios but I can't really imagine how to apply it in large (think ten thousand hosts) setup in multiple regional/organizational branches and so on.
Also Nagios *is* painful to setup. First of all AFAIK there is no way to delegate administration f.e. to organizational branches. Configuration is just a big pile of config files included from some other config files etc. There is no autodiscovery/autoconfiguration of hosts since Nagios team belives it is BAD etc.
Well IMHO Nagios is grat but it is like, a big fat pile of hacked scripts and configs. Not too elegant but working.
Now... I am (well we are in my organization) using Zabbix and I find it great. It is much better organised/elegant than Nagios.
In Zabbix architecture you have well designed atomic elements like checks, items, services (groups), etc. It also gathers fine tuned historical data for trends and historical review. You can compact the data (lower the resolution) after a given time and so on. It is in fact a very complete monitoring framework with its own internal condition language, escalation engine. You can gather data from network checks, SNMP, custom scripts, Zabbix agents (aviable for most platforms) etc.
And it has normal configuration, not crude text config files. I have nothing against text files but sometime I don't really want to open my text editor only to quickly setup an ad-hoc overwiev screen with maps, graphs, status displays, clocks and you can have few screens of such rotating on your big screens in NOC. All with mouse clicking.
I can give it as a tool for sysadmin and he or she can work with it without having to study manuals. Not everybody in your organization is an unix hacker you know...
We have dozens of branch servers which are managed by local sysadmins and a farm of central servers which is managed by central staff.
Zabbix works in distributed manner so a local branch can have very detailed view on their infrastructure and at central level I can have an functional/business overview of entire infrastructure, core services (like business systems, transactions etc.) Not just simple checks if RAID is OK - I don't care if RAID in some server is OK. I need to know why (where, who to blame) given service (be it MQ/WebSphere) is not working as desired.
And also it is free, open source and aviable in most linux/unix distributions as a standard package. So when considering enterprise monitoring platform do yourself a favour and also check Zabbix.
http://www.zabbix.com/downloads/ZABBIX%20Manual%20v1.6.pdf
In information security there is one simple rule: Need to know vs. Nice to know. And that is basically it.
> Would not TrueCrypt be the better option?
It depends on what you need. This is an old and true as hell slogan - security as strong as the system's weakest element.
So for example it does not matter if you use the bestests the strongest the most sexy cryptographic algorithms for your Truecrypt installation if it is easy to get your keys from memory using other ways.
Such way would be for example *booting* the system into tiny supervisor.
This is fairly new concept of attack but it is possible as hell. All new VT technologies introduced sometime ago are now finding their way into consumer systems. Security researched warned about this since ca. 2003.
Now that MS is trying to think ahead and protect from such attacks it is Bad. But if they wouldn't it would also be Bad.
This is by design. If you are into the secure boot stuff you'll know why.
This is not about DRM and such (but may be) but about *your* data encrypted by BitLocker (the DRM is about protecting *somebody else's* data from you - that is why it is flawed concept).
Right now there are some kinds of attacks that let you compromise the entire system right from boot (using other than approved bootloader and unsecure boot proces) puting it into hypervisor and thus being able to retrive keys and such directly from memory.
In fact I don't see any other option as to control entire boot proces. And if you wish to control it you need to use tools that support it.
So in fact it is not a Bad Thing. It could be a bad thing if you are casual-security user - but this 'casual security' is not so secure isn't it?
I bet BitLocker documentation covers that. But why bother checking? It is better to set the "secure" option to "on" and dumbly belive it.
WTF? Who are you? These drives (I assume) came from desktop PCs. You say you keep them in antistatic bags. They *still* hold data. Maybe that data is not security critical but it is compilance critical.
What you should do is either destroy them - you can buy disk destroying machines (but DO install them in the cellar). Such machines will literally shred them to pieces - great stuff for health-dangerous confetti at the party.
You can also wipe them out - but keep in mind that procedure would mean like fewteen hours of processing per disk (an all maintainance of operator).
Really - just WTF? No responsibility, no security policies. Just plain horror.
And I come from post soviet countries and still your attitude for the matter scares me...
The guy is clueless. All he wrote is that they use new version of IIS and Windows and nothing else. He does not have a clue on how it is all run. The OS they run is not important. I think the application stack is roughly equivalent to unix stuff. Despite the license fees which M$ doesn't have to pay.
:)
1. For what I understand they don't handle data that needs some audit trail in transactions and so on so they don't need firewall. I don't see any logic in his statement.
2. 650GB/day (of what exactly?) may seem a lot but in fact a quite regular database cluster and a proper design would handle that easily if it is well scaled.
3. He is probably just quoting somebody else. Maybe he is right here but it is hard to judge with no knowledge on how exactly does this setup use? And what he means as firewall is another mystery for me.
