Does anyone know which operating system support IPv6
Beside the OSses mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Solaris has supported IPv6 for a while.
And it'll happely run IPv4 and IPv6 on the same interface.
I do not know whether all their applications support IPv6 though.
And I honestly don't know if we have any people like
that around anymore.
Most certainly do we have people like that. And lots more than in the late '60s, early '70s. The problem is that nowadays there are far more places such brilliant people want to work, and that are willing to pay such people lots of money. The problem certainly isn't the number of knowledgable people - the problem is hiring enough critical mass of brilliant people.
As for the referred to article, the existance of a black cow doesn't decrease the number of blue parrots. I've little knowledge about the stock market, French literature and Hindi gods. But that doesn't prove anything about the quality of stock traders, French literature buffs or Hindi priests. Nor does it say anything about my qualities; at best it says something about my interests.
Thirdly, the lack of atmosphere means that the satellites could be launched by a coilgun-like device from the lunar surface.
So, there would be no need for messy and wasteful chemical rockets that ruin our atmosphere, especially the ozone layer. The
energy for the coilgun would be solar electric power, which is abundant on Moon.
Eh, yeah, right. Care to calculate how many rockets are needed before the moon has a base advanced enough to create earth bound satellites solely from the resources found on the moon? Could you compare that, taking into account that a rocket needed to shoot something to the moon is bigger and heavier than one to shoot a satellite into orbit, to the number of launches needed for satellites? And, while you are at it, compare the number of satellite launches to the number of launches needed to sustain the moonbase?
All it takes is proper procedures, design standards, and training, and nuclear reactors are safe as houses.
Given Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Sheffield and a handful of smaller incidents, it's clear that either we apparently don't have the proper procedures, standards or training, or that your claim is incorrect.
Nuclear reactors, when handled properly, aren't any more dangerous than any other large, complicated thing that gets hot.
It's not the temperature that makes nuclear reactors dangerous. It's the thing that causes the high temperatures that's dangerous.
Eh, check your history. The most important reason to send people to the Moon was to get their before the others did.
If there would have been any actual benefit, be it from exploiting the resources, the technological advances made, or just sheer happiness of the people, we wouldn't have stopped after less than a dozens trips to the Moon, all about three decades ago.
I cannot fathom one benefit from sending people to Mars. Sure, it would trigger some new technologies - but that's not Mars specific. After all, technology has advanced rapidly even after we stopped going to the moon, not to mention its progress the thousands of years before Kennedy's reactions on Gagarins first trip into space.
What did the manned trips to the Moon bring us that we wouldn't have had without them? Neither velcro nor teflon were mined on the Moon. And the handful of rocks that were brought back could have been brought back by unmanned flights as well.
-- Abigail
Re:word counts of "syntax" vs. "sematics"
on
Apocalypse 2
·
· Score: 2
he word "syntax" occurs 33 times, while "semantics" occurs 4 times
So what? It's only the second article in what is going to be a long list of articles. The focus of this article lied more with syntax than with semantics. The article also counted more occurances of the letters `e' and `t' than of `f' and `z'. Now what does that mean?
-- Abigail
Re:*more* contexts? Is Perl's use of context good?
on
Apocalypse 2
·
· Score: 3
However, it seems that Perl 6 will extend the concept of "context" still further!
No, it doesn't. It just makes it easier to query what the context is. But in perl5 you can make objects that behave differently in different context, including numeric context, boolean context, string context, iteration and the five
types of dereferencing. Consult the 'overload' manual page.
-- Abigail
Re:Gee... I guess Perl was too Unambigious
on
Apocalypse 2
·
· Score: 2
So then the syntax construction is not identical between refering to the variable within quotes or without quotes. Gee... that
makes sense.
Considering that outside of quotes a variable name followed by left bracket, something else, and a right bracket and it *not* meaning indexing is a syntax error, your wish for the syntax constructs to be the same inside and outside quotes is utterly meaningless.
If you do want to do indexing, then the constructs inside and outside of quotes *are* the same.
-- Abigail
Re:The problem with open source^H^H^H evolving
on
Apocalypse 2
·
· Score: 2
No, you read it wrong. By default, variables in
Perl remain untyped. Typing becomes an *option*.
Just like it can be done in perl5 already, actually.
