I have. We've remodeled every room in our house except one, increased the appraised value by over 50%, cost us less than 10% total, and thats being cautious, we probably spent far less than that specifically on remodeling the house, as we did some other things as well. We've done the wiring, the roof (including having to repair structural support due to a tree falling on it), installed hardwoods in the main areas, tiled from floor to ceiling the bathrooms, removed the ugly wood panelling from the main rooms and drywalled them. About the only thing we haven't redone is actually putting up new brick walls on the exterior.
Housing is ridiculously overpriced, even now when its 'bad'.
You mean where a bunch of ATF agents didn't heed the local Sheriff's warning to not storm the compound cause they'd get their asses shot off... who then proceeded to storm the compound and got their asses shot off. Is that the event you're refering too?
Waco was pretty much a perfect example for what he was saying. Texas police wouldn't have been so stupid, the ATF who thought they were bad ass on the other hand, fucked it up royally. In Texas, lawmen are smart enough to realize they other guy not only probably has a gun, its probably bigger too. You tend to be much less of an asshole when you aren't given a massive advantage.
If they drop GPL tomorrow, you don't lose anything. You still have the source from today. You just won't have the source from tomorrow or days in the future.
You aren't going to lose anything if they change license schemes, you simply won't continue to get a free ride FROM ORACLE, you'll have to get it elsewhere.
Yea, and you could probably use SQLite in its place. The point is that the OSS version is a very primitive system. If you want it to do something other than function as a network accessible collection of spreadsheet pages that speaks SQL, then you need to pay for it.
Right, because no one else has a copy (wayback machine) and no lawyer would think to call them out for destroying evidence and force them to pull out a backup for proof.
Fuck, you may as well call all jobs in the world "business" and not have any delimiters at all.
True!
But that doesn't mean thats all you can call them either. There is no mutual exclusivity here.
The problem here is that you want to think you're special because of your degree or career. Its good to have a little bit of pride, but you're just an ass.
You aren't special, you are just another brick in the wall. The world really won't miss you if you suddenly disappear. No matter what job you have that you think makes you bad ass, you aren't.
The more important part of this article is that under some circumstances, you can change the password of the logged in user without entering the current password.
Could you change it back by replacing the original hash after you've done whatever you wanted to do to their system?
Why bother? Just install a back door and leave only one sign of tampering rather than fucking with their password. You already HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR ACCOUNT at that stage, don't don't need their password to do anything.
Now, *that* is a big deal (the degree of which is subject to valid debate).
Of epic proportions, I'd say.
Again, why? Or by epic do you mean not really a big deal?
If I find an open console, unless I'm trying to teach you a lesson about leaving your console unlocked, the last thing I'm going to do is change your password. Only a moron makes it obvious they've owned the account. You leave the password and do your best not to be noticed so you can CONTINUE to have access. If I've already got access, I'll just install a backdoor so I don't need your password.
The patentability of software is basically flawed and has no place in any knowledge driven economy
Without patents, there is no knowledge driven economy. Knowledge is only power if no one else has access to it. As soon as you release software (or hardware for that matter) into the while, its no longer a secret and without patents, you have no power.
As a software developer, I'm generally happy when my 'problem' is that I have to start paying royalties because my software has hit 100k users.
I don't know about what sort of ultra-awesome-kickass programmer you are, but by the time most of us start selling 100k units/year we've got enough accountants involved that dealing with MPEG-LA licensing is a drop in the bucket.
Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source.
I'm sorry, thats flat out false is most ways.
It has nothing at all to do with 'open', well if it does, its only in that the MPEG-LA license is pretty much the definition of open license. It also has nothing at all to do with 'Free as in speech', it does however have something to do with 'free as in beer'. The open part may not be what you define open as, but it fits pretty accurately for everyone not part of the RMS cult.
If someone forces mozilla to licence a patent, guess what only mozilla can use that code and its not free software no more.
Completely untrue. You can do whatever you'd like with the source, as long as you hold a patent license. You're required to license the software from Mozilla, but you think its different because you would also be required to hold another license... for the technology that Mozilla uses?
Why is it that its okay for Mozilla to have restrictions on their code and require conditions of a license to be met, but its not for MPEG-LA?
You're just upset you won't be able to get someone elses work for free, nothing more.
They didn't invent ANYTHING they licence out by the way, MPEG-LA is not MPEG.
MPEG-LA represents the combined companies who invented the technologies in the codec. Instead of having to deal with 900 companies to license it, you deal with one. Which is... almost exactly like the function Mozilla holds for its contributors. Much of Mozilla is code they didn't create, but redistribute on behalf of the creators. Its the same thing.
