"Old computer reference, not obscure. They were well known at the time. Just because you are not really old enough to remember something doesn't make it obscure."
hee hee. just because you are old enough to remember it doesn't mean it wasn't obscure--you only reveal that you are one of us:) -- a long time nerd (I say that lovingly).
From the same era, we can safely say that the Apple ][ was anything but obscure. On the other hand, except for the 15 minutes of popularity mainly delivered from the endorsement of the Jell-o Pudding guy, the TI99/4A was and remains obscure. Kinda like the Adam, the Apricot, the Kaypro, the black HP school edition of the Apple ][ and a host of british machines whose fame was like the life of a june bug.
Cheers to yesterday and those of us who remember it:)
I think this is one of the more interesting comments. It makes me wonder about the whole business of serials. Instead of exploring a subject matter by thinking possibilities through, it sounds like we are just getting the last ideas from the chopping floor of Lucas' youth. The sad part is not that we are getting the failed bits of ideas from the original concept but instead that there are no new ideas at all. If we were willing able to believe and fall for the Star Wars universe in 1977, why does the reason for that universe need to be explained to us in 2000?
I take it all back, because I'll be first in line for epIII:) and I'll always respect Lucas and not just for Star Wars.
You want credible, har har. Don't we all. As it happens, google can easily provide the information to you, but these two are just as good as the one you posted. I don't want to get into a pissing match with you because this is but a trifle and I'm more than sure that you are an intelligent and helpful person, but for the sake of conciseness, you can see a summary of the dilly here.
By-the-way, transmitting voltage IS wireless technology. Adding words like telegraphy (which means writing at a distance) afterwards is much ado about nothing.
It is not I who abscribe Marconi's work to others--check the patents and you'll understand who has precedence.
By-the-way, no need to refer to my message as a troll, particularly when you go and spread misinformation. Thanks for pointing out how interesting Tesla is and how cultish I am for pointing out a simple truth regarding him.
It is ironic that the article you link which attempts to explain the true history of the invention of television passingly begins with:
"Since Marconi's invention of wireless telegraphy in 1897,"...which shows that they don't know that the telgraph was invented by Morse (in 1835) and that precedence for the "wireless" goes to Tesla--not Marconi.
I guess that's how historical myths get perpetuated.
"You know, in the beginning software usually was open and free, then it became closed and proprietry - exactly the thing that got Stallman into a rage and ultimately produced the FSF, the GPL and tons of GNU software etc."
Actually, IIR, it all came to an end when Bill Gates sent out the first "you are all damn thieves" letter to members of the homebrew who were "sharing" his copyrighted basic interpreter. circa 1977?
I believe that RMS started the GPL after Gosling refused to share his patches to emacs.
The FAQ for the GPL has a question that deals with this (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCRedis tributedBinariesGetSource) by asking if the same offer can be used to obtain the source. The answer is:
"Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary---so you can take advantage of it."
Thanks for explaining the karma thing to me and my apologies to rmohr02 in that regard.
Fair enough, assuming that their software constitutes a linkable binary and not direct source changes. Still, according to their licence page at http://www.openosx.com/wintel/license.html the product in question is actually licenced under the GPL, not LGPL which is what Bochs uses.
My understanding is that I can legally acquire their binary from a third party. Yet the GPL gaurantees that I still have the same rights as the third party to the source code. In this respect, the source *is* available to all comers--all I need is a copy of the binary. Again--that's the point of the GPL.
The GPL says that the source has to be provided "from the same place" as the binary. As they are offering a download, I would expect at least a link from their download site, if not directly to the sources (which is not strictly required as you point out, they have the option of making the sources available only upon request), then at least to a page that explains how one can acquire the sources.
At any rate, it may very well be that they distribute the source with the binary. I have taken your suggestion and written them to ask how one may obtain the sources.
But riddle me this, why are all of rmorh02's posts in this thread moderated higher than mine (or yours)--even his comments that are absolutely incorrect? My message that pointed out his incorrect assessment of the GPL is mod'd at 1 while both his original incorrect message and his message to concede his error is mod'd 2. Sounds fishy, doesn't it?
So it is clear, like the GPL, I have no problem with the fact that they are charging for their distribution. I have a problem with them not making it clear how they intend to deliver their source code to others.
