Did you submit bug reports? Stack traces? Anything?
If you're willing to run a release candidate, you should be willing to provide the feedback that allows the RE team to fix the errors before the final release...
Actually, by Novell's own admission, this isn't a clearcut issue, and in fact, my interpretation of the article suggests that while they (SCO) do not currently own the copyrights, they COULD petition to be granted ownership.
The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement, ie: purchasing the rights to develop and deploy the original UNIX code. Obviously, the amendment leaves some play on both sides, but it's not entirely unreasonable for SCO to state (and then attempt to demonstrate) that ownership of the copyrights is required by them in order to defend against apparent illegal copyright infringment from a third party. In this instance, ownership of the copyright would allow SCO to defend its corporation and continue developing and deploying UNIX, and therefore may actually give SCO the rights it needs to claim ownership of the copyrights.
This isn't a cut-and-dry issue at all. There's a LOT of play, and while I have tremendous faith in IBMs lawyers, there is definitely more than one scenario where SCO could come out ahead.
The story hit earlier, when the FBI started asking for the records of everyone who went to vegas (plane records and hotel records) from Christmas to New Years...
The details are all over the net, but you can start by reading this, this, or this.
There's even a cargo ship that's docked to the station... they've been testing valves all night, I'm guessing they'll wait til that Russian ship leaves, and if the leak doesn't disappear, then they'll start to get concerned.
If you assume that the more complex a seal is, the better chance it has of leaking, then the docking hardware might be a good place to start looking.
Race: With that hatch open, we'll burn up on re-entry! That's it: if I go, I'm taking you to hell with me.
Homer: Wait a minute, Race. Wait a minute...wait!
[breaks off a support rod] Aha! Now I'll bust that pretty face of yours!
[tries to swing it, but it catches in the door] Aw, stupid bar.
Buzz: Wait, Homer. If that bar holds, we just might make it back to earth.
Homer: Oh. [voice rising] I'll bash you good!
So .... what's their plan of action?
on
ISS May Have A Leak
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
They say "There are no immediate concerns for the safety or health of the crew", but what are they doing about it?
When is it time to take action? Do they have a way to leave?
They have a supply of Oxygen and Nitrogen to repressurize the station, but how long will that last?
It would be nice to sit in on the decision-making, just to observe...
Chances are the boxes will be relatively easy to modify, based on the 'not locked down' comments.
On the other hand, this sounds an awful lot like the Phantom, an XP based PC game console coming in different configurations... at least it seems these will eventually make it to market.
(Of course, I see no way for the companies involved to make money on these things. If MS loses money on the X-Box, how does a fourth party expect to sell enough units to make a profit?)
Yes,.NET makes a lot of things a lot easier, and it makes some things more difficult. The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with.NET faster than in Linux.
Will is lead once again to MS growth? I don't know, it certainly could, but it just seems like too little...
No kidding... Look at the article. Read passages like:
So, what comes out of Redmond nowadays? Hot air and Ballmer dance videos made on Macs. Monkey boy is funny to watch, but after an all night patching stint with the CEO yelling at you, it loses its charm.
and then try to take the article seriously at all. A few good points masked in anti-MS rhetoric is not an article, it's a slashdot post.
OnStar is notified automatically if airbags deploy. If you have a head-on, and you're sticking through the windshield, you may not be ABLE to use your cell phone.
For those who don't follow FreeBSD, here's the executive summary:
FreeBSD's most stable branch (-stable) is still 4. It's currently at 4.9. This is like the 2.4.x branch in Linux.
FreeBSD's development branch (-current) is at 5.2. All major changes go into this branch, although some (like hyperthreading) will be MFCed (merged from current) back into the 4 branch if they're important. This is like the 2.5.x branch in Linux.
Although it was planned for 5.2, it appears that the 5.3 branch will mark the transition to 5-stable. That is, the stable branch will be the 5 series, and the development branch will start working towards 6. This is the equivalent of the 2.6.x branch in Linux.
That means that the next two releases on the 5 branch are going to be last times new features are added to the branch before -current forks, so it's going to require a lot of testing to ensure stability.
Why do you care?
Well, if you don't ever plan on using FreeBSD, you don't. If you do use FreeBSD, tossing this release on your hardware and making sure things like ACPI function with your motherboard are really important as NOW is the time to fix them so that they can be tuned and maintained prior to the 5.3 Release when the code is marked stable.
The major changes in FreeBSD 5 are significant. There's new locking throughout the tree, which should improve SMP performance everywhere. There's also finer grained locking in the Network stacks (thanks Sam), better ACPI (thanks John), support for AMD64 (coming slowly, thanks Peter), and the GEOM disk abstraction layer (nice work PHK), which has already been shown to be useful for things like GEOM-gate (a la nbd in Linux), is getting more mature with every release.
