I use my Sprint MIFI with Millenicom on their unlimited BYOD, and the offer TRUE unlimited service - I routinely burn through 12-15GB/month. I have no association with them, other than being a very satisfied customer.
I know for a fact that ALL police cruisers in California are fitted with a Laptop computer... in the front seat!!!!
but... it is installed... in a mount.... I know, because I used to work with a company which manufactures and installeds the mounts and lightracks...
so... I wonder... are law enforcement officers above this (almost blatantly unconstitutional law) ???
I mean... there has to be a limit somewhere... perahps specifying that the law only applies to laptops in the direct line of sight of the driver... but... still... this is insane as it is... The one thing that didn't surprise me was that California vated it in...
Is that you must release source code to the program/module linking to GPL libraries... however, I also understand that just because the program is GPL, that it does NOT prevent you from linking with proprietary, closed source, libraries. So, what is to stop a module developer from creating his own closed source API, and then using an open source wrapper to interface between the Kernel module API, and the proprietary portions of code???
and' as any profit would technically be derived from the code in the proprietary portions of the code, it would be perfectly legal to charge for the module. As long os the source for the actual Module (wrapper) code was released under the GPL license, and said code linked to the proprietary code (in object form).
As, contrary to popular opinion in the community, the GPL does not prohit linking to proprietary code, nor does it nessecitate that code must not depend upon a non-GPL component. It only requires that, in the case of the kernel -- because of a module being considered a derived work -- the code which actually interfaces to the kernel be released under the GPL.
And, before I get flamed, I would like to state that I am very much for open-sourced modules. Hawever, if a closed source driver is the only option, so be it... and, from dealing with hardware companies (and the stacks of paper/many lawyers)... the engineers themselves would like nothing better than to distribute driver openly..., however, it is usually the managers, stockholders, and corp lawyers who prevent this from happening... Mostly due to a completely illogical fear of losing IP, and the mis-belief that invaluable IP is contained within a device driver.... (and in the case of Machining Equipment.... this makes absolutely no sense, as all the guts are in an embedded system within the equipment, and all the driver handles is the communications protocol) But, the GPL makes them nervous, and if we become overly aggressive about device drivers, and the GPL -- I'm afraid that where we may have once been able to rally support for a driver, we will be turned away as a bunch of fanatics who don't care about IP...
I make my money as a consultant for various companies, and this is the one thing that truly scares me... the communities insistance that everything involving the kernel (or I've even heard Linux) be completely free and open-source... and this makes companies extremely nervous, especially with the SCO disaster looming over us.
Edison Gieswein
I love how the ignore the rest of the first amendment, that, and the very fact that copyright law gauruntees that the authors have the right to distribute as they wish, and impose restrictions upon it's distribution...
it must be because everybody is scared of VARCHAR(255) in SQL, or because disk space is oh so valuable these days with it being less than 3 dollars per gig...
and it's not as if it's that hard to use strcmp()
so it must be a holdover from the days when 10MB of disk cost $800. Whatever the case, it's something that has a need to change...
Not all security jobs are in trouble
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Everbody wants newer, better, stronger encryption to backend into the computers with the sticky notes.
As far as security systems... I tend to prefer detailed accounting, and abuse monitoring/prevention over excessive passwords for the end user. however, the use of smart card only authorization for low-level users has become acceptable to many companies. Generally, a smart-card and a PIN/Password is used, and in my opinion, offers an element of physical security to the security system, especially since smart cards can be used as more than simple key/id storage.
Admins and Techs, however are completely different... although the usernames are uniform across the system, passwords are required for the various levels of access. However in these facilities, physical security is usually enforced to an extreme measure (guards, concrete, heavy doors with proxim card locks and PIN pads, smart-card required to unlock the console...)
As far as the Security industry is concerned, the incompetence of the majority of the people in the field, while admittedly making us look bad on the surface, make those of us who are competent shine...
Re:Don't know my own password
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 1
and to think... I have to carry my dvorak around to remember my passwds... well... that, and to type above 30wpm
Slashdot Mirror
url: http://artisansasylum.com/ Physical address: 10 Tyler St., Somerville, MA 02143 Office hours are noon-8pm mon-sun, swing by and request a tour.