Now, I haven't done any kernel hacking myself, but if I were working on the kernel I'd feel kinda taken advantage
of if the IBMs and SGIs of the world were to fork the kernel, and focus all their efforts on scaling the system, without
contributing to the areas that make a difference on affordable machines (ie sub-$100K)
Just to make things clear, IBM and SGI don't want to fork. It would be unfair to accuse IBM and SGI from taking advantage of you if they make the effort of writing non-trivial patches, offering those patches back to the community, but see those patches rejected.
IBM and SGI want Linux to succeed. On both the big iron and the simple workstations (programs for big iron machines have to be developped somewhere, and you don't think every developper for a big iron machine has 32 CPUs stacked under his/her desk, do you?), but to do the former, changes have to be made. They don't demand from anyone to make those changes - they made them themselves. But if the people in charge reject them, what can IBM and SGI do?
Perhaps the time has come to fork the older machines
Sun microsystems delivers a kernel that runs from Sparc Classics to E10ks, without forking off "older machines".
Which is great, as you can develop stuff on low end machines and run it on large production servers, without the need to have costly development servers around.
In said same conversation, they mention that "I would be surprised if we had any serious problem at 32 or 64
CPUs."
This issue of scalability of Linux has been put to rest, IMHO.
So... the scalability of Linux has been put to rest because of an opinion on how it might work out?
In my opinion, the scalability of Linux can be put to rest if someone proves it by running it on 32 or 64 processors, and get the same kind of scalability as other OSses that run on such number of processors.
Banner ads are a stupid way to generate revenue because anyone who's likely to spend money will _look_ for what
they want, rather than being convinced they want something by what amounts to an online billboard.
Oh, really? Banner ads are not that different than ads on television and in magazines: mass exposure of a name or brand, grouped around content that hopefully has a higher density of your target audience than average. Name recognition and image building is extremely important to become a successful product. There might be a few exceptions, but you didn't really think that Coca-Cola or Microsoft would be as big as they are without the ads, do you? Billions of dollars a year are put into advertisement, and trust me, most companies would not do that if it didn't boost sales.
Witness the frequent "AOL keyword" phrase in radio ads.
The "AOL keyword" namespace isn't in any way bigger than the DNS namespace. If it becomes popular as an alternative for domains, you get the same problems as you find now with domains. Except that it's all in the hands on one company. You won't get many domainsquatters, no, you have one: AOL, and it's got *everything* squattable. (It would be the same for any other company trying to make such "name spaces"). Oh, and you don't really think that Ford Motors will say, "we already have ford.com, we don't mind if someone else uses 'AOL keyword: Ford'", do you?
Domain names should not be typed in by hand very often. Use bookmarks and search engines.
Well, to put something in a bookmarks file, you first have to find the address somehow. Search engines are nice, but not an alternative. Could you imagine a radio ad for Xyzzy soap saying "Visit out web site, go to your favourite search engine, search for 'xyzzy soap', and find us in the huge list of returned matches". No self respecting marketing person is going to fall for that - nor will the public accept it. Besides, search enignes fall for the "typo trap" as well; and you don't even need different domain names for that. Also, Yahoo was mentioned as one of the companies with typo sites.... you really thing that using a search engine to go to yahoo is going to solve that typo problem?
I forsee a day when
there are multiple orthogonal online namespaces akin to Yahoo,
and URLs will be passed around as
"http://namespace/name/restofurl/"
Well, that's how it all started. But nowadays, everything needs to have its own domain name - and it isn't just companies. Just look at the postings with this story, how many people here are saying "I have.(com|net|org)". Just like big companies, geeks want their own domain too. It's all vanity and the phobie to type punctuation characters.
My favorite bakery has a
site at SantaCruz,CA/Buttery (by city)" which would translate to http://santacruz.ca.us/buttery/
Cute, but since Henry Ford mass produced cars (and before that, railroads), we no longer live in a society where people spend 364 days a year in their own village. The world, and especially the electronic world is global. Geographic domains don't work in general, and any attempt to do more than two-letter toplevel domains has been a failure. And even two-letter domains don't really work well. Or do you really think all the.to and.cx domains are located in the Pacific? And then there's the obvious problem of people and companies relocating... Would you want to have your email address change when you move?
sbin??? I seriously hope your users don't expect a statically linked perl. As for the "right" place of perl, there are many./usr/bin/perl and/usr/local/bin/perl are common, depending whether your vendor shipped perl with the OS or not. However, another common place is/opt/perl; common enough for perl's configure to use a different file layout for installation prefix paths with and without perl in them.
