They're just counting bug fixes. And counting how many are labeled critical. Well, that still doesn't factor in, at all, how easy it is to exploit. Fact is, if you try to run a system level program on Mac OSX, it STILL will ask for admin password. So a program can't be run on your machine in kernel space without your knowledge. Windows seems to have been made for just this purpose.
This study is laughable. It's just a count the bug fixes garbage. Linux has more fixes and updates because open source is more honest. How often have we heard of M$ waiting six months to release fixes that they knew about? How many holes are there that the public doesn't know about?
The distinction is inherent in the fact that there is no guarantee of platform. Since advertising is commercial, the platform must be provided by the speaker.
Also, the freedom of speech, if you want to talk about what it states 'explicitly', provides NO qualifications about free speech OUTSIDE of government laws. Effectively, the first amendment does not explicitly apply to individuals or corporations, but only to the federal congress.
"Congress shall pass no law..." etc.etc. Cornell U's Bill of Rights Link
If I had five digits, I'd rather drop em on apache and linux than IIS or WS2003. Because otherwise I'd have to spend another five digits on a full-time maintenence crew......and 10 digits is all I have without taking off my shoes!
There is NOTHING in the constitution about a 'right to advertise'. There is a right to free speech (basically free opinion and expression) but this does not extend in any way to advertising. Even the freedom of speech does not guarantee a platform for that speech--you may have to provide your own. That is to say, you're free to your opinion, free to voice it if you can provide the means, but that does not extend to these ridiculous interpretations that keep popping up. Any businesses in Utah that join this suit, I suggest everyone notify them that we will no longer be using their services.
I just posted a similar thing to an individual post, but I think it's more appropriate to this thread
This is nothing new, it's just a repeat of the previous analysis of SCO's slides, but since a lot of people haven't read the whole article in question, they're just getting information from these partial posts people are making here and forming opinions based on that.
Please, everyone, look at the Original Article before posting. Or, if you don't want to register with computerwire, the article also posted on Yahoo. Perens is talking about the code snippets from the slides a couple weeks ago. Nothing new. He's talking about the code that was released into the public domain by Caldera.
SCO's including a partial quote from Perens without context. This is why partial quotes are dangerous. You get to see the included line, but not the context so it makes it look like someone said something completely different, which in this case is McBride's purpose.
So, read the original article from Perens, and read the Letter from McBride. And please, if you're going to make a post using a quote, make sure it represents the whole idea, otherwise it could end up meaning something else from what someone acutally said.
Perens also says of the same code that it was released under open source license by caldera and that's why linux had the right to have it.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
This is why partial quotes are dangerous. You get to see one line but not the part that came before it, so that makes it look completely different. Please everyone, before you post your opinion on one of these quotes, read the Original Post referred to, or better yet the original article. If you're going to include a quote, make sure it includes the entirity of the idea or else people will get confused.
At least now we finally know what SCO really got in the 'secret settlement' of their last lawsuit (against M$)......Bill's well-worn, dog-eared copy of FUD for Dummies
I think it's a great idea to provide all kids with regular computer access, so long as it's access to something. What I mean is, just handing out computers to kids and hoping osmosis or something will take over and they'll suddenly start weaving technology magic and make the kids learn more is useless and a waste of money.
If they're providing the technology for access to more technology enhanced curriculum or integrating something useful, then It's a very good thing.
I personally am of two minds about this whole thing. I understand that if he really was meaning to be honest and helpful with his exploit of their shoddy system, that he was doing a good thing in helping them correct it. Better someone who would be nice about it than someone who would not tell.
but, at the same time, regardless of the intent, he did do something illegal. And regardless of your intention afterwards, it was a violation to their system and property to do so in the first place.
So, in all fairness to his intentions, he should be prosecuted after due process.
**What IS wrong, however, is that he has not been allowed to see the charges against him. He has said that as soon as he sees the charges against him, as is his Constitutional right, that he will turn himself in, so long as those charges are reasonable. Remember that Kevin Mitnick reportedly had inflated wild charges brought against him in a hacker hysteria and had reportedly had a lot of his rights violated in captivity. If I were him and pending jail time, I would be very nervous in light of this and other previous cracker captures.
Slashdot Mirror
double standards are politically universal in a two party system.