I use my Sprint MIFI with Millenicom on their unlimited BYOD, and the offer TRUE unlimited service - I routinely burn through 12-15GB/month. I have no association with them, other than being a very satisfied customer.
I know for a fact that ALL police cruisers in California are fitted with a Laptop computer... in the front seat!!!!
but... it is installed... in a mount.... I know, because I used to work with a company which manufactures and installeds the mounts and lightracks...
so... I wonder... are law enforcement officers above this (almost blatantly unconstitutional law) ???
I mean... there has to be a limit somewhere... perahps specifying that the law only applies to laptops in the direct line of sight of the driver... but... still... this is insane as it is... The one thing that didn't surprise me was that California vated it in...
I suspected as much, although I didn't know as a fact, so I didn't state it as fact.
Is that you must release source code to the program/module linking to GPL libraries... however, I also understand that just because the program is GPL, that it does NOT prevent you from linking with proprietary, closed source, libraries.
So, what is to stop a module developer from creating his own closed source API, and then using an open source wrapper to interface between the Kernel module API, and the proprietary portions of code???
and' as any profit would technically be derived from the code in the proprietary portions of the code, it would be perfectly legal to charge for the module. As long os the source for the actual Module (wrapper) code was released under the GPL license, and said code linked to the proprietary code (in object form).
As, contrary to popular opinion in the community, the GPL does not prohit linking to proprietary code, nor does it nessecitate that code must not depend upon a non-GPL component. It only requires that, in the case of the kernel -- because of a module being considered a derived work -- the code which actually interfaces to the kernel be released under the GPL.
And, before I get flamed, I would like to state that I am very much for open-sourced modules. Hawever, if a closed source driver is the only option, so be it... and, from dealing with hardware companies (and the stacks of paper/many lawyers)... the engineers themselves would like nothing better than to distribute driver openly..., however, it is usually the managers, stockholders, and corp lawyers who prevent this from happening... Mostly due to a completely illogical fear of losing IP, and the mis-belief that invaluable IP is contained within a device driver.... (and in the case of Machining Equipment.... this makes absolutely no sense, as all the guts are in an embedded system within the equipment, and all the driver handles is the communications protocol) But, the GPL makes them nervous, and if we become overly aggressive about device drivers, and the GPL -- I'm afraid that where we may have once been able to rally support for a driver, we will be turned away as a bunch of fanatics who don't care about IP...
I make my money as a consultant for various companies, and this is the one thing that truly scares me... the communities insistance that everything involving the kernel (or I've even heard Linux) be completely free and open-source... and this makes companies extremely nervous, especially with the SCO disaster looming over us. Edison Gieswein
I love how the ignore the rest of the first amendment, that, and the very fact that copyright law gauruntees that the authors have the right to distribute as they wish, and impose restrictions upon it's distribution...
it must be because everybody is scared of VARCHAR(255) in SQL, or because disk space is oh so valuable these days with it being less than 3 dollars per gig... and it's not as if it's that hard to use strcmp() so it must be a holdover from the days when 10MB of disk cost $800. Whatever the case, it's something that has a need to change...
Everbody wants newer, better, stronger encryption to backend into the computers with the sticky notes. As far as security systems... I tend to prefer detailed accounting, and abuse monitoring /prevention over excessive passwords for the end user. however, the use of smart card only authorization for low-level users has become acceptable to many companies. Generally, a smart-card and a PIN/Password is used, and in my opinion, offers an element of physical security to the security system, especially since smart cards can be used as more than simple key/id storage.
Admins and Techs, however are completely different... although the usernames are uniform across the system, passwords are required for the various levels of access. However in these facilities, physical security is usually enforced to an extreme measure (guards, concrete, heavy doors with proxim card locks and PIN pads, smart-card required to unlock the console...)
As far as the Security industry is concerned, the incompetence of the majority of the people in the field, while admittedly making us look bad on the surface, make those of us who are competent shine...
and to think... I have to carry my dvorak around to remember my passwds... well... that, and to type above 30wpm