Given the "Kevin Baker" effect, it seems that anyone is at most 6 relationships away from anyone else. Potentially, the entire world could wind up being invited into this social network.
Alternatly, current members could "target" high profile potential members by carefully selecting who they invite as members.
So, who would you invite in order to get George Bush or Mike Fair into the network?
licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
What secrets? In using GPL'ed software as a basis of your product, you agree to publish your changes to that code under the same licence. There's no secret; you agreed to divulge your code, as it was a condition of your use of someone else's code (the GPL'ed code you based your product on).
The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
Wrong answer. You rented your home, and neglected to pay the landlord his rent. Now the landlord's legal agents are suing you and you have to either vacate the property or pay the back rent. It's your choice; you chose to rent the house knowing that that you would have to pay rent. Since you're refusing to pay the rent, the owner of the house is coming after you. Too bad that you painted the kitchen and sublet the basement; those were things that you didn't have any right to do unless you paid your rent, which you didn't do.
It's more like McDonalds telling you not to take home-made hamburgers at your neighbour's barbecue.
Could be that SCO believes IBM's Monteray PR speil
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It appears that SCO's claims about Linux scalability, etc, may have been as a result of some IBM PR in 2000.
A vunet article from June 2000 quotes Miles Barel, IBM's program director for AIX and Monterey, as saying that scalability, volume and systems management features present in IBM's Unix operating system, AIX, are still missing from Linux.
Of course, an IBM'er would (at that moment in time) push AIX over the (then) hobby project called Linux. But, it seems that it is this comment that's sparked SCO's much delayed attack.
I'm sorry, but I have never seen a pro football player with a 25-year career on the field.
However, in my profession, 25 years seems to be normal. At least that's what I and many of my co-workers celebrated this year; 25 years as a professional computer programmer.
Take a look at this article. The author apparently did plenty of research on waterproof PCs for sailboats, and even lists some manufacturers and selling points.
I can't see Microsoft saying that, primarily because the name would get shortened to Mac OS-02, and Microsoft has had more than enough of "OS two" (OS/2)
Remember, here in Canada, we pre-pay a licence fee to the artists for the priveledge of copying their works. This prepayment is taken from the purchase of every blank CD (both 'Audio CD' and 'Digital Data CD'). It's not illegal in Canada (and the artist get's reimbursed) to copy audio CDs (yes, there are caveats about 'for personal use', etc.).
Given the current controversy with 'digital rights management' and the stability, availability, and durability of various electronic media, I much prefer hardcopy paper books to ebooks. Paper is more convenient, can be photocopied when I need a snippet from a manual, and does not depend on expensive hardware, spotty power supplies, or the largess of a publishing company that wants me to pay for each time I read the book.
As for which books I'll be looking for, that varies a lot. My current interest list includes:
I can't find the Canadian Flag (standalone) registered anywhere in the CIPO Trademark Registry database.
Searches using "Canada" and "Flag" or "Government" and "Canada" bring up a variety of "Flag and words" Trademarks (i.e. left 2/3's of the flag, followed by the words "Government of Canada / Gouvernment du Canada"), but no standalone flag.
Could this just be a government official being a bit presumptious and pushy?
I am not an American, nor do I live in the USA, so I am not knowledgable on American law.
Having said that, wouldn't the recent ruling that permits a repackager to ignore the EULA when breaking apart and repackaging software legally permit someone to break off the licence manager, and repackage the rest of the upgrade as a MacOS 10.1 full install?
Around 1979, Steve Dompier released a short 8080 assembly program for the Imsai 8080 that played music on an AM radio by generating timed/tuned rf inteference (Article in Dr. Dobbs "Music of a Sort")
Around 1975, friends of mine had done the same thing with an IBM minicomputer at their highschool, using rf from disk and printer data transfers to generate music on an AM radio (added bonus, percussion was supplied by the line printer, using selected print data).
If, like me, you aim for stability on your systems, sacrificing leading-edge capabiliies for a reliable environment, you don't participate in the kernel update-fest.
However, I don't discourage anyone else from having the fun of using those leading edge facilities, or suffering those 'bleeding edge' failures that accompany unstable code.
How many of those 2.4 users wanted to use an unstable kernel? How many of those users reported their problems to the kernel team? How many participated in the debugging and remediation process?
It all fine and good to say that more people should help testing a development release, but kernel 2.4 is not a development release. If your point is that the 2.3 tree was not sufficiently tested, I agree. However, I'm not a kernel hacker, and anyone who installed a 2.4 "stable" kernel should have been able to expect stability. Experiments are for the development kernels; there were too many experiments included in the 2.4 kernel to make me comfortable with it. I'll wait for the experiments to end and the kernel to stabilize.