That's Friday the 13th!
They're just counting bug fixes. And counting how many are labeled critical. Well, that still doesn't factor in, at all, how easy it is to exploit. Fact is, if you try to run a system level program on Mac OSX, it STILL will ask for admin password. So a program can't be run on your machine in kernel space without your knowledge. Windows seems to have been made for just this purpose. This study is laughable. It's just a count the bug fixes garbage. Linux has more fixes and updates because open source is more honest. How often have we heard of M$ waiting six months to release fixes that they knew about? How many holes are there that the public doesn't know about?
The distinction is inherent in the fact that there is no guarantee of platform. Since advertising is commercial, the platform must be provided by the speaker.
Also, the freedom of speech, if you want to talk about what it states 'explicitly', provides NO qualifications about free speech OUTSIDE of government laws. Effectively, the first amendment does not explicitly apply to individuals or corporations, but only to the federal congress.
"Congress shall pass no law..." etc.etc.
Cornell U's Bill of Rights Link
If I had five digits, I'd rather drop em on apache and linux than IIS or WS2003. Because otherwise I'd have to spend another five digits on a full-time maintenence crew... ...and 10 digits is all I have without taking off my shoes!
And the fact that only 6 of the top 10 utilize clustering technology rather goes to prove cray's point...oh, wait...
There is NOTHING in the constitution about a 'right to advertise'. There is a right to free speech (basically free opinion and expression) but this does not extend in any way to advertising. Even the freedom of speech does not guarantee a platform for that speech--you may have to provide your own. That is to say, you're free to your opinion, free to voice it if you can provide the means, but that does not extend to these ridiculous interpretations that keep popping up. Any businesses in Utah that join this suit, I suggest everyone notify them that we will no longer be using their services.
I just posted a similar thing to an individual post, but I think it's more appropriate to this thread
This is nothing new, it's just a repeat of the previous analysis of SCO's slides, but since a lot of people haven't read the whole article in question, they're just getting information from these partial posts people are making here and forming opinions based on that.
Please, everyone, look at the Original Article before posting. Or, if you don't want to register with computerwire, the article also posted on Yahoo. Perens is talking about the code snippets from the slides a couple weeks ago. Nothing new. He's talking about the code that was released into the public domain by Caldera.
SCO's including a partial quote from Perens without context. This is why partial quotes are dangerous. You get to see the included line, but not the context so it makes it look like someone said something completely different, which in this case is McBride's purpose.
So, read the original article from Perens, and read the Letter from McBride. And please, if you're going to make a post using a quote, make sure it represents the whole idea, otherwise it could end up meaning something else from what someone acutally said.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
This is why partial quotes are dangerous. You get to see one line but not the part that came before it, so that makes it look completely different. Please everyone, before you post your opinion on one of these quotes, read the Original Post referred to, or better yet the original article. If you're going to include a quote, make sure it includes the entirity of the idea or else people will get confused.At least now we finally know what SCO really got in the 'secret settlement' of their last lawsuit (against M$)... ...Bill's well-worn, dog-eared copy of FUD for Dummies
I think it's a great idea to provide all kids with regular computer access, so long as it's access to something. What I mean is, just handing out computers to kids and hoping osmosis or something will take over and they'll suddenly start weaving technology magic and make the kids learn more is useless and a waste of money.
If they're providing the technology for access to more technology enhanced curriculum or integrating something useful, then It's a very good thing.
I personally am of two minds about this whole thing. I understand that if he really was meaning to be honest and helpful with his exploit of their shoddy system, that he was doing a good thing in helping them correct it. Better someone who would be nice about it than someone who would not tell. but, at the same time, regardless of the intent, he did do something illegal. And regardless of your intention afterwards, it was a violation to their system and property to do so in the first place. So, in all fairness to his intentions, he should be prosecuted after due process. **What IS wrong, however, is that he has not been allowed to see the charges against him. He has said that as soon as he sees the charges against him, as is his Constitutional right, that he will turn himself in, so long as those charges are reasonable. Remember that Kevin Mitnick reportedly had inflated wild charges brought against him in a hacker hysteria and had reportedly had a lot of his rights violated in captivity. If I were him and pending jail time, I would be very nervous in light of this and other previous cracker captures.