There is a reason for (almost) everything in *nix based
systems, including the organization of directory structures. this was all "planned out" - well evolved actually
It maybe be evolved, but it has evolved in a huge mess. There's/bin and/usr/bin, and/sbin and/usr/sbin. Where do we find a shell? On some systems, in/bin/sh, others quote some standard and put it in/usr/bin/sh, and yet other systems have/bin symlinked to/usr/bin. And binaries go in bin directories, while libraries go in lib? Sure, but what's sendmail doing in/usr/lib then?/etc is for configuration files you say, but what are all those executable programs doing in/etc and below? (Some systems have more of them than others).
Every UNIX vendor and every sysadmin has its own idea of a proper layout. And the result is that you have some vague idea where a certain file might be located, but there's a myriad of exceptions.
You are in a maze of twisty little Unices, all different.
How about fixing the holes? It's not like we haven't known about the problems with wu-ftp since forever.
Yes! Let's fix the holes. But let's fix them once and for all: At the OS level. Fix the OS such that a buffer overflow cannot result in executing arbitrary code. Or else, for each hole in an application you close, 10 new ones spring up.
Here's a scary thought. How long till crackers and script kiddies start sending patches and/or become active developers for well used open source projects, intentionally introducing holes. Even if 99 out of 100 of such attempts get removed before the product becomes "stable", the few that make it to the next Red Hat or Debian CD make it a hax0rs delight.
Linux is a different animal. It takes some work to configure one of these things. SendMail, Apache, Samba, X,
whatever you need, you configure, and unlike NT, everything is "off" until you turn it "on", and not only by running
YaST, but by endlessly tweaking relevant app.conf files.
One typically doesn't install "Linux", but a distribution. And what is installed by default varies from distribution to distribution, but most of them install much more (or make it trivially to install much more) than necessary. And there's no tweaking of config files - the packages do that for you. Joe R. User who comes from Windows would be utterly lost if he had to select everything (but nothing more) from Debian's dselect. No, instead, he uses Red Hat, with a spiffy GUI tool, and has no clue what on earth is going on his system.
You basically need to know the inner workings of the
programs just to get them to run.
Eh, it's more that you need to understand inetd, inetd.conf and whatever way your OS/distribution runs the bootscripts to
turn the services off. (Not that that is enough to close all the ports). That is, if you can figure out which services you really need.
forces the *nix admins to take all the
responsibility for their systems while NT can just say "that's the way MS shipped it to us"
How is "that's the way MS shipped it to us" different from "that's the way Red Hat shipped it to us" or "that's the way Sun Microsystems shipped it to us"?
Consequently, the security audit my single-purpose linux ftp server failed
last Thursday is my fault, but the NT guy gets to blame the MS-approved consultant who installed his fileserver.
Are you suggesting that if you had a Red Hat-approved consultant installing your ftp server, and the NT guy installed the fileserver himself, you were still to blame, and the NT guy could still blame MS?
Sysadmins of all stripes deserve SOME of the flak for the spread of viruses and the DDOS attacks from their
exploited servers,
Sysadmins deserve blames SOMETIMES, but they shouldn't be blamed for the gazillion of holes Unix utilities have had over the past 3 decades, with no end in sight. Remember, sysadmins DO NOT write those utilities. Don't blame the sysadmin for being 20 minutes late in installing the latest security fixes. It's a never ending stream of holes, and sysadmins also need to do other things, like making backups, reading Usenet, drinking coffee and LARTing lusers.
But then, are utility writers at fault? Partially. 30 years of experience would suggest they know better, but the same bugs (buffer overflows) happen again and again and again. However, the biggest share of the blame has to be taken by the OS (and hence, its designers). It's a fundamental design flaw that the kernel does not separate code and data pages, and hence that buffer overflow errors can lead to execution of arbitrary code. That flaw disqualifies UNIX as being a secure OS.
And the sad, sad thing is, that a now popular Unix-like OS, which was written from scratch after more than 20 years of UNIX evolution into a wild variety of sub species makes exactly the same fundamental design flaw.
Don't blame the sysadmins for not being able to keep up with the never ending stream of buffer overflows. Fix the OS!
Quite honestly, I could care less about the marketing and distribution - that means nothing in this discussion.
Then, if you don't care, don't post in this thread. mholve compared the work done to develop the entire product with the work done by "the open source hackers". A comparison I claimed to be silly. If you don't care about that, then don't reply.
The fact is, we're not here to steal their product.