Why I haven't migrated to the 2.4 kernel
on
Linux 2.4.16 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Although I like to be as "leading edge" as everyone else, I've held back on migrating to the 2.4 kernel because of the sorts of things that have been happening to this release.
Although the 2.4 kernel seems to be overall a major step forward from the 2.2 kernel, there have been too many major changes with too little testing to make it a 'stable' kernel yet. It was only a couple of 'mod levels' ago that the VM was entirely rewritten to fix a performance problem that the original 2.4 VM (rewritten from 2.2) introduced. And, the 2.4 kernel (finally having been pronounced 'stable' by the kernel team) is discovered to have a major file corruption problem (now, apparently fixed in the +1 mod).
Not to disparage the kernel team (whom I think have done a wonderful job in giving us the next generation kernel), but I think I'll wait until this 'stable' kernel stabilizes a little more.
I'm assuming userlocal.com is alluding to/usr/local. They're wrong./usr is not "User", it's "Unix System Resources", and is pronounced "Yew Ess Ar"
Sorry, you are wrong. "Unix System Resources" is a retro-nym for/usr, much like "Packet InterNet Groper" is a retro-nym for ping; both are incorrect 'explanations' for for terms who's origin and meaning have been hidden by time.
/usr has always meant 'user' in Unix, and continues to mean 'user' even today. In the original Unix implementations,/usr was where the home directories of the users were placed (that is to say,/usr/someone was then the directory now known as/home/someone ). This has been confirmed many times by references to the historical documents (vid "Unix for Beginners" Bell Labs, 1978, or "The Unix Programming Environment", Bell Labs, 1984, which says (in part) "On many systems,/usr is a directory that contains the directories of all the normal users of the system.")
In current Unices,/usr is where user-land programs and data (as opposed to 'system land' programs and data) hang out. The name hasn't changed, but it's meaning has narrowed and lengthened from "everything user related" to "user usable programs and data".
Alan is the maintainer of the 'backlevel' (2.2) Linux kernel. The last version of the 2.2 kernel was 2.2.19, and AC has been inching it towards 2.2.20 for several months now.
The RIAA has a steep hill to climb with this initiative. Even if they get an amendment passed in the USA that permits them to hack computers, such a law won't / can't extend outside the boundaries of the USA.
It will still be "Theft of Telecommunications" here in Canada, if they are caught hacking into a computer on Canadian soil. Although the bulk of the RIAA's concern is in the US, they have worldwide exposures and suits from non-US residents won't be nice for them.
I would caution the RIAA that, even if they get their way in the USA, there are still a hundred countries where they do not and cannot have jurisdiction, and if they hack computers in those countries, it's a crime.
The logic seems to be that "Bad people can use PGP to enable them to do bad things; this means that PGP is bad". If we accept this as true then we must also accept that
Bad people can use guns to enable them to do bad things; this means that guns bad.
Bad people can use bombs to enable them to do bad things; this means that bombs are bad.
Bad people can use airplanes to enable them to do bad things; this means that airplanes are bad.
Bad people can use other people to enable them to do bad things; this means that other people are bad.
Bad people can use knowledge to enable them to do bad things; this means that knowledge is bad.
So, let's ban PGP, guns, bombs, airplane, people, and knowledge.
So much for the "land of the free and home of the brave".
My point is that if people don't use the tools already availible, why would the take the time to opt-in to this program?
Because they could 'opt-in' once, and let the holes take care of themselves, rather than opting in seperately for each hole found.
With the number of holes in MS products, it's easier for a typical, poorly educated NT Administrator to opt-in once and have the problems fixed automagically, then to keep reading BugTraq, locating, downloading, and applying fixes, and justifying his salary (and the server downtime) to his boss.
According to one of the articles, Microsoft is looking for new/improved ways to distribute security fixes to broken systems. My suggestion, with some qualifications, would be to distribute fixes through the identified security holes.
Just as attacks like "Code Red" take advantage of security holes to place priveledged code on vunerable systems, Microsoft could package hole-fixes into packages that prowl the internet looking for exposed systems. If the package (call it a 'worm') discovers a system with the appropriate hole, it enters the system, and replaces the faulty software with a patch.
Now, lest Microsoft be accused of unleashing attacks against exposed systems (beneficial attacks to be sure, but attacks none the less), the worms would only approach systems that have subscribed to this as a service. Additionally, each worm would inform the Administrator of the system (through email, or some other messaging service available in MS products) that an exposure has been discovered and a patch has been applied.
