This seems like an entirely new system, because the BSD type systems do not have journaling, and there is no such system on the forseable horizon.
FreeBSD provides something called softupdates, which do much to alievate the need for a journaling system. And it does this without the performance hit. When FreeBSD 5.0 comes out it will do something called snapshoting, which will bring even more stability (and background fsck) without much of a performance hit. NetBSD provides (I think) a different implementation of softupdates. OpenBSD might too, I don't know.
Which makes me very disappointed that apple chose this route. Softupdates+Snapshots solves the problem without the performance hit. BSD doesn't need no stinking journaling.
SSH is easily used in place of rlogin/rsh/rcmd. I've used it for this and been pleased with the results, virtually a drop in replacement. You could probably even get away with aliasing it, if you knew the remote system was running sshd.
So, with secure commands to meet the need, why keep old ones around?
No. You should just refrain from distributing a program which is being widely used to break the law.
If someone writes to you and says "I an making my own fonts, I need this tool", and you provide it, that is one thing. But how many of your users are really doing that?
If Tom wants to make his fonts freely available to others, and uses his software to toggle bits on his fonts, fine.
But, it clear from comments here that at least some people are using the program to illegally embeed fonts in documents, such as PDFs. And yes, this is illegal. Embeed fonts are a good thing, I like them, but only if I own them and the redistribution rights or can freely do so. This is why default system fonts are so often used for such documents. So that the fonts can be freely passed around.
Like any other piece of software, font design and typograph requires work to create. And its not drudge labor either, it takes both skill and creative ability. Commerical font houses pay people to create these, and then sell their work. Usually, such fonts are licenses so that people can use them to print paper documents, or view other documents on systems where the owners have also licensed the font. Don't have the font? Buy it or go read something else.
Using a propitary font on a website, and redistributing it to people looking at your site is piracy, clear and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts.
The font industry has adopted a very reasonable approach till now. No heavy handed DRM, just a couple of bits and the trust that software will honor them. This is convient for consumers and protects the people who work to create the things we use.
The DMCA might not be entirely appropriate here, and perhaps the case should be tossed on technicalities. But whatever the non-infringing uses and the authors own utility for the program, the people on slashdot have made it clear that the non-infringing use is pretty marginal to the illegal one.
A shame. Perhaps the author should look at writting a font editor of his own. One that defaults to free access for new fonts, and allow increasing security, but not granting new permissions on commercial fonts. This is a fair method of handling the problem, one that appears to have previously been used successfully without resorting to more draconian copyright protections.
Research is often done for the public good, by the public (through the government). Often, this research is not patented. But sometimes it is; many universities stay in buisness and fund more research through their patent portfolios. With out patents, America's universities would suffer; and believe me they do care about money. Even those doing research for the sake of research have to eat. And just because many of the results of research aren't patented doesn't mean that the option should not be unavailable.
And I don't care what the epistemologist say about math being discovered or invented, most philiosphers can't do math.
Math is work, and deserves compenstation.
Compression Codec's are absolutely something that
should be patentable.
Yes, UniSys dropped the ball then behaved badly with LZW and GIF. Yes, it is often better to not
patent a codec, and the Fauhenfoer (sp?) institute
has a questionable claim on LAME because their
patent only covers the aucoustic tables which LAME
does not use, but that doesn't mean compression
patents are bad.
Developing new compression codecs is hard work. It
requires a great deal more mathematical ability than I or the general slashdot community posses. They are a form of math, but they are a form you must go looking for. You must run experiments, put in long hours, and do a lot of work to successful design a new compression codec. They do not jump out and say "here I am" to the causal practioner.
Patenting compression codecs protects the work and research of those who develop them. PhD. in computer science do not come cheap, and neither do grad assistants, sysadmins, numbers chruncers, and everything else required to keep a research institution operating. No patents, no more R&D. No more compression codecs. No nifty new toys like the web, 3D graphics, or most of the other major developments in computer science. No more Real or QuickTime because you could never recover your R&D investment. No more MPEG.
Are many, many software patents bad? Obviously. Are the all bad? Absolutely not. Not all code is obvious. Not all "simple" code is easily deduced. Research should be protected. The patent office is the problem, not the idea of software patents.
Here is the script I use. Works well, but no eror
handling. Fairly straight forwards, you will need
libcdaudio, p5-MP3-info, and p5-AudioCD from
ports/audio
Think about it. Joe average (or even Joe very good) programmer is threatened by a large corporation with lots to spend on lawyers. Even backed by the ACLU and EFF, their life is going to be turned upside down for the duration of the trial, and if the corp wants to really drag it out then it might be years before the defendant can move on with their life. The fact that the suit is bogus is no help. And since this is a free speech issuse the corp might decide to take it all the way to the supreme court just to make an example out of their victim. Even if they lose, his life i s on perment hold while he fights this.
Even if Joe wins, he loses. And the corp officers who call the shots really lose nothing either way; since the legal system does not let Joe get punitive damages for such bogus lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
Read up on softupdates. BSD doesn't need journaling.
This seems like an entirely new system, because the BSD type systems do not have journaling, and there is no such system on the forseable horizon.
FreeBSD provides something called softupdates, which do much to alievate the need for a journaling system. And it does this without the performance hit. When FreeBSD 5.0 comes out it will do something called snapshoting, which will bring even more stability (and background fsck) without much of a performance hit. NetBSD provides (I think) a different implementation of softupdates. OpenBSD might too, I don't know.