It's also a fact 1 + 1 equals 2. A fact, but it doesn't have much to do with the comparison made by mholve.
I wasn't discussing at all whether something is legal or not. I was argueing the pointlessness of comparing the time to developing the entire product (claimed to be 5 years) with the reverse engineering of the "open software hackers" (claimed to be a few days or weeks).
Your entire posting is irrelevant in that respect.
Who designed it is irrelavent (they aren't copying the design and making new scanners), who marketed it is REALLY
irrelavent (they aren't trying to sell something under the same name.) The distribution process is also irrelavent (they aren't
trying to distribute anything) All they did is took the output of the scanner and made it into something they could use.
Exactly. All the did was taking the output of the scanner and made it into something they could use. They didn't design. They didn't market. They didn't distribute. So, dismissing the 5 years of development with "open source hackers did it in a few days/weeks" is bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Beside the OSses mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Solaris has supported IPv6 for a while. And it'll happely run IPv4 and IPv6 on the same interface.
I do not know whether all their applications support IPv6 though.
-- Abigail
Most certainly do we have people like that. And lots more than in the late '60s, early '70s. The problem is that nowadays there are far more places such brilliant people want to work, and that are willing to pay such people lots of money. The problem certainly isn't the number of knowledgable people - the problem is hiring enough critical mass of brilliant people.
As for the referred to article, the existance of a black cow doesn't decrease the number of blue parrots. I've little knowledge about the stock market, French literature and Hindi gods. But that doesn't prove anything about the quality of stock traders, French literature buffs or Hindi priests. Nor does it say anything about my qualities; at best it says something about my interests.
-- Abigail
Eh, yeah, right. Care to calculate how many rockets are needed before the moon has a base advanced enough to create earth bound satellites solely from the resources found on the moon? Could you compare that, taking into account that a rocket needed to shoot something to the moon is bigger and heavier than one to shoot a satellite into orbit, to the number of launches needed for satellites? And, while you are at it, compare the number of satellite launches to the number of launches needed to sustain the moonbase?
-- Abigail
Given Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Sheffield and a handful of smaller incidents, it's clear that either we apparently don't have the proper procedures, standards or training, or that your claim is incorrect.
Nuclear reactors, when handled properly, aren't any more dangerous than any other large, complicated thing that gets hot.
It's not the temperature that makes nuclear reactors dangerous. It's the thing that causes the high temperatures that's dangerous.
-- Abigail
You are referring to the time they mixed up metric and imperial measurements, right?
-- Abigail
If there would have been any actual benefit, be it from exploiting the resources, the technological advances made, or just sheer happiness of the people, we wouldn't have stopped after less than a dozens trips to the Moon, all about three decades ago.
I cannot fathom one benefit from sending people to Mars. Sure, it would trigger some new technologies - but that's not Mars specific. After all, technology has advanced rapidly even after we stopped going to the moon, not to mention its progress the thousands of years before Kennedy's reactions on Gagarins first trip into space.
What did the manned trips to the Moon bring us that we wouldn't have had without them? Neither velcro nor teflon were mined on the Moon. And the handful of rocks that were brought back could have been brought back by unmanned flights as well.
-- Abigail
So what? It's only the second article in what is going to be a long list of articles. The focus of this article lied more with syntax than with semantics. The article also counted more occurances of the letters `e' and `t' than of `f' and `z'. Now what does that mean?
-- Abigail
No, it doesn't. It just makes it easier to query what the context is. But in perl5 you can make objects that behave differently in different context, including numeric context, boolean context, string context, iteration and the five types of dereferencing. Consult the 'overload' manual page.
-- Abigail
Considering that outside of quotes a variable name followed by left bracket, something else, and a right bracket and it *not* meaning indexing is a syntax error, your wish for the syntax constructs to be the same inside and outside quotes is utterly meaningless.
If you do want to do indexing, then the constructs inside and outside of quotes *are* the same.
-- Abigail
-- Abigail
Just to make things clear, IBM and SGI don't want to fork. It would be unfair to accuse IBM and SGI from taking advantage of you if they make the effort of writing non-trivial patches, offering those patches back to the community, but see those patches rejected.
IBM and SGI want Linux to succeed. On both the big iron and the simple workstations (programs for big iron machines have to be developped somewhere, and you don't think every developper for a big iron machine has 32 CPUs stacked under his/her desk, do you?), but to do the former, changes have to be made. They don't demand from anyone to make those changes - they made them themselves. But if the people in charge reject them, what can IBM and SGI do?