Of course, there would be an element of trust necessary here. The worm must also give the Administrator some sort of assurance that its changes are beneficial (we don't want attacks masquerading as patches), so there has to be some sort of confirmation/activation/deactivation process available to the Administrator, but I'm sure that, if Microsoft is serious about it's commitments (and it's revenues), this can be adequately worked out and implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the "Kevin Baker" effect, it seems that anyone is at most 6 relationships away from anyone else. Potentially, the entire world could wind up being invited into this social network.
Alternatly, current members could "target" high profile potential members by carefully selecting who they invite as members.
So, who would you invite in order to get George Bush or Mike Fair into the network?
licensing GPL software requires you to contribute back to the pool of open source software from which you benefited.
So what happens to your competitive edge if you're forced to give out the secrets behind your product?
What secrets? In using GPL'ed software as a basis of your product, you agree to publish your changes to that code under the same licence. There's no secret; you agreed to divulge your code, as it was a condition of your use of someone else's code (the GPL'ed code you based your product on).
The problem with that conclusion is that Cisco didn't build the house.
I didn't build my house either, but I wouldn't be happy if RMS & crew tried to strongarm me into burning it down.
Wrong answer. You rented your home, and neglected to pay the landlord his rent. Now the landlord's legal agents are suing you and you have to either vacate the property or pay the back rent. It's your choice; you chose to rent the house knowing that that you would have to pay rent. Since you're refusing to pay the rent, the owner of the house is coming after you. Too bad that you painted the kitchen and sublet the basement; those were things that you didn't have any right to do unless you paid your rent, which you didn't do.
Patent pending, 2003, All rights reserved
It's more like McDonalds telling you not to take home-made hamburgers at your neighbour's barbecue.
It appears that SCO's claims about Linux scalability, etc, may have been as a result of some IBM PR in 2000.
A vunet article from June 2000 quotes Miles Barel, IBM's program director for AIX and Monterey, as saying that scalability, volume and systems management features present in IBM's Unix operating system, AIX, are still missing from Linux.
Of course, an IBM'er would (at that moment in time) push AIX over the (then) hobby project called Linux. But, it seems that it is this comment that's sparked SCO's much delayed attack.
I'm sorry, but I have never seen a pro football player with a 25-year career on the field.
However, in my profession, 25 years seems to be normal. At least that's what I and many of my co-workers celebrated this year; 25 years as a professional computer programmer.
Take a look at
this article. The author apparently did plenty of research on waterproof PCs for sailboats, and even lists some manufacturers and selling points.
I can't see Microsoft saying that, primarily because the name would get shortened to Mac OS-02, and Microsoft has had more than enough of "OS two" (OS/2)
Remember, here in Canada, we pre-pay a licence fee to the artists for the priveledge of copying their works. This prepayment is taken from the purchase of every blank CD (both 'Audio CD' and 'Digital Data CD'). It's not illegal in Canada (and the artist get's reimbursed) to copy audio CDs (yes, there are caveats about 'for personal use', etc.).
Chech out
RFC1178 / FYI0005: "Choosing a Name for Your Computer" for the IETF recommendations.
Given the current controversy with 'digital rights management' and the stability, availability, and durability of various electronic media, I much prefer hardcopy paper books to ebooks. Paper is more convenient, can be photocopied when I need a snippet from a manual, and does not depend on expensive hardware, spotty power supplies, or the largess of a publishing company that wants me to pay for each time I read the book.
As for which books I'll be looking for, that varies a lot. My current interest list includes:
Is any of this helpful?
The story, for what it's worth, is just another FUD troll by a Microsoft supporter, and has nothing to do with real life.
I stand corrected. this s Page shows the registered flag.
Searches using "Canada" and "Flag" or "Government" and "Canada" bring up a variety of "Flag and words" Trademarks (i.e. left 2/3's of the flag, followed by the words "Government of Canada / Gouvernment du Canada"), but no standalone flag.
Could this just be a government official being a bit presumptious and pushy?
I am not an American, nor do I live in the USA, so I am not knowledgable on American law.
Having said that, wouldn't the recent ruling that permits a repackager to ignore the EULA when breaking apart and repackaging software legally permit someone to break off the licence manager, and repackage the rest of the upgrade as a MacOS 10.1 full install?
Lessee...
Around 1979, Steve Dompier released a short 8080 assembly program for the Imsai 8080 that played music on an AM radio by generating timed/tuned rf inteference (Article in Dr. Dobbs "Music of a Sort")
Around 1975, friends of mine had done the same thing with an IBM minicomputer at their highschool, using rf from disk and printer data transfers to generate music on an AM radio (added bonus, percussion was supplied by the line printer, using selected print data).
No, this is not new.
There is, of course, a trade off.
