FreeBSD defaults to XOrg as of 5.3. NetBSD still ships XFree 4.something as default, but they've started to move to XOrg as well. You can use XOrg on NetBSD instead by setting a make variable, and AFAIK it will be defaulting to XOrg as of 3.0 which is due out sometime near the end of this year I believe.
No, he's saying if you changed that one trait, you'd have less of them pointing towards you being possibly dishonest, and that you would need to take a number of such traits into consideration to get a idea of the person's personality. So it would point less prominently to you being dishonest, not to you being 100% honest.
Re:Pure ignorance - please read the BSD license.
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Oh, quite right. You'd never guess how many people would be distributing Windows XP Pro without any law to stop them if only it weren't for that blasted EULA. DAMN YOU MS! DAMN YOU TO EULA HELL!
Maybe. Maybe it's just time to get better leaders.
I'm venturing far into the jungles of off topic here, so hang with me.
The only project, and I mean, ONLY project, that seems to take a proactive approch to code security is OpenBSD. And while I admit that using OpenBSD is more a mental thing than a real security thing, if you just stuck to the base system you would in fact have probably the most secure system made short of cutting the ethernet cable.
My question is, why don't we see this in other projects. Why don't we see more people saying "if this isn't safe, it's not going in?" Why don't we see more projects that OK the use of slower code because it's safer? And furthermore, why don't we see a public outcry FOR this code?
GNU's libc and AIX are the only modern, relevent UNIX-like OSes without strlcpy/strlcat. Why? Why are we not demanding that they have this? This should be the first, simplest addition to making things more secure. Why do we not have this in GNU's libc? Combined they are less than 100 lines of code with the full BSD license header. It's insane.
So maybe it's time we, as users and coders, demanded more and where vocal in that we won't accept code that doesn't make security job one anymore?
You've obviously missed their last few media outings.
Viruses are the fault of users running 3rd party code. Not MS.
I mean, seriously. You expect them to take responsiblity for someone else's code which, usually, is installed through a hole in the scripting language of Office/IE/outlook or a hole in IE? Really now.
And they'll be just as blissfully irrelevent as the RedHat clones.
All it takes is one smart patch for them to prevent other Linux distros using their drivers: make a "compatibility" layer that then loads everything with a bit o' the ol' binary magic. Driver devs like it because they can keep their secret magical driver code secret. And Google likes it because in this dreamworld we're speaking of Darth Google, after it's switched to the bad side of the Source.
I mean, we're talking about a Google that wants total domination, right? I doubt they'd let something simple as that foul up the works...
Plus, why would they use Linux when they have multiple (and better;^) ) BSD alternatives? Hell, why would they even give a fuck about being UNIXy. This is a desktop we're talking about, not a server. They'd probably just piecemeal the Windows desktop out, then one day say "OK, here's your new kernel. You're running GoogOS now." Then, instead of having to rewrite everything piece by piece and fight a vocal community, they could rewrite everything piece by piece while looking like Heroes. "They're fixing up that dreadful Windows, they are. Horray!" And instead of trying to get people to place some foreign, alien OS on their computer, they could slowly work it in piece by piece so people just gently swap into it.
T'was started, but isn't really "there" yet. Developer also dropped it. =\ Maybe it'll happen with the whole "hey, let's get KDE apps on Windows" "thing" that "seems" to be "all the 'rage'" "now."
This is the 'net. No one can be held to be telling the truth. Hell, even the New York Times, a print newspaper, isn't immune.
So the New York Times fired a person making up stories. So? Is it trustworthy now? Nope. It still has to rebuild it's trust.
So, blogs. We have many people who can, through telling the truth, build a trust. We have comments and "word of mouth." If someone is truthful, than word gets out and they become trustworth. If not, well...
A unknown blogger with no prior crediblity isn't going to be as trusted as someone who's been around 5 years posting consistantly honestly and fair posts. Just like a newspaper. Just like a TV show. If anything, that there are more people to talk about these things, there's more of a net for people to catch untrue postings than with other media, where the checks are much fewer.
All "news" media is based on marketing trust. Just because the medium changes, and the people doing it is a lot larger, doesn't change this.
Apt-get or urpmi or yum. Your distribution will use one of those, and you will have no problems. It's far easier than windows.
Hey, that's great. I'll apt-get or yum this program that no one has bothered to package yet and... Hmm... Doesn't... Seem to be working... Maybe the servers are just down...
Oh, no, wait. It requires someone to make a distro-specific "repo" so they can use it. And apt for Debian isn't the same as Ubuntu, Linspire, or RedHat. Joy.
And I guess we can use these "unofficial" repos to bring in tons of software. Installing various bits of software from these repo as root with no checks, possibly replacing core parts of the OS, what could possibly go wrong?
You're right. The problem is totally fixed. I don't know what anyone's complaining about.
There's a wxWidgets wrapper for the CIL called wxNet, and there's work on a QT wrapper as well from the KDE people using that smoke stuff they've been working on IIRC, so they both are (or will soon be) accessable to C# and other CIL-based languages.