We might well end up with a scenario that the only browsers distributable with linux are those without video.
I'm sorry your OS sucks, but out of the top 3, yours is the only one that can't effectively deal with the situation in a clean way. In both Windows and OS X, Firefox could simply support video supplied by the OS codecs, and no one would have a problem.
Instead, in typical OSS fashion, Firefox uses no system wide systems anywhere it can avoid it, so you don't really get to take advantage of built in codecs.
Unfortunately for you, OS X and Windows support this facility ( and have for years ), pretty much everyone running one of Windows has at least one h264 codec already installed for some other random app anyway (lets face it, the licenses are dirt cheap, so lots of apps include it already), OS X of course has a license built in. Safari and IE are happy to use the system wide codec system, I presume Chrome does as well on Windows as it never gives me any problems.
So basically it'll just be Linux and Firefox users without video.
If you want to 'take the moral high ground' to the extreme, then you just have to recognize that there are going to be plenty of times when you don't get your way because no one else cares about your irrational response to what you perceive as a problem in the natural order of things.
A world without firefox, VLC , and so on is a world without free access to user created content, and that ultimately is a spike in the heart of free speech.
Really? I seem to remember free speech and user created content before GNU, GPL and Netscape existed, let alone Mozilla or VLC.
You're pretty delusional. No one is ever going to take you seriously with those kind of theatrics.
If you don't do it, your competitors will, and they'll be making games that work identically on more device platforms, on more browsers, on more operating systems.
If you had even the least bit of cluefulness about the subject matter you're spewing on about, you'd know that web browsers do not act identical in any way.
They don't act the same between browsers from different venders.
They don't act the same on different OSes.
Hell, Firefox and Safari don't even act the same on the same OS on different processor types (ARM/x86/PPC).
So before you go on making predictions about how everyone is going to move to the browser, why don't you get a clue first, kay?
Let me take you a step further. Games are not built to run on ANY VERSION of the Unreal engine. They run on a specific version they were built for and most of the time require changes to work on later versions, do you REALLY THINK the browser vendors are going to do better producing free products than the guys who get paid to do so and thats their entire lively hood?
Browser vendors are going after another target than game vendors, while not mutually exclusive, its just not worth it for them to play together.
That it would be quite difficult in the near term to implement due to bandwidth and other limitations won't bother them a bit.
So let me get this straight, downloading WoW, Eve Online, or CoH doesn't cause bandwidth issues, but using a web browser does? Thats pretty funny cause I downloaded Eve and CoH using my web browser:/ You do realize browsers can cache things right?
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
The majority of RedHat's income is from investments, not software, so saying a bad economy is good for OSS is misleading at best. OSS isn't wants keeping them afloat. Good investments during a time when everyone else made a bunch of shitty ones is whats keeping them going.
The problem with nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima is that they leave large portions of land unusable for millenia. (besides having the risk of killing lots of people too.)
Wow, you have absolutely no idea whats going on in the area around Chernobyl do you?
You need to learn the difference between FUD and reality, and add to that the time thats lapsed since Chernobyl and the fact that it was until recently (last year?) an active power plant. Or the fact that while the area was evacuated, all indications and tests of the area now show it to be normal and you'd be unlikely to know anything happened if you weren't told. See just because you're afraid of something doesn't mean its actually unsafe.
The difference is that instead of issuing them, it will just copy them and verify them for others...
So you get certdiff, which is useful, just like SSL certs themselves... its useful right up until someone poisons the central authority.
Then what you do, is create another authority to watch the first authority who watches everyone elses authority so no one has any clue who is actually the authoritative source.
I see the idea, it has merit, but its just more of the same thing. You can't solve the problem by repeating the same non-functioning act over and over again. Its the definition of insanity you know.
Let me say this as clearly as possible. I am a professional developer.
You not. You should not even call yourself a developer, its fucking insulting.
now, why? Well, let me tell you why:
What actually is the Mozilla response to the current situation: To fix the problems. We are working to make updates silent and break less addons.
Mozilla has shown time and time again that no one there is actually capable of accomplishing this task. It seems fairly clear that you don't even understand why making that statement is silly. Have you even looked at the API? As someone who has both embedded gecko into products and maintains a couple of extensions, its 100% clear that you guys have no fucking clue how to make a future proof stable API. Ignoring the future proofing part, you freaking change the meaning of arguments to functions for no reason, without anything more than a commit message somewhere. The @Frozen API is effectively worthless for actually getting anything accomplished.
