(Note: substituting example.com for unknown domain name in the following reply)
Depending on your CA your SSL certificate may actually contain entries for both example.com and www.example.com. Try it and see.
Also you can simply put a redirect on http://www.example.com to go to http://example.com and the SSL certificate won't come into play until after the browser has been bounced to the correct domain name. If the boss actually tries to put https://www.example.com in his browser then you have a bit of a problem (unless you have a cert that works for both as mentioned above), but chances are he won't try that.
and support for more "oddball" configurations like multiple screens
I just recently left a job from a major corporation for a startup. Uh, Oddball is multi screens? 99% of all users in this 5k user corporation used dual screens. One of the primary reasons I couldn't get Linux onto more desktops there was THAT reason.
What are you smoking? Of course Linux supports multiple screens. A google for "linux multiple screens" returns loads of results showing you how to set that up and make it work for you.
Things like device drivers can be easily diked out. When it comes to stuff like memory managers, VFS, CPU schedulers, basic networking, so on and so forth, I imagine that the bloat hurts the embedded guys more.
The last time I configured a kernel (and I don't do it very often), there were options to enable or disable VFS as well as several options controlling it. There were three or four different schedulers that you could pick from depending on your needs, networking was fully configurable and could be completely disabled if wanted, and "so on and so forth". The Linux kernel can be streamlined greatly for embedded devices and I really fail to see how it is a problem to have all those options available for people who want them.
That's exactly what a number of hardware manufacturers do with their driver code. The legality of this is debatable, the FSF would like you to believe that this is not legal, I wouldn't know.
But for embedded/minimalist supporters, it means they need to add more hardware to their machines to support the now-larger kernel, chock full of features they'll never need or want.
Of course not. All embedded developers need to do is spend two or three hours picking through the features in "make menuconfig" and turn the ones they don't want or need off. Then the resulting compiled kernel is very streamlined and able to perform just fine on very minimal hardware.
What Linus is referring to is that the kernel has grown to a point far beyond what he ever imagined for it, but it also is being used for applications that he never imagined. This is not a bad thing, especially when you can configure out the bloat and be left with exactly what you want. It really does mean that the Linux kernel can be everything to everyone.
It is pretty much separate from one country to the next.
If you declare bankruptcy in the US then you actually get a high credit rating there as a result because the agencies know that you can't declare bankruptcy on them for several years. If you turn around and move to a foreign country you will have no credit which isn't exactly a good thing when you're trying to buy or rent a house, buy a car, etc.
Speculation is that Microsoft only invited non practicing entities (aka "patent trolls") to this auction. It is very possible that the intent was to sell the patents to a company that could wield them against Linux companies without fear of retribution, but AST managed to step in and get the highest bid on them, and then turned around and sold them to the OIN. This is a subversive plan by MS that backfired.
My understanding is that they never deleted the notes and they have always been fully accessible but they loose much of their meaning without the context of the story. All that amazon is doing here is restoring the story and so the annotations now have the context again.
Fine then, replace just the broken drives but as far as I'm aware Linux software raid 6 does not require the drives be the same model, or even the same size. You can get newer drives for the same or less cost as the old drives and just plug them in. Who cares if they have more capacity? Just let it go to waste if you must but it'll work just fine and certainly you won't have to be scrounging drives off of ebay.
Also consider that five years down the road we may have 10tb drives or better, but 1.5 tb drives should still be available on the consumer market (and keep in mind these are cheap consumer drives) for dirt cheap and these guys will probably be quite happy to use their same design with newer high capacity drives available at the time.
Scroll down to the bottom of the article and there is a parts list. The case is custom manufactured and is not for sale but there is a link to the 3d model. Take that file to a local metal shop and get them to make the case for you.
I remember seeing a documentary about this on TV years ago, only back then they were carrying rolls of 35mm film. The only thing new is that they've upgraded to digital photographs and memory sticks.