Performance and stability... well, there's a reason people use FreeBSD, and it's not because it has a pretty installer.
Remember that it's an area of millions of people....
2013 access points for 20 million people isn't all that impressive, to me at least.
(If they had flown a little further south, down to the Irvine/Laguna/Mission Viejo areas, they would have started to see a few more secure points, as they flew over eEye and Foundstone, and all the new tech that's growing down here).
First, there's copyright and common-carrier issues. If you cache pages, you become responsible for their content. Google is realizing this as they get served for DMCA removal requests.
Second, it's not something a 'ping' will help. It's usually a db / apache tuning issue, where there's too many connections. The server's alive, it just can't connect to the db, or there aren't enough apache processes. To find these types of errors, you'd have to read the responses and grep for errors. This becomes non-trivial, and more often than not, more trouble than its worth given (1).
Is there any reason to share 1,100 copyrighted files?
Now, is there any reason to do it that's not entirely illegal and, by every accepted sense of the word, unethical?
The girl did something illegal. Her parents were dumb enough to allow her to do it (if they didn't know, that's still their fault: what's a 15 year old doing on the internet without parental supervision). Time to find a lawyer, offer $2000, and then start negotiating the settlement.
It's not that it fails, it's that you don't understand how ACLs work in Windows.
A simple login 'failure' only locks them out from a single user account. If they can authenticate on any of the other accounts, they're still a logged in user. If the guest account is active, they'll be able to authenticate, and viola.
If you actually know what you're doing with Windows, you disabled that account years ago.
The only time I've ever enabled the guest account: on university networks, to enable trading of content without using Napster.
Of course, this was in early 2000, and it was mostly to achieve win98 compatibility. These days I'd probably find a much better way to do it.
The original point stands, though: this isn't a bug in exchange, it's yet another example of stupid administrators causing problems for the rest of the world.
The versions of exchange that are 'vulnerable' are 5.5 and 2000.
They're vulnerable mostly because of a virus that hit in 1999 that affected admins who didn't know what they were doing in the first place, probably because they stole their copy of windows.
You're going to hold MS responsible for the acts of people who have no business administering a server, 3 years after the product was FIXED?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you submit bug reports?
Stack traces?
Anything?
If you're willing to run a release candidate, you should be willing to provide the feedback that allows the RE team to fix the errors before the final release...
Actually, by Novell's own admission, this isn't a clearcut issue, and in fact, my interpretation of the article suggests that while they (SCO) do not currently own the copyrights, they COULD petition to be granted ownership.
The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement, ie: purchasing the rights to develop and deploy the original UNIX code. Obviously, the amendment leaves some play on both sides, but it's not entirely unreasonable for SCO to state (and then attempt to demonstrate) that ownership of the copyrights is required by them in order to defend against apparent illegal copyright infringment from a third party. In this instance, ownership of the copyright would allow SCO to defend its corporation and continue developing and deploying UNIX, and therefore may actually give SCO the rights it needs to claim ownership of the copyrights.
This isn't a cut-and-dry issue at all. There's a LOT of play, and while I have tremendous faith in IBMs lawyers, there is definitely more than one scenario where SCO could come out ahead.
Sure. All you have to do is transfer all of your money into this bank account:
ACCT: 8032701540 Bank Niaga Grand Cayman
I'll be happy to give it back as soon as you ask for it.
No, really, I will. I promise.
The story hit earlier, when the FBI started asking for the records of everyone who went to vegas (plane records and hotel records) from Christmas to New Years...
The details are all over the net, but you can start by reading this, this, or this.
Uh, someone forgot to tell United Devices.
The corporation is intimately tied to distributed.net and has been selling distributed / Grid computing to corporations for YEARS.
There's even a cargo ship that's docked to the station ... they've been testing valves all night, I'm guessing they'll wait til that Russian ship leaves, and if the leak doesn't disappear, then they'll start to get concerned.
If you assume that the more complex a seal is, the better chance it has of leaking, then the docking hardware might be a good place to start looking.
Buzz: Homer, you broke the handle.
Race: With that hatch open, we'll burn up on re-entry! That's it: if I go, I'm taking you to hell with me.
Homer: Wait a minute, Race. Wait a minute...wait!
[breaks off a support rod]
Aha! Now I'll bust that pretty face of yours!
[tries to swing it, but it catches in the door]
Aw, stupid bar.
Buzz: Wait, Homer. If that bar holds, we just might make it back to earth.
Homer: Oh. [voice rising] I'll bash you good!
They say "There are no immediate concerns for the safety or health of the crew", but what are they doing about it?
When is it time to take action?
Do they have a way to leave?
They have a supply of Oxygen and Nitrogen to repressurize the station, but how long will that last?
It would be nice to sit in on the decision-making, just to observe...
Your graphics card probably has as much memory as that box...
