Last time I tried to install KDE on a freebsd box it downloaded packages for about three hours (on a 10Mbit connection!) and then when it completed the install it kept giving me "cannot connect to configuration server" and "unable to start nautilus" errors, I very well damn hope they fixed this before I give it another try, does anyone have any info on this?
I have noticed that they have not FILED any copyright infringement actions, despite their numerous allegations that Linux infringes on their copyrighted code and mentions of the rights of copyright holders in their legal pleadings and press releases. No matter how loudly they proclaim infringement of copyright, they aren't willing to use the appropriate federal laws (USC-17) to protect this supposedly infringed upon "IP". I wonder why.
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
while this is certainly legal (after all, you are using their service, if they state it in their AUP, there's nothing preventing them from telling everyone you bought that used 1960 dildo), but i find it morally disgusting.
The economic viability of a business, the skills and ambitions of its workers, and the fickle desires of a market are all uncertainties that cannot be judged a priori. Even some of the most absurd business plans have generated windfalls. Every business has a chance--every business has a possibility of success.
But SCO is the exception to this rule, even more than BRE-X that people keep mentioning here. The facts are already in, enough of them anyways. Even if there IS inappropriate code in Linux from UNIX, it is impossible that end users are liable. The law on these matters is clear. If SCO had patents, then there may be end-user liability. But by their own admission, SCO owns neither patents, copyrights, trademarks on any of the code that they claim ownership to. They claim trade secrets but their justification for this flies in the face of many years of case law.
The only logical way I can see SCO winning any significant amount of cash is by ratifying new amendments to the constitution. Everyone they are charging with illicit activity has acted in good faith, and SCO cannot refute this. Furthermore, SCO was a willing participant to the very activity they are charging others with, that is until McBride came on. It's hard to charge someone with vandalism if you helped them spray-paint your house.
SCO has a greater chance of being successful sticking to their core business than they do in litigation. And even if their winnings in litigation are substantial, there is no way that the money they would collect would be recurring. The very idea of Linux is antithetical to everything SCO is doing. So if there is infringement, SCO will eventually have to show it, and it will be removed. And no significant number of people will chose to continue paying SCO for their kernel rather than migrating to the newly minted liability free kernel that is sure to come out days after any successful judgements from SCO.
In short, every which way SCO can turn is set by obstacles. The motion to dismiss against RHAT is the latest example. They can dispute RHAT's claims, or claim that there was no dispute. Either way, RHAT's knight has SCO's queen and rook forked, and SCO just had to give up a valuable chess piece.
What if ESR's tool runs and finds commonality, and the research shows that, in fact, SCO's rights were breached?
So, given that hypothetical, what would people here think? Would you forgive SCO? Would you concede SCO's point, but think that SCO defended their rights in a very poor manner? (this, btw, is what I would probably do). Would you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to accept the outcome, and believe in some vast -wing conspiracy?
Obviously, the Linx movement would carry on. I don't think the death of Linux is even worth discussion. Some recourse would happen, probably monetary damages, and the offending code would be removed.
My real curiosity is how people's attitudes or feelings would change (or not change) if it turns out SCO is right (however unlikely that is).
If the comparison shows "no code matches" you can say so. A SCO licensee saying "We've looked into the problem ourselves, and feel Linux is unique." tells nothing about SCO, or their secrets.
If the comparison suggests SCO adopted Linux code, one would be obligated to report same to proper authorities. NDA, or not. As a licensee failure to report, indeed failure to do the due diligence of this test, may rope you into commission of willful infringement and/or conspiracy to do so.
If the comparison suggests infringements, and you cannot determine the source, you may be obligated to determine same under rules of due diligence. This would include filing appropriate reports with authorities.
If the comparison suggests Linux adopted SCO code, then you, as one SCO licensee to another, can likely exchange that information. Further, you or your guilty peers could (and probably must) publish corrections for your error.
Now, the comparator won't catch is code that's been "infected" by SCO's newly envisoned concept of the world's first, *truely* deadly, viral license. IBM claims to hold valid copyrights as independent works for code they also contributed to the Unix V codebase. SCO claims to "control" any and all such code, and all that came in contact with it, however remotely. (Yes, I assume SCO fells they now excercise license control over nearly all of IBM's code base assets. Mainframe to wrist watch. I can't imagine how their theory can hold otherwise, actually.)
The economic viability of a business, the skills and ambitions of its workers, and the fickle desires of a market are all uncertainties that cannot be judged a priori. Even some of the most absurd business plans have generated windfalls. Every business has a chance--every business has a possibility of success.
But SCO is the exception to this rule, even more than BRE-X that people keep mentioning here. The facts are already in, enough of them anyways. Even if there IS inappropriate code in Linux from UNIX, it is impossible that end users are liable. The law on these matters is clear. If SCO had patents, then there may be end-user liability. But by their own admission, SCO owns neither patents, copyrights, trademarks on any of the code that they claim ownership to. They claim trade secrets but their justification for this flies in the face of many years of case law.