-- Abigail
Sun microsystems delivers a kernel that runs from Sparc Classics to E10ks, without forking off "older machines".
Which is great, as you can develop stuff on low end machines and run it on large production servers, without the need to have costly development servers around.
-- Abigail
That must have been a huge increase since 2.2.13 then.
$ find /usr/src/linux-2.2.13 -name '*.[ch]' | xargs grep '^# *if' | wc -l
22022
$
-- Abigail
This issue of scalability of Linux has been put to rest, IMHO.
So... the scalability of Linux has been put to rest because of an opinion on how it might work out?
In my opinion, the scalability of Linux can be put to rest if someone proves it by running it on 32 or 64 processors, and get the same kind of scalability as other OSses that run on such number of processors.
-- Abigail
Oh, really? Banner ads are not that different than ads on television and in magazines: mass exposure of a name or brand, grouped around content that hopefully has a higher density of your target audience than average. Name recognition and image building is extremely important to become a successful product. There might be a few exceptions, but you didn't really think that Coca-Cola or Microsoft would be as big as they are without the ads, do you? Billions of dollars a year are put into advertisement, and trust me, most companies would not do that if it didn't boost sales.
Witness the frequent "AOL keyword" phrase in radio ads.
The "AOL keyword" namespace isn't in any way bigger than the DNS namespace. If it becomes popular as an alternative for domains, you get the same problems as you find now with domains. Except that it's all in the hands on one company. You won't get many domainsquatters, no, you have one: AOL, and it's got *everything* squattable. (It would be the same for any other company trying to make such "name spaces"). Oh, and you don't really think that Ford Motors will say, "we already have ford.com, we don't mind if someone else uses 'AOL keyword: Ford'", do you?
Domain names should not be typed in by hand very often. Use bookmarks and search engines.
Well, to put something in a bookmarks file, you first have to find the address somehow. Search engines are nice, but not an alternative. Could you imagine a radio ad for Xyzzy soap saying "Visit out web site, go to your favourite search engine, search for 'xyzzy soap', and find us in the huge list of returned matches". No self respecting marketing person is going to fall for that - nor will the public accept it. Besides, search enignes fall for the "typo trap" as well; and you don't even need different domain names for that. Also, Yahoo was mentioned as one of the companies with typo sites.... you really thing that using a search engine to go to yahoo is going to solve that typo problem?
I forsee a day when there are multiple orthogonal online namespaces akin to Yahoo, and URLs will be passed around as "http://namespace/name/restofurl/"
Well, that's how it all started. But nowadays, everything needs to have its own domain name - and it isn't just companies. Just look at the postings with this story, how many people here are saying "I have .(com|net|org)". Just like big companies, geeks want their own domain too. It's all vanity and the phobie to type punctuation characters.
My favorite bakery has a site at SantaCruz,CA/Buttery (by city)" which would translate to http://santacruz.ca.us/buttery/
Cute, but since Henry Ford mass produced cars (and before that, railroads), we no longer live in a society where people spend 364 days a year in their own village. The world, and especially the electronic world is global. Geographic domains don't work in general, and any attempt to do more than two-letter toplevel domains has been a failure. And even two-letter domains don't really work well. Or do you really think all the .to and .cx domains are located in the Pacific? And then there's the obvious problem of people and companies relocating... Would you want to have your email address change when you move?
-- Abigail
You use NFS, AFS or some other shared file system. Or in case the servers are connected by sneaker net, tapes.
-- Abigail
sbin??? I seriously hope your users don't expect a statically linked perl. As for the "right" place of perl, there are many. /usr/bin/perl and /usr/local/bin/perl are common, depending whether your vendor shipped perl with the OS or not. However, another common place is /opt/perl; common enough for perl's configure to use a different file layout for installation prefix paths with and without perl in them.
There is a reason for (almost) everything in *nix based systems, including the organization of directory structures. this was all "planned out" - well evolved actually
It maybe be evolved, but it has evolved in a huge mess. There's /bin and /usr/bin, and /sbin and /usr/sbin. Where do we find a shell? On some systems, in /bin/sh, others quote some standard and put it in /usr/bin/sh, and yet other systems have /bin symlinked to /usr/bin. And binaries go in bin directories, while libraries go in lib? Sure, but what's sendmail doing in /usr/lib then? /etc is for configuration files you say, but what are all those executable programs doing in /etc and below? (Some systems have more of them than others).