I have the idea that you are attempting to confuse the issue. Earlier you said, "Though it would be highly irregular, these people could release a program under the GPL and not provide the source to those whom they provide the binaries to." After I pointed out that that was not so, you conceded the point but then threw in a red herring: by stating the Bochs is released under the LGPL. That is certainly a true statement, but I refer you to Bochs licence (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/lxr/source/C OPYING), lines 40-43, which I quote for you:
40 For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
41 or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
42 you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
43 code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide
So you see, the LGPL like the GPL, ensures that source code must be provided. For goodness sake, that's the point of the GPL!
What makes you think I didn't read the FAQ? Look under the section regarding distribution. They are supposed to provide a means by which the source is made available. It MAY be included with the binary, but they don't state that it is so I can conceivable order the binary and not get the source.
Regardless, the source *MUST* be made available by mail-order. I believe that they are entitled to still charge for it but they MUST make it available. Also note that while they include a link to the sourceforge site for Bochs, this does not meet the requirements of the GPL (as explained in the FAQ). Further, their build scripts are likely different than the vanilla Bochs.
Perhaps you should read the GPL FAQ yourself before blindly telling others to do so.
Okay, so where is the source code? The GPL clearly states that source is to be made available as well but the site doesn't include even a mention of how one can get the source from them.
Not yet mentioned is the very good PHP based JPGraph library. The professional version (which has a fee of 85 euro) includes an aditional module which does graphing which is demo'd here.
> Did the fall of Napster cause the numbers to go down?
Temporarily, but yes, it sure did. I don't think I implied that Kazaa (or any other single entity) is the root and cause of all piracy. I continue to contend that they are contributory towards acts of so-called piracy. That's why I said that the fact that they can be replaced is not relevant because as long as they DO exist they enable a purpose of particular relevance in this new technological age. That doesn't mean that they are unique. It simply means that they are presently in the thick of it. That's what makes them crying foul so ironic in the first place.
Never-the-less, your points are valid and well taken, particularly concerning your reasoning in regards to civil disobedience and the need to actually shut the net down to stop net piracy. I suspect that we are indeed somewhere in the same camp. But I disagree with your characterization that there exists a demand for piracy--I honestly don't know what that would mean. I *suppose* you mean that there is a desire for wider and looser distribution of otherwise copyrighted materials and if so, I heartily agree. Napster, Kazaa, et al show that distribution and copyright must be re-imagined in the face of the digital network era.
My initial reason for posting was this: it bothers me that Kazaa would use--and therefore validate--the very same dispicable laws to do to others what the *AA (I like that, I'm going to use it) would have those laws do to them.
> If Kazaa disappeared, would it (piracy) keep going? You betcha.
That hardly disproves the point--if Kazaa sudenly went off the air, the rate of piracy (stupid word, I admit) would drop--even if only until the next enabler came along. This should be sufficient to show that the rate of piracy is not neutral to Kazaa's presence. That it could be replaced is hardly the point.
> The demand is the problem, not the means. The RIAA and the MPAA both would do a world of good for themselves to realize this.
What does that even mean? First of all the "demand" isn't a problem at all. It is an indication that the system is not properly configured to the will of the people. If everyone is a thief, then its the law that is wrong.
...right, and guns don't kill--people kill. Yeah, I know. But you can't argue that the Kazaa service has a neutral effect on piracy. I'm not advocating one way or another--I'm just amused by the irony.
Could it be that open source is bringing together nations that have historically been deep, distrustful enemies? Now that's a feather in the cap! OR is it simply that everyone hates Microsoft and the enemy of my enemy is a my friend?
What about a name? I saw someone suggest Asianux. Assuming they base it off a linux or *BSD kernel ("all your base are belong to us" will finally be realized) I suggest they use this to underline their rejection of SCO's claims by calling it AUX.
uhh, hello. Open-source does the right thing of promoting BOTH co-operation and competition. It is a mistake to think that open-source = new world monopoly. Indeed, it is the new world monopoly BREAKER.
There is a HUGE difference between values and politics -- open-source represents a value system while your comments represent politics. Sorry, but politics are utterly wasteful attempts to control others and it is a disservice to try to paint open-source with that brush.
Doesn't the subject give it away? Kazaa, which enables (or at least egenders) rampant piracy (or at least unauthorized distribution) is itself crying foul over their product being illegally distributed.
Boo hoo.
> Bill's made it possible for any random high-school loser [reuters.com] to destroy $14 billion [net-security.org]
Actually, they haven't found the creator of msblast yet--just some teenage copycat. In fact, that $14B is supposedly caused by SoBig, not msblast. And don't you love the figures that these organizations pull out of their ass, I mean, databases.