GTK's only a UNIX toolkit. On window's it's painfully slow, and on Mac OS X it requires a X Server (and thus, IMHO, is not really available for Mac OS X). Of course, that said, thanks to portable.NET you can use System.WindowForms on UNIX-like OS, Windows and Mac OS. Obligatory link to their screenshots from all those platforms, but I believe that the Mac OS X support requires a X server as well.. =\
No, I don't have anything useful to add to the conversation, why do you ask?;)
Nothing against the opinion, I shared it for a time, but it's not really the problem that needs to be solved. Threading is not a magic bullet. In fact, most modern UI toolkits are rather well designed in this respect if the coder knows what they're doing.
But, let's assume you put everything in 2 threads, drawing and logic for ease of discussion.
The drawing thread, at best, will be the same as always because all you logic goes faster than it's refresh time. If not, it redraws when only half a layout is done, or when things aren't in their full initialized state. You can also kiss nice, clean, resizing widgets goodbye; you've just made it so each widget appears the minute you add it to a toplevel widget with the logic thread taking all the CPU time still.
By now, I'm sure someone is saying, "well, let's just toss a lock in there so we can stop that!" Yep, we've just done all that threading work for nothing.
Plus we still haven't made them any LESS sluggish. Threading it doesn't make the CPU usage go away, in fact it could worsen it because now we're seeing updates while the CPU is taxed (which you just know will look ever so crisp and quick). A sluggish UI is a symptom of a deeper problem than the UI's threading model, unfortunately.
A bester fix would be to put the heavy logic into a seperate "logic" thread, add some timeouts in the logic thread so it's not so insistant on hitting the CPU hard, and put all the end results into a bit of shared memory that a idle handler can then pull in when the UI is... well, idle.;)
So you agree with rms then. Quoteth rms from the article:
Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path.
IIRC, Tendra was the compiler they were tossing around as a idea of which one to move to a few months back. Or at least some messages were passed around.
I've always wondered why they hadn't. Sure, it's not a 100% drop-in replacement for GCC, but considering how much GPLed code they've dropped and that it would push them much closer to being a fully-BSDed OS, I don't see how it would have been that much more of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight. Someone needs to put a stop to it.
-rds
Ximian and Sun?
Ximian: Evolution
Sun: OpenOffice.org/StarOffice
FreeBSD defaults to XOrg as of 5.3. NetBSD still ships XFree 4.something as default, but they've started to move to XOrg as well. You can use XOrg on NetBSD instead by setting a make variable, and AFAIK it will be defaulting to XOrg as of 3.0 which is due out sometime near the end of this year I believe.
And they can sue you for wrongful termination.
No, he's saying if you changed that one trait, you'd have less of them pointing towards you being possibly dishonest, and that you would need to take a number of such traits into consideration to get a idea of the person's personality. So it would point less prominently to you being dishonest, not to you being 100% honest.
Oh, quite right. You'd never guess how many people would be distributing Windows XP Pro without any law to stop them if only it weren't for that blasted EULA. DAMN YOU MS! DAMN YOU TO EULA HELL!
Maybe. Maybe it's just time to get better leaders.
I'm venturing far into the jungles of off topic here, so hang with me.
The only project, and I mean, ONLY project, that seems to take a proactive approch to code security is OpenBSD. And while I admit that using OpenBSD is more a mental thing than a real security thing, if you just stuck to the base system you would in fact have probably the most secure system made short of cutting the ethernet cable.
My question is, why don't we see this in other projects. Why don't we see more people saying "if this isn't safe, it's not going in?" Why don't we see more projects that OK the use of slower code because it's safer? And furthermore, why don't we see a public outcry FOR this code?
GNU's libc and AIX are the only modern, relevent UNIX-like OSes without strlcpy/strlcat. Why? Why are we not demanding that they have this? This should be the first, simplest addition to making things more secure. Why do we not have this in GNU's libc? Combined they are less than 100 lines of code with the full BSD license header. It's insane.
So maybe it's time we, as users and coders, demanded more and where vocal in that we won't accept code that doesn't make security job one anymore?
You've obviously missed their last few media outings.
Viruses are the fault of users running 3rd party code. Not MS.
I mean, seriously. You expect them to take responsiblity for someone else's code which, usually, is installed through a hole in the scripting language of Office/IE/outlook or a hole in IE? Really now.
Wa... Wait a minute...
And they'll be just as blissfully irrelevent as the RedHat clones.
;^) ) BSD alternatives? Hell, why would they even give a fuck about being UNIXy. This is a desktop we're talking about, not a server. They'd probably just piecemeal the Windows desktop out, then one day say "OK, here's your new kernel. You're running GoogOS now." Then, instead of having to rewrite everything piece by piece and fight a vocal community, they could rewrite everything piece by piece while looking like Heroes. "They're fixing up that dreadful Windows, they are. Horray!" And instead of trying to get people to place some foreign, alien OS on their computer, they could slowly work it in piece by piece so people just gently swap into it.
All it takes is one smart patch for them to prevent other Linux distros using their drivers: make a "compatibility" layer that then loads everything with a bit o' the ol' binary magic. Driver devs like it because they can keep their secret magical driver code secret. And Google likes it because in this dreamworld we're speaking of Darth Google, after it's switched to the bad side of the Source.