Every UNIX vendor and every sysadmin has its own idea of a proper layout. And the result is that you have some vague idea where a certain file might be located, but there's a myriad of exceptions.
You are in a maze of twisty little Unices, all different.
-- Abigail
So, what happened to everyones PATH variables?
-- Abigail
No, I am not. I said that UNIX had a basic design flaw. I didn't compare UNIX with anything else.
-- Abigail
Yes! Let's fix the holes. But let's fix them once and for all: At the OS level. Fix the OS such that a buffer overflow cannot result in executing arbitrary code. Or else, for each hole in an application you close, 10 new ones spring up.
Here's a scary thought. How long till crackers and script kiddies start sending patches and/or become active developers for well used open source projects, intentionally introducing holes. Even if 99 out of 100 of such attempts get removed before the product becomes "stable", the few that make it to the next Red Hat or Debian CD make it a hax0rs delight.
-- Abigail
One typically doesn't install "Linux", but a distribution. And what is installed by default varies from distribution to distribution, but most of them install much more (or make it trivially to install much more) than necessary. And there's no tweaking of config files - the packages do that for you. Joe R. User who comes from Windows would be utterly lost if he had to select everything (but nothing more) from Debian's dselect. No, instead, he uses Red Hat, with a spiffy GUI tool, and has no clue what on earth is going on his system.
You basically need to know the inner workings of the programs just to get them to run.
Eh, it's more that you need to understand inetd, inetd.conf and whatever way your OS/distribution runs the bootscripts to turn the services off. (Not that that is enough to close all the ports). That is, if you can figure out which services you really need.
forces the *nix admins to take all the responsibility for their systems while NT can just say "that's the way MS shipped it to us"
How is "that's the way MS shipped it to us" different from "that's the way Red Hat shipped it to us" or "that's the way Sun Microsystems shipped it to us"?
Consequently, the security audit my single-purpose linux ftp server failed last Thursday is my fault, but the NT guy gets to blame the MS-approved consultant who installed his fileserver.
Are you suggesting that if you had a Red Hat-approved consultant installing your ftp server, and the NT guy installed the fileserver himself, you were still to blame, and the NT guy could still blame MS?
Sysadmins of all stripes deserve SOME of the flak for the spread of viruses and the DDOS attacks from their exploited servers,
Sysadmins deserve blames SOMETIMES, but they shouldn't be blamed for the gazillion of holes Unix utilities have had over the past 3 decades, with no end in sight. Remember, sysadmins DO NOT write those utilities. Don't blame the sysadmin for being 20 minutes late in installing the latest security fixes. It's a never ending stream of holes, and sysadmins also need to do other things, like making backups, reading Usenet, drinking coffee and LARTing lusers.
But then, are utility writers at fault? Partially. 30 years of experience would suggest they know better, but the same bugs (buffer overflows) happen again and again and again. However, the biggest share of the blame has to be taken by the OS (and hence, its designers). It's a fundamental design flaw that the kernel does not separate code and data pages, and hence that buffer overflow errors can lead to execution of arbitrary code. That flaw disqualifies UNIX as being a secure OS.
And the sad, sad thing is, that a now popular Unix-like OS, which was written from scratch after more than 20 years of UNIX evolution into a wild variety of sub species makes exactly the same fundamental design flaw.
Don't blame the sysadmins for not being able to keep up with the never ending stream of buffer overflows. Fix the OS!
-- Abigail
Then, if you don't care, don't post in this thread. mholve compared the work done to develop the entire product with the work done by "the open source hackers". A comparison I claimed to be silly. If you don't care about that, then don't reply.
The fact is, we're not here to steal their product.
It's also a fact 1 + 1 equals 2. A fact, but it doesn't have much to do with the comparison made by mholve.
-- Abigail
Exactly my point. The five years developing the scanner cannot be compared to the time spend reverse enginering the software.
-- Abigail
I wasn't discussing at all whether something is legal or not. I was argueing the pointlessness of comparing the time to developing the entire product (claimed to be 5 years) with the reverse engineering of the "open software hackers" (claimed to be a few days or weeks).
Your entire posting is irrelevant in that respect.
-- Abigail
Exactly. All the did was taking the output of the scanner and made it into something they could use. They didn't design. They didn't market. They didn't distribute. So, dismissing the 5 years of development with "open source hackers did it in a few days/weeks" is bullshit.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
-- Abigail