Of course, it is a crying shame that microsoft is allowed to sell such unsafe software--but it took legislation to get seat belts into cars and even more legislation to get the great unwashed to wear them. My god, there was debate as to the need for drunk driving laws! To expect software providers to do the right thing is a bit of a folly, really.
Innovation may be spurred through bothcompetition and co-operation but it is a mistake to assume that patents actually spur innovation. Indeed, patents restrict use and hence refinements.
The issue again becomes confused with property: a patent holder is deemed to be the owner of a particular process. In truth, the public at large is the "owner" (as no idea can naturally be "owned"). We the people grant supposedly limited rights to idea holders as a "reward" for publishing the details of their idea. This is meant as an incentive to publish so that at some future time, we the people can put the discovery to general use. In the case of speech related acts, this process actually confers a power over others to restrict the boundaries of permissible speech.
This is not an issue of balance or fairness or ensuring maximum efficiency of output. The concern is one that forms the basis of our natural rights to express ourselves without reservation of reprisal. Allowing certain forms of speech to be restricted is unacceptable, regardless of supposed cost or benefit. The idea of software patents is abhorant to humanity because it goes against the freedom that all people not only deserve, but have a universal moral right to.
> but if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing
This is a confusion of what a compiled program is. A compiled program is also code--machine code--and hence a valid form of speech, even though only intended for a computer. There is no reason not to believe that the compiled program could have (not as easily) also been produced by a person--it certainly can be read by a trained individual.
Compilers translate one form of expression into another. The letter expressly indicates the difficulty that patent claims make in light of machine generated software (amongst other things).
Getting rid of windows is supposed to make Java more likeable? I think not. In all fairness, Microsoft's implementation of the JVM was far ahead of Sun's (in terms of performance on windows) until they stopped working on it. Java is not a bad language, to be sure, but its most appealing feature is that it is not from Microsoft. Unfortunately, it is from a company that is at least as grubby--heck, Sun was supporting SCO even before Microsoft! Don't forget that the GPL was born as a direct reaction to Gosling not sharing his patches to emacs with the community. All-in-all, if having the REAL runtime means that I can only get it from ONE vendor, than it is not worth having at all.
But we digress--these Java ramblings have *nothing* to do with the question at hand: how to solve an LDAP maintenance issue in an environment that, like it or not, includes windows. I think the original poster should indicate how he expects users to access the repository, because the solution will be somewhat dependant on the use scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
"Old computer reference, not obscure. They were well known at the time. Just because you are not really old enough to remember something doesn't make it obscure."
:) -- a long time nerd (I say that lovingly).
:)
hee hee. just because you are old enough to remember it doesn't mean it wasn't obscure--you only reveal that you are one of us
From the same era, we can safely say that the Apple ][ was anything but obscure. On the other hand, except for the 15 minutes of popularity mainly delivered from the endorsement of the Jell-o Pudding guy, the TI99/4A was and remains obscure. Kinda like the Adam, the Apricot, the Kaypro, the black HP school edition of the Apple ][ and a host of british machines whose fame was like the life of a june bug.
Cheers to yesterday and those of us who remember it
I think this is one of the more interesting comments. It makes me wonder about the whole business of serials. Instead of exploring a subject matter by thinking possibilities through, it sounds like we are just getting the last ideas from the chopping floor of Lucas' youth. The sad part is not that we are getting the failed bits of ideas from the original concept but instead that there are no new ideas at all. If we were willing able to believe and fall for the Star Wars universe in 1977, why does the reason for that universe need to be explained to us in 2000?
:) and I'll always respect Lucas and not just for Star Wars.
I take it all back, because I'll be first in line for epIII
You want credible, har har. Don't we all. As it happens, google can easily provide the information to you, but these two are just as good as the one you posted. I don't want to get into a pissing match with you because this is but a trifle and I'm more than sure that you are an intelligent and helpful person, but for the sake of conciseness, you can see a summary of the dilly here.
t tp://www.mercury.gr/tesla/marcen.html
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html
h
By-the-way, transmitting voltage IS wireless technology. Adding words like telegraphy (which means writing at a distance) afterwards is much ado about nothing.
Greetings.
It is not I who abscribe Marconi's work to others--check the patents and you'll understand who has precedence.