Back then it was more impressive because they were able to send the rolls of film back to the visitor center and process them on a 1 hour photo lab machine (which doesn't take anywhere near an hour to process) and have the prints up on display by the time the rafters came in from their trip.
If they do not comply, regardless of the reason, then they do not have any license to redistribute the GPLed software at all.
If they cannot comply then they will end up having to pay punitive damages to the copyright holders of the software that they illegally distributed and cease any further distribution of the software.
You cannot simply ignore the GPL because it doesn't fit with your other contractual obligations. The copyright holders were not a party to those other contracts and so the existence of them does not free the distributors of their GPL obligations.
Including a download link to the source code somewhere in the documentation is definately good enough.
If you're distributing a box with Linux on it you can't expect the person who recieves it to have access to the internet to be able to download the source. You have to provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide the source code if requested for reasonable distribution costs.
github is good in that they can host their code for free (as long as you don't mind that students can see each others code) or there is paid hosting if they need to keep it private. You could also run your own git server.
Nice arrangement for the large carriers. Basically they get to tell the small carriers, "sure you can offer this phone after 6 months, but don't you dare get more than 500,000 customers, or we'll jump in and stop the practice." This will force small carriers to not grow large enough to give Verizon or AT&T any real competition.
This sounds like a nice compromise on the face of it, but it stinks.
I do not recognize the ECMA as a valid standards setting organization anymore after the mess with OOXML. When they will basically rubber stamp any standard given to them by MS they are just an extension of MS.
It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.
Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.
Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.
MS has patents that cover various aspects of the.Net standard. At any time MS could choose to only license their patents in a manner which is not compatible with free software and aggressively pursue free software applications that use programming techniques and interfaces covered by the patents. This could have the effect of killing off the free software programs that rely on the standard not to mention the legal headaches that a programmer can run into if MS decides to pursue you for patent infringement. MS does not even need to have a valid case, just the costs of defending yourself in court is enough to effectively screw you over.
The flip side to that argument is that it allows your bosses to justify that you continue to develop in C#. Without Mono they would have to allow you to develop in a more free language if they wanted their apps to run on platforms other than windows.
I think that FreeLEgoPorn would have a better chance arguing that the word "Lego" is sufficiently generic as to not warrant trademark protection anymore. Considering the number of off-brand or generic blocks on the market that are commonly referred to as "legos" this would have a much better chance than arguing parody, im (decidedly non-lawyer) o.
Also just another case of why you should never use GoDaddy as a domain registrar, they are known for bowing to the slightest bit of legal pressure and handing over a domain name just because a lawyer tells them to. Do a slashdot search for GoDaddy for past examples.
Despite what supporters of OSS believe Should or Should Not be allowed or done, Nintendo still has the right to decide what software is acceptable for use on their hardware.
Wrong. Once the console is sold it does not belong to Nintendo anymore and they have no rights whatsoever to how it is used or to what software is loaded on it (Note: I am sure they will try to pull the DMCA out of their @$$ to try to force people to use hardware that was legally purchased only in ways that Nintendo says you can).
The issue or lesson here is that companies have to be more diligent when fulfilling their contractual obligations. I Atari feels that it does not have to check on its suppliers, then the short coming lies with Atari, not Nintendo.
I would agree that the shortcoming is on Atari, but the problem is they entered into a contract with Nintendo that ties their hands in terms of how they are allowed to obtain their software. Keep in mind that Atari had no problem with the GPL and was going to comply with the license until Nintendo stepped in and slapped them down. Of course their reaction after Nintendo stepped in was less than admirable (they tried accusing ScummVM of stealing IP through illegal reverse engineering).
Slashdot Mirror
(Note: substituting example.com for unknown domain name in the following reply)
Depending on your CA your SSL certificate may actually contain entries for both example.com and www.example.com. Try it and see.
Also you can simply put a redirect on http://www.example.com to go to http://example.com and the SSL certificate won't come into play until after the browser has been bounced to the correct domain name. If the boss actually tries to put https://www.example.com in his browser then you have a bit of a problem (unless you have a cert that works for both as mentioned above), but chances are he won't try that.