The only logical way I can see SCO winning any significant amount of cash is by ratifying new amendments to the constitution. Everyone they are charging with illicit activity has acted in good faith, and SCO cannot refute this. Furthermore, SCO was a willing participant to the very activity they are charging others with, that is until McBride came on. It's hard to charge someone with vandalism if you helped them spray-paint your house.
SCO has a greater chance of being successful sticking to their core business than they do in litigation. And even if their winnings in litigation are substantial, there is no way that the money they would collect would be recurring. The very idea of Linux is antithetical to everything SCO is doing. So if there is infringement, SCO will eventually have to show it, and it will be removed. And no significant number of people will chose to continue paying SCO for their kernel rather than migrating to the newly minted liability free kernel that is sure to come out days after any successful judgements from SCO.
In short, every which way SCO can turn is set by obstacles. The motion to dismiss against RHAT is the latest example. They can dispute RHAT's claims, or claim that there was no dispute. Either way, RHAT's knight has SCO's queen and rook forked, and SCO just had to give up a valuable chess piece.
I have noticed that they have not FILED any copyright infringement actions, despite their numerous allegations that Linux infringes on their copyrighted code and mentions of the rights of copyright holders in their legal pleadings and press releases. No matter how loudly they proclaim infringement of copyright, they aren't willing to use the appropriate federal laws (USC-17) to protect this supposedly infringed upon "IP". I wonder why.
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
instead of the verisign sitelooker page, I suggest that BIND (the software that runs 60% of the DNS) should be enhanced in several ways:
The most important one, IMHO, is to compute a list of close matches and present these choices to the user. They may use the Soundex algorithm or some other tricks to see if characters are transposed, if one characters is wrong, if one is missing, etc. If well implemented, this would solve 60% of the problem.
The remaining 40% is due to the fact that people sometimes doesn't actually mistype a known address... they type a dead wrong address, such as "amazonbookstore.com" instead of "amazon.com". In this case, BIND should split up the phrase into separate word (in this case "amazon book store" and redirect to a search engine with those words as parameters.
The big question in this case is: which search engine? I think that one should be able to choose, in one way or another. If not, Google would be my choice;-)
maybe because they're tired of running half of the DNS system for free? I mean, we're talking absolutely huge servers that serve hundred of gigabytes per day and like 2/3 of the traffic are absolutely useless queries from random IDS and logging systems.
weekend internet users won't care and the rest of us will find ways to ignore it.
that has to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard (except maybe the one on k5 on renaming the unix root level directories because the current hier is hard to remember). the things you mention are clearly application-protocol features (web browsers etc), when I type "ping yaho.com", i want it to fucking attempt to ping yaho.com, not to automatically assume i meant yahoo.com. besides, if you type anazom.com, will it send a shitload of queries until it finds a valid one? can you say DDOS?
PermitRootLogin is enabled so you can login after a remote install, but the install guide tells you disabling it is one of the first thing you should do after you successfully boot and make a normal user account.
Given that the default install has ssh turned on, will they change it to "two remote holes" ?
How much do you want to bet they'll just sweep it under the carpet and hope people forget? If you follow misc@ carefully you have probably seen it done before. Lets make some noise and force Theo to finally update that!
The Nigger is my shepherd. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me to the Cock forest. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of homosexuality For his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of death with my cock in my hand, I will fear no hoe: Thou art with me; Thy mighty Cock it comforts me. Thou preparest an orgy before me In the presance of hoes: Thou anointest my Anus with Lube; My cum runneth over. Surely great erection shall follow me all the days of my life: And I will suck on the Cock For the Lord forever.
Slashdot Mirror
How many adults do you see playing GTA? (though this might be the wrong crowd to ask). Not many huh? This might be because..
*shock* GAMES ARE FOR KIDS *shock*
Does GCC now properly support -march=athlonxp ? (it was broken in x=3.2)
Last time I tried to install KDE on a freebsd box it downloaded packages for about three hours (on a 10Mbit connection!) and then when it completed the install it kept giving me "cannot connect to configuration server" and "unable to start nautilus" errors, I very well damn hope they fixed this before I give it another try, does anyone have any info on this?
I have noticed that they have not FILED any copyright infringement actions, despite their numerous allegations that Linux infringes on their copyrighted code and mentions of the rights of copyright holders in their legal pleadings and press releases. No matter how loudly they proclaim infringement of copyright, they aren't willing to use the appropriate federal laws (USC-17) to protect this supposedly infringed upon "IP". I wonder why.
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
FP!
Which applications will it be running?
while this is certainly legal (after all, you are using their service, if they state it in their AUP, there's nothing preventing them from telling everyone you bought that used 1960 dildo), but i find it morally disgusting.