By-the-way, no need to refer to my message as a troll, particularly when you go and spread misinformation. Thanks for pointing out how interesting Tesla is and how cultish I am for pointing out a simple truth regarding him.
Cheers.
It is ironic that the article you link which attempts to explain the true history of the invention of television passingly begins with:
...which shows that they don't know that the telgraph was invented by Morse (in 1835) and that precedence for the "wireless" goes to Tesla--not Marconi.
"Since Marconi's invention of wireless telegraphy in 1897,"
I guess that's how historical myths get perpetuated.
"You know, in the beginning software usually was open and free, then it became closed and proprietry - exactly the thing that got Stallman into a rage and ultimately produced the FSF, the GPL and tons of GNU software etc."
Actually, IIR, it all came to an end when Bill Gates sent out the first "you are all damn thieves" letter to members of the homebrew who were "sharing" his copyrighted basic interpreter. circa 1977?
I believe that RMS started the GPL after Gosling refused to share his patches to emacs.
The FAQ for the GPL has a question that deals with this (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCRedis tributedBinariesGetSource) by asking if the same offer can be used to obtain the source. The answer is:
"Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary---so you can take advantage of it."
Thanks for explaining the karma thing to me and my apologies to rmohr02 in that regard.
Fair enough, assuming that their software constitutes a linkable binary and not direct source changes. Still, according to their licence page at http://www.openosx.com/wintel/license.html the product in question is actually licenced under the GPL, not LGPL which is what Bochs uses.
The GPL says that the source has to be provided "from the same place" as the binary. As they are offering a download, I would expect at least a link from their download site, if not directly to the sources (which is not strictly required as you point out, they have the option of making the sources available only upon request), then at least to a page that explains how one can acquire the sources.
At any rate, it may very well be that they distribute the source with the binary. I have taken your suggestion and written them to ask how one may obtain the sources.
But riddle me this, why are all of rmorh02's posts in this thread moderated higher than mine (or yours)--even his comments that are absolutely incorrect? My message that pointed out his incorrect assessment of the GPL is mod'd at 1 while both his original incorrect message and his message to concede his error is mod'd 2. Sounds fishy, doesn't it?
I have the idea that you are attempting to confuse the issue. Earlier you said, "Though it would be highly irregular, these people could release a program under the GPL and not provide the source to those whom they provide the binaries to." After I pointed out that that was not so, you conceded the point but then threw in a red herring: by stating the Bochs is released under the LGPL. That is certainly a true statement, but I refer you to Bochs licence (http://bochs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/lxr/source/C OPYING), lines 40-43, which I quote for you:
40 For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis
41 or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave
42 you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source
43 code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide
So you see, the LGPL like the GPL, ensures that source code must be provided. For goodness sake, that's the point of the GPL!
What makes you think I didn't read the FAQ? Look under the section regarding distribution. They are supposed to provide a means by which the source is made available. It MAY be included with the binary, but they don't state that it is so I can conceivable order the binary and not get the source. Regardless, the source *MUST* be made available by mail-order. I believe that they are entitled to still charge for it but they MUST make it available. Also note that while they include a link to the sourceforge site for Bochs, this does not meet the requirements of the GPL (as explained in the FAQ). Further, their build scripts are likely different than the vanilla Bochs. Perhaps you should read the GPL FAQ yourself before blindly telling others to do so.
Okay, so where is the source code? The GPL clearly states that source is to be made available as well but the site doesn't include even a mention of how one can get the source from them.
Not yet mentioned is the very good PHP based JPGraph library. The professional version (which has a fee of 85 euro) includes an aditional module which does graphing which is demo'd here.
> Did the fall of Napster cause the numbers to go down?
Temporarily, but yes, it sure did. I don't think I implied that Kazaa (or any other single entity) is the root and cause of all piracy. I continue to contend that they are contributory towards acts of so-called piracy. That's why I said that the fact that they can be replaced is not relevant because as long as they DO exist they enable a purpose of particular relevance in this new technological age. That doesn't mean that they are unique. It simply means that they are presently in the thick of it. That's what makes them crying foul so ironic in the first place.
Never-the-less, your points are valid and well taken, particularly concerning your reasoning in regards to civil disobedience and the need to actually shut the net down to stop net piracy. I suspect that we are indeed somewhere in the same camp. But I disagree with your characterization that there exists a demand for piracy--I honestly don't know what that would mean. I *suppose* you mean that there is a desire for wider and looser distribution of otherwise copyrighted materials and if so, I heartily agree. Napster, Kazaa, et al show that distribution and copyright must be re-imagined in the face of the digital network era.