4. He is stating that some form of NLB made by MS in their web server architecture is bad since it makes normal network design complex and expensive. Is that what he is stating?
5. This point also makes no sense to me. Of course application security is essential since it has nothing to do with firewall. A firewall merely passes or not the traffic based on simple, low-level protocol parameters. Firewall does not protect against application flaws. Application flaws occur at very different level. He is even clueless about OSI model...
The rest is just bullshit about how it is cool to use untested software in production. Actually it is very uncool.
Also this "knowledge" of his is useless. I would love to see some insights on such large setups from somebody who is not M$ and actually did research and testing on which platform to use. Like Google for example.
And also how does microsoft.com compares to google.com? Which is bigger in means of traffic/application load/databases and so on?
Maybe because the judge wanted him to be punished (home arrest) but not exactly make him a retard.
I mean nowdays Internet access is *essential*. It is like having a phone or a car. Imagine you have a job and do DUI. You will be only allowed to use car like 8-9am and 4-5pm (so you can go to work). Without your car you wouldn't be able to work and thus you will loose your job and become a citizen that parasites on others. I don't think that law system is built to punish citizens this way that they loose their jobs and became parasites on others. That would be stupid.
So with that in mind the judge allowed the man to use Internet (maybe for working from home - quite usual) but he wishes to monitor his activity.
I don't see anything wrong here.
But I don't know why don't they force him (if he wishes to use the Internet) to just use a special broadband service for convicts which is monitored server-side. Such setup would not require any client side software.
Still I don't see how it is RMS fault. He just wrote the license (GPLv3) and it *is* compatible with GPLv2 - Linux uses *modified* GPLv2 license (so in fact modified GPL license is not really a GPL license).
And maybe it is impossible to relicense Linux just because the problems you have stated. The fact that is impossible (or very hard) to relicense Linux has nothing to do with RMS nor with GPL. It is a matter of ownership. If Linus had used unmodified GPLv2 license there would be no problem. Right?
But still - it is not the fault of RMS that Linus used incompatible modified-GPLv2 license. It is also not the fault of RMS that other projects that _are_not_Linux_exclusive_ (like maybe Solaris) will choose GPLv3.
If Linus does not like GPLv3 maybe he can write other one. But I don't think that it would help with Linux ownership problems anyway.
But still it does not answer my question. When *Linux* developers (not RMS) will decide to relicense Linux under whatever (but I don't see how it will be possible) license how it is RMS fault? They are not *forced* to do so. They can do so if they *wish*.
What is the problem here?
RMS writes licence named GPLv3 - so what? Nobody is forced to use that license so I don't think there is a problem here. When somebody uses his license it is not his (RMS) fault. It is fault of the entity which choosed this license. Or isn't it?
So basically Linus is yelling that if *I* use f.e. GPLv3 for *my* project it somehow not my fault but RMS?
I don't get it. I must have not understood something since Linus usually speaks quite sane and I belive him.
So again - somebody please explain what is the problem here?
Is GPL version change really such a disaster?
What should I care as Linux user?
> Myself, i have 2 copies of important data DVD's/CD's. One offsite,
> and one that i 'use'.
And you have no clue if the offsite copy still works.
> If the 'on site' copy acts strange in the least during a restore, then
> the off site one gets duplicated.
Yes but the offsite one may not work - do you always check them if they are OK? Filesystem like ZFS has self-healing capabilities so paired with redundant data storage (meaning the data is copied over two discs) it can detect faults "on the fly" and fix them.
But here I am talking about storage for backup you would probably want to copy important data to tape. And still it is not enough - you need to test your backup procedures sometimes. Like simulation - check if it works. It is hard to check 2000 CDs if they still work or you are left with only one copy. With harddisks it is not so hard since you don't need to swap the disks every few minutes and you can let the process to run automagically.
> And while you may not have discounted the use of backups
> WITH the hardrives, many people really do think they don't
> have to have backups. " i have raid... "
I didn't said that RAID is a backup. And also the question/problem we are trying to solve here in this topic IS NOT THE BACKUP issue.
The person is asking about indexing a large amount of data. Not about backing them up.
My point is that you can not efectively search/index/use a large amount (be it 1TB like OP states) of data on CDs. Well - just imagine - 1TB is like ~1500 CDs - can you even imagine how 1500 CDs look like? I can't. And you have proposed to copy them so now we have 3000 CDs - are they properly labeled? Where do you store them? How can you access the 1042nd disc? How do you know that gile foo.baz is on 301th disc and its copy is on 894th?
So it is absurd to keep 1TB of data on CDs.
> And if you trust mechanical harddrives without a backup, you are foolish.
:)
Who said about not making backups? I did? No.
> Hardware failures, viruses. I would rather not risk it.
Yeah because CDs that you throw around are that much safer without backup.