The economic viability of a business, the skills and ambitions of its workers, and the fickle desires of a market are all uncertainties that cannot be judged a priori. Even some of the most absurd business plans have generated windfalls. Every business has a chance--every business has a possibility of success.
But SCO is the exception to this rule, even more than BRE-X that people keep mentioning here. The facts are already in, enough of them anyways. Even if there IS inappropriate code in Linux from UNIX, it is impossible that end users are liable. The law on these matters is clear. If SCO had patents, then there may be end-user liability. But by their own admission, SCO owns neither patents, copyrights, trademarks on any of the code that they claim ownership to. They claim trade secrets but their justification for this flies in the face of many years of case law.
The only logical way I can see SCO winning any significant amount of cash is by ratifying new amendments to the constitution. Everyone they are charging with illicit activity has acted in good faith, and SCO cannot refute this. Furthermore, SCO was a willing participant to the very activity they are charging others with, that is until McBride came on. It's hard to charge someone with vandalism if you helped them spray-paint your house.
SCO has a greater chance of being successful sticking to their core business than they do in litigation. And even if their winnings in litigation are substantial, there is no way that the money they would collect would be recurring. The very idea of Linux is antithetical to everything SCO is doing. So if there is infringement, SCO will eventually have to show it, and it will be removed. And no significant number of people will chose to continue paying SCO for their kernel rather than migrating to the newly minted liability free kernel that is sure to come out days after any successful judgements from SCO.
In short, every which way SCO can turn is set by obstacles. The motion to dismiss against RHAT is the latest example. They can dispute RHAT's claims, or claim that there was no dispute. Either way, RHAT's knight has SCO's queen and rook forked, and SCO just had to give up a valuable chess piece.
What if ESR's tool runs and finds commonality, and the research shows that, in fact, SCO's rights were breached?
So, given that hypothetical, what would people here think? Would you forgive SCO? Would you concede SCO's point, but think that SCO defended their rights in a very poor manner? (this, btw, is what I would probably do). Would you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to accept the outcome, and believe in some vast -wing conspiracy?
Obviously, the Linx movement would carry on. I don't think the death of Linux is even worth discussion. Some recourse would happen, probably monetary damages, and the offending code would be removed.
My real curiosity is how people's attitudes or feelings would change (or not change) if it turns out SCO is right (however unlikely that is).
If the comparison shows "no code matches" you can say so. A SCO licensee saying "We've looked into the problem ourselves, and feel Linux is unique." tells nothing about SCO, or their secrets. If the comparison suggests SCO adopted Linux code, one would be obligated to report same to proper authorities. NDA, or not. As a licensee failure to report, indeed failure to do the due diligence of this test, may rope you into commission of willful infringement and/or conspiracy to do so. If the comparison suggests infringements, and you cannot determine the source, you may be obligated to determine same under rules of due diligence. This would include filing appropriate reports with authorities. If the comparison suggests Linux adopted SCO code, then you, as one SCO licensee to another, can likely exchange that information. Further, you or your guilty peers could (and probably must) publish corrections for your error. Now, the comparator won't catch is code that's been "infected" by SCO's newly envisoned concept of the world's first, *truely* deadly, viral license. IBM claims to hold valid copyrights as independent works for code they also contributed to the Unix V codebase. SCO claims to "control" any and all such code, and all that came in contact with it, however remotely. (Yes, I assume SCO fells they now excercise license control over nearly all of IBM's code base assets. Mainframe to wrist watch. I can't imagine how their theory can hold otherwise, actually.)
The economic viability of a business, the skills and ambitions of its workers, and the fickle desires of a market are all uncertainties that cannot be judged a priori. Even some of the most absurd business plans have generated windfalls. Every business has a chance--every business has a possibility of success. But SCO is the exception to this rule, even more than BRE-X that people keep mentioning here. The facts are already in, enough of them anyways. Even if there IS inappropriate code in Linux from UNIX, it is impossible that end users are liable. The law on these matters is clear. If SCO had patents, then there may be end-user liability. But by their own admission, SCO owns neither patents, copyrights, trademarks on any of the code that they claim ownership to. They claim trade secrets but their justification for this flies in the face of many years of case law. The only logical way I can see SCO winning any significant amount of cash is by ratifying new amendments to the constitution. Everyone they are charging with illicit activity has acted in good faith, and SCO cannot refute this. Furthermore, SCO was a willing participant to the very activity they are charging others with, that is until McBride came on. It's hard to charge someone with vandalism if you helped them spray-paint your house. SCO has a greater chance of being successful sticking to their core business than they do in litigation. And even if their winnings in litigation are substantial, there is no way that the money they would collect would be recurring. The very idea of Linux is antithetical to everything SCO is doing. So if there is infringement, SCO will eventually have to show it, and it will be removed. And no significant number of people will chose to continue paying SCO for their kernel rather than migrating to the newly minted liability free kernel that is sure to come out days after any successful judgements from SCO. In short, every which way SCO can turn is set by obstacles. The motion to dismiss against RHAT is the latest example. They can dispute RHAT's claims, or claim that there was no dispute. Either way, RHAT's knight has SCO's queen and rook forked, and SCO just had to give up a valuable chess piece.