Which makes me very disappointed that apple chose this route. Softupdates+Snapshots solves the problem without the performance hit. BSD doesn't need no stinking journaling.
SSH is easily used in place of rlogin/rsh/rcmd. I've used it for this and been pleased with the results, virtually a drop in replacement. You could probably even get away with aliasing it, if you knew the remote system was running sshd.
So, with secure commands to meet the need, why keep old ones around?
No. You should just refrain from distributing a program which is being widely used to break the law.
If someone writes to you and says "I an making my own fonts, I need this tool", and you provide it, that is one thing. But how many of your users are really doing that?
If Tom wants to make his fonts freely available to others, and uses his software to toggle bits on his fonts, fine.
But, it clear from comments here that at least some people are using the program to illegally embeed fonts in documents, such as PDFs. And yes, this is illegal. Embeed fonts are a good thing, I like them, but only if I own them and the redistribution rights or can freely do so. This is why default system fonts are so often used for such documents. So that the fonts can be freely passed around.
Like any other piece of software, font design and typograph requires work to create. And its not drudge labor either, it takes both skill and creative ability. Commerical font houses pay people to create these, and then sell their work. Usually, such fonts are licenses so that people can use them to print paper documents, or view other documents on systems where the owners have also licensed the font. Don't have the font? Buy it or go read something else.
Using a propitary font on a website, and redistributing it to people looking at your site is piracy, clear and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts.
The font industry has adopted a very reasonable approach till now. No heavy handed DRM, just a couple of bits and the trust that software will honor them. This is convient for consumers and protects the people who work to create the things we use.
The DMCA might not be entirely appropriate here, and perhaps the case should be tossed on technicalities. But whatever the non-infringing uses and the authors own utility for the program, the people on slashdot have made it clear that the non-infringing use is pretty marginal to the illegal one.
A shame. Perhaps the author should look at writting a font editor of his own. One that defaults to free access for new fonts, and allow increasing security, but not granting new permissions on commercial fonts. This is a fair method of handling the problem, one that appears to have previously been used successfully without resorting to more draconian copyright protections.
Research is often done for the public good, by the public (through the government). Often, this research is not patented. But sometimes it is; many universities stay in buisness and fund more research through their patent portfolios. With out patents, America's universities would suffer; and believe me they do care about money. Even those doing research for the sake of research have to eat. And just because many of the results of research aren't patented doesn't mean that the option should not be unavailable.
And I don't care what the epistemologist say about math being discovered or invented, most philiosphers can't do math.
Math is work, and deserves compenstation.
Compression Codec's are absolutely something that should be patentable.
Yes, UniSys dropped the ball then behaved badly with LZW and GIF. Yes, it is often better to not patent a codec, and the Fauhenfoer (sp?) institute has a questionable claim on LAME because their patent only covers the aucoustic tables which LAME does not use, but that doesn't mean compression patents are bad.
Developing new compression codecs is hard work. It requires a great deal more mathematical ability than I or the general slashdot community posses. They are a form of math, but they are a form you must go looking for. You must run experiments, put in long hours, and do a lot of work to successful design a new compression codec. They do not jump out and say "here I am" to the causal practioner.
Patenting compression codecs protects the work and research of those who develop them. PhD. in computer science do not come cheap, and neither do grad assistants, sysadmins, numbers chruncers, and everything else required to keep a research institution operating. No patents, no more R&D. No more compression codecs. No nifty new toys like the web, 3D graphics, or most of the other major developments in computer science. No more Real or QuickTime because you could never recover your R&D investment. No more MPEG.
Are many, many software patents bad? Obviously. Are the all bad? Absolutely not. Not all code is obvious. Not all "simple" code is easily deduced. Research should be protected. The patent office is the problem, not the idea of software patents.
#!/usr/bin/perl
/dev/acd0c -I cooked_ioctl -s -b 16 -x -t$tknm $album$tknm.wav`;
#By Jason Denton, Copyright 2001
use Audio::CD ();
use MP3::Info;
$cddev = '/dev/acd0c';
$cd = Audio::CD->init($cddev);
$info = $cd->stat;
$cddb = $cd->cddb;
$data = $cddb->lookup;
$_ = $data->artist;
s/\W/_/g;
$artist = $_;
$_ = $data->title;
s/\W/_/g;
$album = $_;
$genre = $data->genre;
$tknm = 1;
$year = 2001;
foreach $track (@{$data->tracks($info)}) {
$_ = $track->name;
s/\W/_/g;
$title = $_;
$mp3name = "$artist\_$album\_$title.mp3";
`cdda2wav -D
`lame -m s -b 160 -h $album$tknm.wav $mp3name`;
`rm $album$tknm.wav`;
`rm $album$tknm.inf`;
set_mp3tag ($mp3name, $title, $artist, $album, $year, "", $genre,$tknum);
$tknm++;
}
Think about it. Joe average (or even Joe very good) programmer is threatened by a large corporation with lots to spend on lawyers. Even backed by the ACLU and EFF, their life is going to be turned upside down for the duration of the trial, and if the corp wants to really drag it out then it might be years before the defendant can move on with their life. The fact that the suit is bogus is no help. And since this is a free speech issuse the corp might decide to take it all the way to the supreme court just to make an example out of their victim. Even if they lose, his life i s on perment hold while he fights this.
Even if Joe wins, he loses. And the corp officers who call the shots really lose nothing either way; since the legal system does not let Joe get punitive damages for such bogus lawsuits.