Thanks for buying those high-end cards, though. You make the rest of them affordable for those of us who buy whole computers for less than a grand.
Chances are the boxes will be relatively easy to modify, based on the 'not locked down' comments.
... at least it seems these will eventually make it to market.
On the other hand, this sounds an awful lot like the Phantom, an XP based PC game console coming in different configurations
(Of course, I see no way for the companies involved to make money on these things. If MS loses money on the X-Box, how does a fourth party expect to sell enough units to make a profit?)
I'll take the moderation hit in agreement.
.NET makes a lot of things a lot easier, and it makes some things more difficult. The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with .NET faster than in Linux.
Yes,
Will is lead once again to MS growth? I don't know, it certainly could, but it just seems like too little...
No kidding ... Look at the article. Read passages like:
So, what comes out of Redmond nowadays? Hot air and Ballmer dance videos made on Macs. Monkey boy is funny to watch, but after an all night patching stint with the CEO yelling at you, it loses its charm.
and then try to take the article seriously at all. A few good points masked in anti-MS rhetoric is not an article, it's a slashdot post.
Unless you're unconscious, or dying, or dead.
OnStar is notified automatically if airbags deploy. If you have a head-on, and you're sticking through the windshield, you may not be ABLE to use your cell phone.
That means that the next two releases on the 5 branch are going to be last times new features are added to the branch before -current forks, so it's going to require a lot of testing to ensure stability.
Why do you care?
Well, if you don't ever plan on using FreeBSD, you don't. If you do use FreeBSD, tossing this release on your hardware and making sure things like ACPI function with your motherboard are really important as NOW is the time to fix them so that they can be tuned and maintained prior to the 5.3 Release when the code is marked stable.
The major changes in FreeBSD 5 are significant. There's new locking throughout the tree, which should improve SMP performance everywhere. There's also finer grained locking in the Network stacks (thanks Sam), better ACPI (thanks John), support for AMD64 (coming slowly, thanks Peter), and the GEOM disk abstraction layer (nice work PHK), which has already been shown to be useful for things like GEOM-gate (a la nbd in Linux), is getting more mature with every release.
Performance and stability
And which systems are those?
Any of the common architectures use 29 bits instead of 31?
Remember that it's an area of millions of people....
2013 access points for 20 million people isn't all that impressive, to me at least.
(If they had flown a little further south, down to the Irvine/Laguna/Mission Viejo areas, they would have started to see a few more secure points, as they flew over eEye and Foundstone, and all the new tech that's growing down here).
First, there's copyright and common-carrier issues. If you cache pages, you become responsible for their content. Google is realizing this as they get served for DMCA removal requests.
Second, it's not something a 'ping' will help. It's usually a db / apache tuning issue, where there's too many connections. The server's alive, it just can't connect to the db, or there aren't enough apache processes. To find these types of errors, you'd have to read the responses and grep for errors. This becomes non-trivial, and more often than not, more trouble than its worth given (1).
Be kind ...
Get the zip if you can.
Otherwise here's the index page, and midtown manhattan.
If you can put these up elsewhere, that'd be much appreciated.
Dell and MS basically give their products away to schools.
The reason you have so much tech. hardware is because most of it was probably purchased for pennies on the dollar.
Let's be fair ...
Is there any reason to share 1,100 copyrighted files?
Now, is there any reason to do it that's not entirely illegal and, by every accepted sense of the word, unethical?
The girl did something illegal. Her parents were dumb enough to allow her to do it (if they didn't know, that's still their fault: what's a 15 year old doing on the internet without parental supervision). Time to find a lawyer, offer $2000, and then start negotiating the settlement.
It's not that it fails, it's that you don't understand how ACLs work in Windows.
A simple login 'failure' only locks them out from a single user account. If they can authenticate on any of the other accounts, they're still a logged in user. If the guest account is active, they'll be able to authenticate, and viola.
If you actually know what you're doing with Windows, you disabled that account years ago.
Why don't you save your company a thousand dollars and turn off the guest account?
Sendmail holes are ancient history? C'mon. Last year. Next year. Give it time, it'll happen again.
I, like you, pray that they're few, far between, easy to patch, and not the instant-root variety, but I sit and watch, fearing for the worst.
The only time I've ever enabled the guest account: on university networks, to enable trading of content without using Napster.
Of course, this was in early 2000, and it was mostly to achieve win98 compatibility. These days I'd probably find a much better way to do it.
The original point stands, though: this isn't a bug in exchange, it's yet another example of stupid administrators causing problems for the rest of the world.
24 months?
The versions of exchange that are 'vulnerable' are 5.5 and 2000.
They're vulnerable mostly because of a virus that hit in 1999 that affected admins who didn't know what they were doing in the first place, probably because they stole their copy of windows.
You're going to hold MS responsible for the acts of people who have no business administering a server, 3 years after the product was FIXED?