I have noticed that they have not FILED any copyright infringement actions, despite their numerous allegations that Linux infringes on their copyrighted code and mentions of the rights of copyright holders in their legal pleadings and press releases. No matter how loudly they proclaim infringement of copyright, they aren't willing to use the appropriate federal laws (USC-17) to protect this supposedly infringed upon "IP". I wonder why.
If SCO has copyright material that has been infringed upon, they have to go to the INFRINGER (whoever has access to their code and copied it, meaning the code and not just a work-alike clean-room code, into the kernel) for damages. End users and unwitting publishers of infringing materials are not listed in USC-17 as liable for infringement. You can't get damages from a publisher if one author of a short story collection lied about the authorship, nor can you collect from the bookstores and purchasers.
If they have proof that Red Hat is distributing infringing material, they first have to notify RH what the infringing material is. As the innocently infringing publisher, RH has the chance to double check the material, and either remove it or check its pedigree dispute the infringing nature of it.
The only time a publisher can be nailed for damages is if the plaitiff can prove they knew, or could reasonable have been expected to know, that a work was copyright. This covers sleazy anthology publishers who don't bother to get permissions and pay royalties, and anyone stupid enough to accept a well-known work of fiction from anyone but the real author.
$ sudo pfctl -sn | grep 64
rdr on tun0 inet proto tcp from any to 64.94.110.11 -> 127.0.0.1
yep, i use Broadwing Communications ISP and get the exact same thing..
maybe our isp decided that if verisign can do it, so can they?
i'm thinking of switching right now...
instead of the verisign sitelooker page, I suggest that BIND (the software that runs 60% of the DNS) should be enhanced in several ways: The most important one, IMHO, is to compute a list of close matches and present these choices to the user. They may use the Soundex algorithm or some other tricks to see if characters are transposed, if one characters is wrong, if one is missing, etc. If well implemented, this would solve 60% of the problem. The remaining 40% is due to the fact that people sometimes doesn't actually mistype a known address... they type a dead wrong address, such as "amazonbookstore.com" instead of "amazon.com". In this case, BIND should split up the phrase into separate word (in this case "amazon book store" and redirect to a search engine with those words as parameters. The big question in this case is: which search engine? I think that one should be able to choose, in one way or another. If not, Google would be my choice ;-)
because .com and .net amount to 99% of the internet and nobody really cares about smaller tlds (ie, .nu and so on)
maybe because they're tired of running half of the DNS system for free? I mean, we're talking absolutely huge servers that serve hundred of gigabytes per day and like 2/3 of the traffic are absolutely useless queries from random IDS and logging systems.
weekend internet users won't care and the rest of us will find ways to ignore it.
So why not?
that has to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard (except maybe the one on k5 on renaming the unix root level directories because the current hier is hard to remember). the things you mention are clearly application-protocol features (web browsers etc), when I type "ping yaho.com", i want it to fucking attempt to ping yaho.com, not to automatically assume i meant yahoo.com. besides, if you type anazom.com, will it send a shitload of queries until it finds a valid one? can you say DDOS?
Is it? I've successfully exploited my sshd (thank God for easy filtering with PF!)
o mpile/GENERIC
# dmesg | head -n2
OpenBSD 3.4-current (GENERIC) #62: Tue Sep 12 22:49:18 MDT 2003
deraadt@i386.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/c
PermitRootLogin is enabled so you can login after a remote install, but the install guide tells you disabling it is one of the first thing you should do after you successfully boot and make a normal user account.
Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!
Oops!
Given that the default install has ssh turned on, will they change it to "two remote holes" ?
How much do you want to bet they'll just sweep it under the carpet and hope people forget? If you follow misc@ carefully you have probably seen it done before. Lets make some noise and force Theo to finally update that!
heh, i like it how this got labeled "redundant"
rotf ror
The Nigger is my shepherd.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
He leadeth me to the Cock forest.
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of homosexuality
For his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of death
with my cock in my hand,
I will fear no hoe:
Thou art with me;
Thy mighty Cock it comforts me.
Thou preparest an orgy before me
In the presance of hoes:
Thou anointest my Anus with Lube;
My cum runneth over.
Surely great erection shall follow me all the days of my life:
And I will suck on the Cock
For the Lord forever.
Amen.
these case mods are really boring and technically not "news."
plz fix.