You seem to have missed the joke. This will help
better idea: Just alias the www version and it won't matter if the boss (or anyone else for that matter) confuses it that way.
and support for more "oddball" configurations like multiple screens
I just recently left a job from a major corporation for a startup. Uh, Oddball is multi screens? 99% of all users in this 5k user corporation used dual screens. One of the primary reasons I couldn't get Linux onto more desktops there was THAT reason.
What are you smoking? Of course Linux supports multiple screens. A google for "linux multiple screens" returns loads of results showing you how to set that up and make it work for you.
Things like device drivers can be easily diked out. When it comes to stuff like memory managers, VFS, CPU schedulers, basic networking, so on and so forth, I imagine that the bloat hurts the embedded guys more.
The last time I configured a kernel (and I don't do it very often), there were options to enable or disable VFS as well as several options controlling it. There were three or four different schedulers that you could pick from depending on your needs, networking was fully configurable and could be completely disabled if wanted, and "so on and so forth". The Linux kernel can be streamlined greatly for embedded devices and I really fail to see how it is a problem to have all those options available for people who want them.
That's exactly what a number of hardware manufacturers do with their driver code. The legality of this is debatable, the FSF would like you to believe that this is not legal, I wouldn't know.
But for embedded/minimalist supporters, it means they need to add more hardware to their machines to support the now-larger kernel, chock full of features they'll never need or want.
Of course not. All embedded developers need to do is spend two or three hours picking through the features in "make menuconfig" and turn the ones they don't want or need off. Then the resulting compiled kernel is very streamlined and able to perform just fine on very minimal hardware.
What Linus is referring to is that the kernel has grown to a point far beyond what he ever imagined for it, but it also is being used for applications that he never imagined. This is not a bad thing, especially when you can configure out the bloat and be left with exactly what you want. It really does mean that the Linux kernel can be everything to everyone.
I always find it interesting how it can scan the "C" drive on my Linux box.
It is pretty much separate from one country to the next.
If you declare bankruptcy in the US then you actually get a high credit rating there as a result because the agencies know that you can't declare bankruptcy on them for several years. If you turn around and move to a foreign country you will have no credit which isn't exactly a good thing when you're trying to buy or rent a house, buy a car, etc.
Speculation is that Microsoft only invited non practicing entities (aka "patent trolls") to this auction. It is very possible that the intent was to sell the patents to a company that could wield them against Linux companies without fear of retribution, but AST managed to step in and get the highest bid on them, and then turned around and sold them to the OIN. This is a subversive plan by MS that backfired.
My understanding is that they never deleted the notes and they have always been fully accessible but they loose much of their meaning without the context of the story. All that amazon is doing here is restoring the story and so the annotations now have the context again.
Fine then, replace just the broken drives but as far as I'm aware Linux software raid 6 does not require the drives be the same model, or even the same size. You can get newer drives for the same or less cost as the old drives and just plug them in. Who cares if they have more capacity? Just let it go to waste if you must but it'll work just fine and certainly you won't have to be scrounging drives off of ebay.
Also consider that five years down the road we may have 10tb drives or better, but 1.5 tb drives should still be available on the consumer market (and keep in mind these are cheap consumer drives) for dirt cheap and these guys will probably be quite happy to use their same design with newer high capacity drives available at the time.
Scroll down to the bottom of the article and there is a parts list. The case is custom manufactured and is not for sale but there is a link to the 3d model. Take that file to a local metal shop and get them to make the case for you.
I remember seeing a documentary about this on TV years ago, only back then they were carrying rolls of 35mm film. The only thing new is that they've upgraded to digital photographs and memory sticks.
Back then it was more impressive because they were able to send the rolls of film back to the visitor center and process them on a 1 hour photo lab machine (which doesn't take anywhere near an hour to process) and have the prints up on display by the time the rafters came in from their trip.
If they do not comply, regardless of the reason, then they do not have any license to redistribute the GPLed software at all.