Man you use CDs? Really?
:)
You've mentioned hundreds of gigabytes - that transfers to 999GB of data - this is not THAT much. Actually right now you can get like a PC (with lowest spec - these are not important here) with 4 disks of 500GB capacity each. Use SATA2 devices - they are fastest in cheap range. When you'll get your 4 drives put them into PC. Install OpenSolaris and spawn them into Z-RAID and ZFS - you will get yourself quite cheap storage.
You will get 1TB of redundant and self-healing data storage. Comparing to bunch of CDs you have much faster access time - like disk seek vs. your hand seeking the CD which and you don't even know which one you seek.
Then transfer all your data to this system. Use some open source indexing system on it - if you want to index the contents. But if you only need to search for filename just use "find" command.
> Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at
:) Getting to download some shit is not importand. I've downloaded Defender from genuine (pffft) copy of Windows at work and placed it on my pendrive. Then I've ran that copy of installer on ungenuine (pffffft) copy of Windows and it didn't pass the _instalation_ genuineness (pfffft) check. An mind you that was my friend's computer - I don't pirate software - I use Linux - I don't have to since it is free. :)
> UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as
> a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page
> of Windows Defender,
If he could actually install the software it would be news.
So anyway what is the point of downloading software that you can't install? Or maybe you can install Defender on unlicensed copy of Windows? Can you? And if you can - how is piracy good anyway?
> using IE4Linux and Wine. Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology,
You probably could use also the advancement of floppy technology. Get few floppies. Download Defender from using licensed copy of Windows. Put it on floppies (software to split stuff over few floppies would probably be useful - like RAR or smth. go google). Then put the floppies in another computer and transfer the file to it! Wow! This is cool!
> this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."
How about beating the living shit out of Red Hat. Fucking Red Hat does not give binary updates to people who do not pay for their service. I've always known that RH = MS.
Anyway. How this shit *even* got to frontpage of Slashdot?!
Rumors say that iPhone does ~25KBps on data connection. This really sucks. 3.5G network is really spread in Europe so with iPhone's pathetic ~25KBps (I easly 200KBps with my phone and laptop right now) bandwith is not really attractive for retailers in Europe. Well this is hardly a "Breakthrough Internet Device" isn't it?
Maybe next version could manage do something sane.
I mean for networks in Europe the main selling point right now is data transfer. It is like revolution - real mobile Internet. Well iPhone does not catch that. People everywhere here use phones (via their laptops) to access Internet. You have like plenty of billboards, press adverts, TV commercials focusing on GSM data transfer abilities.
Well lets see what iPhone can do... uhm... it can do phone calls and text messaging - hmm. Like any other phone really. It is not a selling point. Right now in Poland (at belive me - it is not the most advanced country in Europe) the selling point is 4Mbps data transfer.
So concluding - there is not a market (beside of really small fashion accessory one) for iPhone unless it can work as all other phones on the market (do HDSPA and modern data transfer).
> Games will be made. Fun will be had. New communities will form,
> and old ones will rise like the phoenix.
Yes but one thing - during the mentioned fade time PC (Windows exactly) gaming has advanced while Macs stagnated. And now they (Macs) wish to come back to gaming. But PC (Windows exactly) is few steps ahead of Apple. One word DirectX.
Even until now OSX releases do not have any significant gaming technology. Apple has failed to either jump into DirectX or move the alternatives. Like bunch of OpenGL, OpenAL and even that does not come close to DirectX.
So you are of course right that more Mac popularity spawns more games but also the long absence from the gaming market leaves Macs few steps behind PC (Windows exactly) technology.
Most of the games I know on Mac (I am Mac user as well as Linux and Windows) were lagging features from PC versions - like positional sound and stuff.
So I think it actually *is* a PR bullshit. Apple partnering with some gamehouses means nothing. It would mean something if Apple were to release CoreGames that would unify and ease the developement of games for Macs. I mean something that would allow easly switching from DirectX to CoreWhateverAppleGames. I don't mean emulating - I mean a set of components that ease handling of advanced graphics, I mean something to handle advanced sound, I mean something to handle input etc. In a package.
> Maybe this cycle won't dip as low as they once did, since the x86 allows for
> using Winelib (and it's bastard child "Cider"). We can only hope.
I don't think it is the answer here.
> They dont have to release code.. just give out a 100% accurate specification,
:) And I bet it is like this.
But if there is no documentation of the format the only documentation is the code itself! Have you considered that?
I bet that they don't have one! There is no MS Office formats specification there is just only one implementation in software and that is it. It is not a standard and I bet even internaly in MS it is not documented/standardized throughly. They probably just add new functions to new versions and make the old functions also work. They have the code of older versions so it is possible for them.