If, like me, you aim for stability on your systems, sacrificing leading-edge capabiliies for a reliable environment, you don't participate in the kernel update-fest.
However, I don't discourage anyone else from having the fun of using those leading edge facilities, or suffering those 'bleeding edge' failures that accompany unstable code.
How many of those 2.4 users wanted to use an unstable kernel? How many of those users reported their problems to the kernel team? How many participated in the debugging and remediation process?
It all fine and good to say that more people should help testing a development release, but kernel 2.4 is not a development release. If your point is that the 2.3 tree was not sufficiently tested, I agree. However, I'm not a kernel hacker, and anyone who installed a 2.4 "stable" kernel should have been able to expect stability. Experiments are for the development kernels; there were too many experiments included in the 2.4 kernel to make me comfortable with it. I'll wait for the experiments to end and the kernel to stabilize.
Although I like to be as "leading edge" as everyone else, I've held back on migrating to the 2.4 kernel because of the sorts of things that have been happening to this release.
Although the 2.4 kernel seems to be overall a major step forward from the 2.2 kernel, there have been too many major changes with too little testing to make it a 'stable' kernel yet. It was only a couple of 'mod levels' ago that the VM was entirely rewritten to fix a performance problem that the original 2.4 VM (rewritten from 2.2) introduced. And, the 2.4 kernel (finally having been pronounced 'stable' by the kernel team) is discovered to have a major file corruption problem (now, apparently fixed in the +1 mod).
Not to disparage the kernel team (whom I think have done a wonderful job in giving us the next generation kernel), but I think I'll wait until this 'stable' kernel stabilizes a little more.
I'm assuming userlocal.com is alluding to /usr/local. They're wrong. /usr is not "User", it's "Unix System Resources", and is pronounced "Yew Ess Ar"
Sorry, you are wrong. "Unix System Resources" is a retro-nym for /usr, much like "Packet InterNet Groper" is a retro-nym for ping; both are incorrect 'explanations' for for terms who's origin and meaning have been hidden by time.
In current Unices, /usr is where user-land programs and data (as opposed to 'system land' programs and data) hang out. The name hasn't changed, but it's meaning has narrowed and lengthened from "everything user related" to "user usable programs and data".
So, you are wrong. Deal with it.
That's Linux (kernel) 2.2.20pre10
Alan is the maintainer of the 'backlevel' (2.2) Linux kernel. The last version of the 2.2 kernel was 2.2.19, and AC has been inching it towards 2.2.20 for several months now.
The RIAA has a steep hill to climb with this initiative. Even if they get an amendment passed in the USA that permits them to hack computers, such a law won't / can't extend outside the boundaries of the USA.
It will still be "Theft of Telecommunications" here in Canada, if they are caught hacking into a computer on Canadian soil. Although the bulk of the RIAA's concern is in the US, they have worldwide exposures and suits from non-US residents won't be nice for them.
I would caution the RIAA that, even if they get their way in the USA, there are still a hundred countries where they do not and cannot have jurisdiction, and if they hack computers in those countries, it's a crime.
So, let's ban PGP, guns, bombs, airplane, people, and knowledge.
So much for the "land of the free and home of the brave".
My point is that if people don't use the tools already availible, why would the take the time to opt-in to this program?
Because they could 'opt-in' once, and let the holes take care of themselves, rather than opting in seperately for each hole found.
With the number of holes in MS products, it's easier for a typical, poorly educated NT Administrator to opt-in once and have the problems fixed automagically, then to keep reading BugTraq, locating, downloading, and applying fixes, and justifying his salary (and the server downtime) to his boss.
According to one of the articles, Microsoft is looking for new/improved ways to distribute security fixes to broken systems. My suggestion, with some qualifications, would be to distribute fixes through the identified security holes.
Just as attacks like "Code Red" take advantage of security holes to place priveledged code on vunerable systems, Microsoft could package hole-fixes into packages that prowl the internet looking for exposed systems. If the package (call it a 'worm') discovers a system with the appropriate hole, it enters the system, and replaces the faulty software with a patch.
Now, lest Microsoft be accused of unleashing attacks against exposed systems (beneficial attacks to be sure, but attacks none the less), the worms would only approach systems that have subscribed to this as a service. Additionally, each worm would inform the Administrator of the system (through email, or some other messaging service available in MS products) that an exposure has been discovered and a patch has been applied.
Of course, there would be an element of trust necessary here. The worm must also give the Administrator some sort of assurance that its changes are beneficial (we don't want attacks masquerading as patches), so there has to be some sort of confirmation/activation/deactivation process available to the Administrator, but I'm sure that, if Microsoft is serious about it's commitments (and it's revenues), this can be adequately worked out and implemented.