If they cannot comply then they will end up having to pay punitive damages to the copyright holders of the software that they illegally distributed and cease any further distribution of the software.
You cannot simply ignore the GPL because it doesn't fit with your other contractual obligations. The copyright holders were not a party to those other contracts and so the existence of them does not free the distributors of their GPL obligations.
Including a download link to the source code somewhere in the documentation is definately good enough.
If you're distributing a box with Linux on it you can't expect the person who recieves it to have access to the internet to be able to download the source. You have to provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide the source code if requested for reasonable distribution costs.
That's because the source is too big to fit on a CD, there is, however, a source DVD image available for download.
There is likely to be a few things in there that are copyright the FSF and they would be more than happy to pursue copyright violations.
github is good in that they can host their code for free (as long as you don't mind that students can see each others code) or there is paid hosting if they need to keep it private. You could also run your own git server.
Nice arrangement for the large carriers. Basically they get to tell the small carriers, "sure you can offer this phone after 6 months, but don't you dare get more than 500,000 customers, or we'll jump in and stop the practice." This will force small carriers to not grow large enough to give Verizon or AT&T any real competition.
This sounds like a nice compromise on the face of it, but it stinks.
I do not recognize the ECMA as a valid standards setting organization anymore after the mess with OOXML. When they will basically rubber stamp any standard given to them by MS they are just an extension of MS.
It is not going to be revoked, it cannot be revoked.
Although initially this seems to give support to the MS platform, IMHO this is a move that will start to break the idea that to use C# one must have windows and say that you can write the same applications on linux.
Once people can write an application and deploy it anywhere, users will have real choice, even if C# isn't the best basis to stay on for life. Worry about getting users to the platform and then worry about putting the code in C/C++.
MS has patents that cover various aspects of the .Net standard. At any time MS could choose to only license their patents in a manner which is not compatible with free software and aggressively pursue free software applications that use programming techniques and interfaces covered by the patents. This could have the effect of killing off the free software programs that rely on the standard not to mention the legal headaches that a programmer can run into if MS decides to pursue you for patent infringement. MS does not even need to have a valid case, just the costs of defending yourself in court is enough to effectively screw you over.
The flip side to that argument is that it allows your bosses to justify that you continue to develop in C#. Without Mono they would have to allow you to develop in a more free language if they wanted their apps to run on platforms other than windows.
If you're willing to pay a one-off $95 reseller signup fee then OpenSRS is a very good choice.
I think that FreeLEgoPorn would have a better chance arguing that the word "Lego" is sufficiently generic as to not warrant trademark protection anymore. Considering the number of off-brand or generic blocks on the market that are commonly referred to as "legos" this would have a much better chance than arguing parody, im (decidedly non-lawyer) o.
Also just another case of why you should never use GoDaddy as a domain registrar, they are known for bowing to the slightest bit of legal pressure and handing over a domain name just because a lawyer tells them to. Do a slashdot search for GoDaddy for past examples.
Despite what supporters of OSS believe Should or Should Not be allowed or done, Nintendo still has the right to decide what software is acceptable for use on their hardware.
Wrong. Once the console is sold it does not belong to Nintendo anymore and they have no rights whatsoever to how it is used or to what software is loaded on it (Note: I am sure they will try to pull the DMCA out of their @$$ to try to force people to use hardware that was legally purchased only in ways that Nintendo says you can).
The issue or lesson here is that companies have to be more diligent when fulfilling their contractual obligations. I Atari feels that it does not have to check on its suppliers, then the short coming lies with Atari, not Nintendo.
I would agree that the shortcoming is on Atari, but the problem is they entered into a contract with Nintendo that ties their hands in terms of how they are allowed to obtain their software. Keep in mind that Atari had no problem with the GPL and was going to comply with the license until Nintendo stepped in and slapped them down. Of course their reaction after Nintendo stepped in was less than admirable (they tried accusing ScummVM of stealing IP through illegal reverse engineering).