I mean, we're talking about a Google that wants total domination, right? I doubt they'd let something simple as that foul up the works...
Plus, why would they use Linux when they have multiple (and better
"And security. I mean, last thing we want is someone reading the quarterly reports, right? So make sure the documents'll be secure, will you Genkins.
Wait... You mean it's all stored by some other company, who we have no control over?
Bullox to that. Order 1000 more licenses for Office XP 2006 Pro Business Edition SE Turbo Hyperfighting."
Well, TakeTwo does own Rockstar....
Oh ya, don't you read any of the release announcements?
"They released Konquerer? Damnit, and I just finished compiling Progman.exe."
http://khtml-win32.sourceforge.net/
T'was started, but isn't really "there" yet. Developer also dropped it. =\ Maybe it'll happen with the whole "hey, let's get KDE apps on Windows" "thing" that "seems" to be "all the 'rage'" "now."
Hey, you're typing a note on a exposed back deck in the middle of winter, you'll type fast too.
THat's impossible.
I don't think you can grow a goatee over a beard...
This is the 'net. No one can be held to be telling the truth. Hell, even the New York Times, a print newspaper, isn't immune.
So the New York Times fired a person making up stories. So? Is it trustworthy now? Nope. It still has to rebuild it's trust.
So, blogs. We have many people who can, through telling the truth, build a trust. We have comments and "word of mouth." If someone is truthful, than word gets out and they become trustworth. If not, well...
A unknown blogger with no prior crediblity isn't going to be as trusted as someone who's been around 5 years posting consistantly honestly and fair posts. Just like a newspaper. Just like a TV show. If anything, that there are more people to talk about these things, there's more of a net for people to catch untrue postings than with other media, where the checks are much fewer.
All "news" media is based on marketing trust. Just because the medium changes, and the people doing it is a lot larger, doesn't change this.
Hey, that's great. I'll apt-get or yum this program that no one has bothered to package yet and... Hmm... Doesn't... Seem to be working... Maybe the servers are just down...
Oh, no, wait. It requires someone to make a distro-specific "repo" so they can use it. And apt for Debian isn't the same as Ubuntu, Linspire, or RedHat. Joy.
And I guess we can use these "unofficial" repos to bring in tons of software. Installing various bits of software from these repo as root with no checks, possibly replacing core parts of the OS, what could possibly go wrong?
You're right. The problem is totally fixed. I don't know what anyone's complaining about.
There's a wxWidgets wrapper for the CIL called wxNet, and there's work on a QT wrapper as well from the KDE people using that smoke stuff they've been working on IIRC, so they both are (or will soon be) accessable to C# and other CIL-based languages.
;)
GTK's only a UNIX toolkit. On window's it's painfully slow, and on Mac OS X it requires a X Server (and thus, IMHO, is not really available for Mac OS X). Of course, that said, thanks to portable.NET you can use System.WindowForms on UNIX-like OS, Windows and Mac OS. Obligatory link to their screenshots from all those platforms, but I believe that the Mac OS X support requires a X server as well.. =\
No, I don't have anything useful to add to the conversation, why do you ask?
Nothing against the opinion, I shared it for a time, but it's not really the problem that needs to be solved. Threading is not a magic bullet. In fact, most modern UI toolkits are rather well designed in this respect if the coder knows what they're doing.
;)
But, let's assume you put everything in 2 threads, drawing and logic for ease of discussion.
The drawing thread, at best, will be the same as always because all you logic goes faster than it's refresh time. If not, it redraws when only half a layout is done, or when things aren't in their full initialized state. You can also kiss nice, clean, resizing widgets goodbye; you've just made it so each widget appears the minute you add it to a toplevel widget with the logic thread taking all the CPU time still.
By now, I'm sure someone is saying, "well, let's just toss a lock in there so we can stop that!" Yep, we've just done all that threading work for nothing.
Plus we still haven't made them any LESS sluggish. Threading it doesn't make the CPU usage go away, in fact it could worsen it because now we're seeing updates while the CPU is taxed (which you just know will look ever so crisp and quick). A sluggish UI is a symptom of a deeper problem than the UI's threading model, unfortunately.
A bester fix would be to put the heavy logic into a seperate "logic" thread, add some timeouts in the logic thread so it's not so insistant on hitting the CPU hard, and put all the end results into a bit of shared memory that a idle handler can then pull in when the UI is... well, idle.
Why would Stallman care? SkyOS is a non-Free system, so anyone choosing it over a Free system like GNU/Linux or GNU/Darwin would be a loss.
It's still on the bread board.
Bah, just move to Mono. You can get .Net for free, then.
... What?
Oh. Nevermind then.
IIRC, Tendra was the compiler they were tossing around as a idea of which one to move to a few months back. Or at least some messages were passed around.
I've always wondered why they hadn't. Sure, it's not a 100% drop-in replacement for GCC, but considering how much GPLed code they've dropped and that it would push them much closer to being a fully-BSDed OS, I don't see how it would have been that much more of a problem.
Hey, you shouldn't joke about ODB, man. Wu Tang clan, I hear, ain't nothing to fuck with.