My initial reason for posting was this: it bothers me that Kazaa would use--and therefore validate--the very same dispicable laws to do to others what the *AA (I like that, I'm going to use it) would have those laws do to them.
Cheers and thanks for the replies!
That hardly disproves the point--if Kazaa sudenly went off the air, the rate of piracy (stupid word, I admit) would drop--even if only until the next enabler came along. This should be sufficient to show that the rate of piracy is not neutral to Kazaa's presence. That it could be replaced is hardly the point.
> The demand is the problem, not the means. The RIAA and the MPAA both would do a world of good for themselves to realize this.
What does that even mean? First of all the "demand" isn't a problem at all. It is an indication that the system is not properly configured to the will of the people. If everyone is a thief, then its the law that is wrong.
...right, and guns don't kill--people kill. Yeah, I know. But you can't argue that the Kazaa service has a neutral effect on piracy. I'm not advocating one way or another--I'm just amused by the irony.
What about a name? I saw someone suggest Asianux. Assuming they base it off a linux or *BSD kernel ("all your base are belong to us" will finally be realized) I suggest they use this to underline their rejection of SCO's claims by calling it AUX.
uhh, hello. Open-source does the right thing of promoting BOTH co-operation and competition. It is a mistake to think that open-source = new world monopoly. Indeed, it is the new world monopoly BREAKER.
There is a HUGE difference between values and politics -- open-source represents a value system while your comments represent politics. Sorry, but politics are utterly wasteful attempts to control others and it is a disservice to try to paint open-source with that brush.
Doesn't the subject give it away? Kazaa, which enables (or at least egenders) rampant piracy (or at least unauthorized distribution) is itself crying foul over their product being illegally distributed. Boo hoo.
> Bill's made it possible for any random high-school loser [reuters.com] to destroy $14 billion [net-security.org] Actually, they haven't found the creator of msblast yet--just some teenage copycat. In fact, that $14B is supposedly caused by SoBig, not msblast. And don't you love the figures that these organizations pull out of their ass, I mean, databases. Of course, it is a crying shame that microsoft is allowed to sell such unsafe software--but it took legislation to get seat belts into cars and even more legislation to get the great unwashed to wear them. My god, there was debate as to the need for drunk driving laws! To expect software providers to do the right thing is a bit of a folly, really.
The issue again becomes confused with property: a patent holder is deemed to be the owner of a particular process. In truth, the public at large is the "owner" (as no idea can naturally be "owned"). We the people grant supposedly limited rights to idea holders as a "reward" for publishing the details of their idea. This is meant as an incentive to publish so that at some future time, we the people can put the discovery to general use. In the case of speech related acts, this process actually confers a power over others to restrict the boundaries of permissible speech. This is not an issue of balance or fairness or ensuring maximum efficiency of output. The concern is one that forms the basis of our natural rights to express ourselves without reservation of reprisal. Allowing certain forms of speech to be restricted is unacceptable, regardless of supposed cost or benefit. The idea of software patents is abhorant to humanity because it goes against the freedom that all people not only deserve, but have a universal moral right to.
> but if a program is compiled, it's no longer writing
This is a confusion of what a compiled program is. A compiled program is also code--machine code--and hence a valid form of speech, even though only intended for a computer. There is no reason not to believe that the compiled program could have (not as easily) also been produced by a person--it certainly can be read by a trained individual.
Compilers translate one form of expression into another. The letter expressly indicates the difficulty that patent claims make in light of machine generated software (amongst other things).
Getting rid of windows is supposed to make Java more likeable? I think not. In all fairness, Microsoft's implementation of the JVM was far ahead of Sun's (in terms of performance on windows) until they stopped working on it. Java is not a bad language, to be sure, but its most appealing feature is that it is not from Microsoft. Unfortunately, it is from a company that is at least as grubby--heck, Sun was supporting SCO even before Microsoft! Don't forget that the GPL was born as a direct reaction to Gosling not sharing his patches to emacs with the community. All-in-all, if having the REAL runtime means that I can only get it from ONE vendor, than it is not worth having at all.
But we digress--these Java ramblings have *nothing* to do with the question at hand: how to solve an LDAP maintenance issue in an environment that, like it or not, includes windows. I think the original poster should indicate how he expects users to access the repository, because the solution will be somewhat dependant on the use scenario.