There is only one engine (probably some DLLs/components) that they use in their various products - but it is the same code. So maybe consider such possibility - there is no documentation, no standard, no nothing. There is just one working implementation and everything that wants to work with MS Office formats must somehow use (via f.e. MS Office components) existing MS Office installation - so it is OK for you to write a program manipulating MS Office files as long as this program needs MS Office installed.
***
Actually it would be lovely to hear from some (maybe former) MS Office developers how it looks in reality and if my bets were right?
And also (this must be said) anybody thinking that MS could open source Windows NT, Office and so on is just plain retarded.
>>> 5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based
>>> boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
>> What are BSD boxes?
> A Computer running BSD. Genius.
And does it changes anything in terms of GPL? I mean the posterd doesn't even know what he is asking for. He is not asking about linking with some specific libary (then go check it's license). He is basically asking if on BSD boxes different license goes for the same things? If you wish to use some GPL library it is GPLed no matter if your un it on BSD, Linux, Solaris, Win32 etc.
You don't get basic stuff, consult your concerns with lawyer - that would be safer than asking on Slashdot but if you still wish to know my answers:
:))) BTW obfuscating has nothing to do with encoding. You don't get even basic stuff right.
> 1. Can I do it with Linux today (GPL2) and tomorrow (GPL3)?
Do what? Write closed source applications for Linux? No problem.
> 2. Can I statically link the code with Linux libraries?
WTF are Linux libraries? Linux is a kernel. Get more specific.
> 3. Can I obfuscate my code (e.g. encode it)?
Why not? And what for? You think it will be safer then?
> 4. Could I be forced to publish this code by some 3-d party?
Which code?
> 5. Am I correct that programming in and selling BSD-based
> boxes won't raise any of the above problems?
What are BSD boxes?
> the EULA, which requires that users give up their right to sue
;) I don't know much about US law system but the whole idea looks awkard. In my country you can state whatever bullshit you wish in license agreement or whatever - but it is void unless it is valid with the law. So I could make a license that you own me your liver if you use my software while not drinking milk - but it would be pointless.
Is it even possible in US to get in such agreement? I am Polish.
It is possible in US to just make a license that disallows you to sue by the other party? That is kind of retarded - even if it is possible - what it is for?
I thought that you _ALLWAYS_ have a right to sue (fight for your rights) and nobody can take it from you?
>>> And this is precisely what Apple wants. X11 on the Mac is
:)
:) Following your argumentation that X11 in OSX is broken since it is for geeks so it should be hard to use decently (?).
:) That is what I love Mac fanatics - if
>>> for Geeks, not for "regular" users.
>> Yeah so maybe just throw out some source code of X11
>> that barely compiles and you need to fix it yourself.
>> No binary release - then it would be even geekier.
> Not sure what you're trying to say here.
I mean wouldn't it be more "for geeks than regular use" to must compile your own X11?
>>> The existing issues with X11 are intentional.
>> Yeah.
>> something is broken in OSX it must be intentional. LoL.
> Labelling people "mac fanatics" because you don't understand their
I understand what you stated. I state that X11 in OSX is crap because it is *broken*. You sugest that it is OK that it is broken since it is for geeks which is mac fanatism of your side
(Cut some unrelated crap)
> X11 is awesome if you want to run all kinds of apps on
> the Mac, but these apps don't behave like Mac apps.
I don't want it to behave like Aqua - I wan't like basic functionality like keyboard working duh. Your inflated theories do not change anything here. X11 in OSX is old nearly unusable. This is why OOo needs to be ported to Aqua.
> (by breaking X11) thus they are discouraging the use
> of X11 for Mac apps.
How microsoftish of them. Maybe if they discourage the use they shouldn't bundle X11 with OSX in the first place?
I've mean keyboard layout so you can input national characters like etc.
X11 on OSX generally works. But try f.e. typing something with above characters. You need to edit some config files add some layout definition files etc. etc. - in Linux f.e. it works out of the box.
> And this is precisely what Apple wants. X11 on the Mac is for Geeks, not for "regular" users.
:)
:) That is what I love Mac fanatics - if something is broken in OSX it must be intentional. LoL.
Yeah so maybe just throw out some source code of X11 that barely compiles and you need to fix it yourself. No binary release - then it would be even geekier.
> The existing issues with X11 are intentional.
Yeah.
> Although the 'normal' version works like a dream on the Mac,
> having it work without X11 is a bit handier.
Well maybe OOo/Mac/X11 itself works well. The problem is that Apple X11 implementation is crap. You actually need to do stuff from like early 90s Linux to make it work with non-US keyboard layout and this is pain. It can be done via some hacking (like editing cryptic text files and so on) but it disqualifies X11 apps on OSX to rest of the world (apart from geeks).
So native version of OOo is always welcomed. Also I would love to see better X11 from Apple.