Most importantly... what this statement shows is that you AREN'T FUCKING LISTENING TO YOUR GOD DAMN USERS, THE ONES WHO ARE THE REASON YOU EXIST, WHO HAVE TOLD YOU THEY DON'T FUCKING WANT AUTOUPDATES EVER FUCKING MONTH. If you were so good at making non-broken software... YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO RELEASE NEW VERSIONS SO GOD DAMN OFTEN.
We are not your fucking alpha testers.
We've also made it so third parties can't install addons without your permission.
No you didn't. You made a detection system, not all that impressive of one I add, that is trivial to work around and does nothing but cause an annoyance for the few things that probably have a legitimate reason to auto install themselves. It does nothing to stop anything malicious. The fact that you think it does something functional, again demonstrates you don't even know the problem you're trying to solve. It took me less than 15 minutes to have my plugins silently auto-installing again, and I hadn't even bothered to track the who event to see what it was going to do before hand. All this does is makes older software that isn't aware of this detection mechanism break. Why do you guys continue to do things that have no benefit, do you think change for the sake of change is the way software is supposed to be written? Anything that wants to silently add an extension can, you just made it more complex and documented it less than the old way. This is essentially an ActiveX type of response. Its security through obscurity, but its only obscure to people who can't be bothered to understand it, which includes pretty much none of the guys who want to abuse it.
All of this is in response to user feedback
Bullshit. Its in response to someone at the Mozilla Foundation either coming up with the suggestion themselves or taking interest in it for personal reasons. No one at Mozilla does something for the users, its done for personal agenda. You guys just write what you want to write today, and thats been your problem all along. Its why your browser has turned into a bloated mess. You start several orders of magnitude more 'projects' than you actually finish.
Slashdot Mirror
Overacting a bit aren't you? Just makes you sound like an ass.
I have. We've remodeled every room in our house except one, increased the appraised value by over 50%, cost us less than 10% total, and thats being cautious, we probably spent far less than that specifically on remodeling the house, as we did some other things as well. We've done the wiring, the roof (including having to repair structural support due to a tree falling on it), installed hardwoods in the main areas, tiled from floor to ceiling the bathrooms, removed the ugly wood panelling from the main rooms and drywalled them. About the only thing we haven't redone is actually putting up new brick walls on the exterior.
Housing is ridiculously overpriced, even now when its 'bad'.
You mean where a bunch of ATF agents didn't heed the local Sheriff's warning to not storm the compound cause they'd get their asses shot off ... who then proceeded to storm the compound and got their asses shot off. Is that the event you're refering too?
Waco was pretty much a perfect example for what he was saying. Texas police wouldn't have been so stupid, the ATF who thought they were bad ass on the other hand, fucked it up royally. In Texas, lawmen are smart enough to realize they other guy not only probably has a gun, its probably bigger too. You tend to be much less of an asshole when you aren't given a massive advantage.
That doesn't change anything what so ever.
If they drop GPL tomorrow, you don't lose anything. You still have the source from today. You just won't have the source from tomorrow or days in the future.
You aren't going to lose anything if they change license schemes, you simply won't continue to get a free ride FROM ORACLE, you'll have to get it elsewhere.
Yea, and you could probably use SQLite in its place. The point is that the OSS version is a very primitive system. If you want it to do something other than function as a network accessible collection of spreadsheet pages that speaks SQL, then you need to pay for it.
Right, because no one else has a copy (wayback machine) and no lawyer would think to call them out for destroying evidence and force them to pull out a backup for proof.
Fuck, you may as well call all jobs in the world "business" and not have any delimiters at all.
True!
But that doesn't mean thats all you can call them either. There is no mutual exclusivity here.
The problem here is that you want to think you're special because of your degree or career. Its good to have a little bit of pride, but you're just an ass.
You aren't special, you are just another brick in the wall. The world really won't miss you if you suddenly disappear. No matter what job you have that you think makes you bad ass, you aren't.
You aren't talking about 'breaking the password'.
You're talking about wiping it out or resetting it, which is far different than cracking it.
Just for reference, booting in single user mode to reset a password is not 'hacking'.
Thats true until about 15 years old.
Then until 21-25, they do it just to be assholes and show off.
After 25, its generally about the money.
If the user is already running your applet ... oh why do I bother trying to explain basic reality to slashdotters
The more important part of this article is that under some circumstances, you can change the password of the logged in user without entering the current password.
Could you change it back by replacing the original hash after you've done whatever you wanted to do to their system?
Why bother? Just install a back door and leave only one sign of tampering rather than fucking with their password. You already HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR ACCOUNT at that stage, don't don't need their password to do anything.
Now, *that* is a big deal (the degree of which is subject to valid debate).
Of epic proportions, I'd say.
Again, why? Or by epic do you mean not really a big deal?
If I find an open console, unless I'm trying to teach you a lesson about leaving your console unlocked, the last thing I'm going to do is change your password. Only a moron makes it obvious they've owned the account. You leave the password and do your best not to be noticed so you can CONTINUE to have access. If I've already got access, I'll just install a backdoor so I don't need your password.
Then you should learn about ZFS.
The patentability of software is basically flawed and has no place in any knowledge driven economy
Without patents, there is no knowledge driven economy. Knowledge is only power if no one else has access to it. As soon as you release software (or hardware for that matter) into the while, its no longer a secret and without patents, you have no power.
As a software developer, I'm generally happy when my 'problem' is that I have to start paying royalties because my software has hit 100k users.
I don't know about what sort of ultra-awesome-kickass programmer you are, but by the time most of us start selling 100k units/year we've got enough accountants involved that dealing with MPEG-LA licensing is a drop in the bucket.
And its included by default in everything UNIX install this side of the moon basically. Defacto standard.
WebM is used in ... (crickets)
See the difference?
Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source.
I'm sorry, thats flat out false is most ways.
It has nothing at all to do with 'open', well if it does, its only in that the MPEG-LA license is pretty much the definition of open license. It also has nothing at all to do with 'Free as in speech', it does however have something to do with 'free as in beer'. The open part may not be what you define open as, but it fits pretty accurately for everyone not part of the RMS cult.
If someone forces mozilla to licence a patent, guess what only mozilla can use that code and its not free software no more.
Completely untrue. You can do whatever you'd like with the source, as long as you hold a patent license. You're required to license the software from Mozilla, but you think its different because you would also be required to hold another license ... for the technology that Mozilla uses?
Why is it that its okay for Mozilla to have restrictions on their code and require conditions of a license to be met, but its not for MPEG-LA?
You're just upset you won't be able to get someone elses work for free, nothing more.
They didn't invent ANYTHING they licence out by the way, MPEG-LA is not MPEG.
MPEG-LA represents the combined companies who invented the technologies in the codec. Instead of having to deal with 900 companies to license it, you deal with one. Which is ... almost exactly like the function Mozilla holds for its contributors. Much of Mozilla is code they didn't create, but redistribute on behalf of the creators. Its the same thing.
We might well end up with a scenario that the only browsers distributable with linux are those without video.
I'm sorry your OS sucks, but out of the top 3, yours is the only one that can't effectively deal with the situation in a clean way. In both Windows and OS X, Firefox could simply support video supplied by the OS codecs, and no one would have a problem.
Instead, in typical OSS fashion, Firefox uses no system wide systems anywhere it can avoid it, so you don't really get to take advantage of built in codecs.
Unfortunately for you, OS X and Windows support this facility ( and have for years ), pretty much everyone running one of Windows has at least one h264 codec already installed for some other random app anyway (lets face it, the licenses are dirt cheap, so lots of apps include it already), OS X of course has a license built in. Safari and IE are happy to use the system wide codec system, I presume Chrome does as well on Windows as it never gives me any problems.
So basically it'll just be Linux and Firefox users without video.
If you want to 'take the moral high ground' to the extreme, then you just have to recognize that there are going to be plenty of times when you don't get your way because no one else cares about your irrational response to what you perceive as a problem in the natural order of things.
A world without firefox, VLC , and so on is a world without free access to user created content, and that ultimately is a spike in the heart of free speech.
Really? I seem to remember free speech and user created content before GNU, GPL and Netscape existed, let alone Mozilla or VLC.
You're pretty delusional. No one is ever going to take you seriously with those kind of theatrics.
You're acting like Al Gore.
You can already play angry birds in your browser.
[A tablet's included web browser] won't run plug-ins. You can install another browser that does support plug-ins to view Flash.
Apple has declined to approve browsers
Apple have lifted that restriction. It just has to use the in-sdk rendering engine.
But does the in-sdk rendering engine support plug-ins?
Actually, the included WebKit does support plugins, you just aren't allowed to use them in your app for other unrelated reasons.
If you don't do it, your competitors will, and they'll be making games that work identically on more device platforms, on more browsers, on more operating systems.
If you had even the least bit of cluefulness about the subject matter you're spewing on about, you'd know that web browsers do not act identical in any way.
They don't act the same between browsers from different venders.
They don't act the same on different OSes.
Hell, Firefox and Safari don't even act the same on the same OS on different processor types (ARM/x86/PPC).
So before you go on making predictions about how everyone is going to move to the browser, why don't you get a clue first, kay?
Let me take you a step further. Games are not built to run on ANY VERSION of the Unreal engine. They run on a specific version they were built for and most of the time require changes to work on later versions, do you REALLY THINK the browser vendors are going to do better producing free products than the guys who get paid to do so and thats their entire lively hood?
Browser vendors are going after another target than game vendors, while not mutually exclusive, its just not worth it for them to play together.
That it would be quite difficult in the near term to implement due to bandwidth and other limitations won't bother them a bit.
So let me get this straight, downloading WoW, Eve Online, or CoH doesn't cause bandwidth issues, but using a web browser does? Thats pretty funny cause I downloaded Eve and CoH using my web browser :/ You do realize browsers can cache things right?
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
The majority of RedHat's income is from investments, not software, so saying a bad economy is good for OSS is misleading at best. OSS isn't wants keeping them afloat. Good investments during a time when everyone else made a bunch of shitty ones is whats keeping them going.
Well, if you actually had a clue you'd know that was true.
RedHat's worth and value is in the investments it made from its IPO sales, the majority of their income is from those investments, not from OSS.
If they still had to depend on the software side of the business to pay for everything they would have went out of business shortly after their IPO.
The problem with nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima is that they leave large portions of land unusable for millenia. (besides having the risk of killing lots of people too.)
Wow, you have absolutely no idea whats going on in the area around Chernobyl do you?
You need to learn the difference between FUD and reality, and add to that the time thats lapsed since Chernobyl and the fact that it was until recently (last year?) an active power plant. Or the fact that while the area was evacuated, all indications and tests of the area now show it to be normal and you'd be unlikely to know anything happened if you weren't told. See just because you're afraid of something doesn't mean its actually unsafe.
The difference is that instead of issuing them, it will just copy them and verify them for others ...
So you get certdiff, which is useful, just like SSL certs themselves ... its useful right up until someone poisons the central authority.
Then what you do, is create another authority to watch the first authority who watches everyone elses authority so no one has any clue who is actually the authoritative source.
I see the idea, it has merit, but its just more of the same thing. You can't solve the problem by repeating the same non-functioning act over and over again. Its the definition of insanity you know.
Let me say this as clearly as possible. I am a professional developer.
You not. You should not even call yourself a developer, its fucking insulting.
now, why? Well, let me tell you why:
What actually is the Mozilla response to the current situation: To fix the problems. We are working to make updates silent and break less addons.
Mozilla has shown time and time again that no one there is actually capable of accomplishing this task. It seems fairly clear that you don't even understand why making that statement is silly. Have you even looked at the API? As someone who has both embedded gecko into products and maintains a couple of extensions, its 100% clear that you guys have no fucking clue how to make a future proof stable API. Ignoring the future proofing part, you freaking change the meaning of arguments to functions for no reason, without anything more than a commit message somewhere. The @Frozen API is effectively worthless for actually getting anything accomplished.
Most importantly ... what this statement shows is that you AREN'T FUCKING LISTENING TO YOUR GOD DAMN USERS, THE ONES WHO ARE THE REASON YOU EXIST, WHO HAVE TOLD YOU THEY DON'T FUCKING WANT AUTOUPDATES EVER FUCKING MONTH. If you were so good at making non-broken software ... YOU WOULDN'T NEED TO RELEASE NEW VERSIONS SO GOD DAMN OFTEN.
We are not your fucking alpha testers.
We've also made it so third parties can't install addons without your permission.
No you didn't. You made a detection system, not all that impressive of one I add, that is trivial to work around and does nothing but cause an annoyance for the few things that probably have a legitimate reason to auto install themselves. It does nothing to stop anything malicious. The fact that you think it does something functional, again demonstrates you don't even know the problem you're trying to solve. It took me less than 15 minutes to have my plugins silently auto-installing again, and I hadn't even bothered to track the who event to see what it was going to do before hand. All this does is makes older software that isn't aware of this detection mechanism break. Why do you guys continue to do things that have no benefit, do you think change for the sake of change is the way software is supposed to be written? Anything that wants to silently add an extension can, you just made it more complex and documented it less than the old way. This is essentially an ActiveX type of response. Its security through obscurity, but its only obscure to people who can't be bothered to understand it, which includes pretty much none of the guys who want to abuse it.
All of this is in response to user feedback
Bullshit. Its in response to someone at the Mozilla Foundation either coming up with the suggestion themselves or taking interest in it for personal reasons. No one at Mozilla does something for the users, its done for personal agenda. You guys just write what you want to write today, and thats been your problem all along. Its why your browser has turned into a bloated mess. You start several orders of magnitude more 'projects' than you actually finish.