So what? At the present time, *NO* preinstalled Linux is going to kept intact by the average Linux user. I you like Fedora and the sytem comes with SuSE, you're going to wipe it. If you like Mandrake and it comes with Debian, you're going to wipe it.
Some languages prevent some classes of serious security mistakes. Other languages prevent other classes of serious security mistakes. But no language prevents all classes of serious security mistakes.
Then they're not "high grade". If you need to use strings, you use the string class. If you need to use a bounded array you use the STL vector. If you can't use the STL, you guard your arrays. Those three things, which are normal "high grade" C++ coding style, avoids the vast majority of potential overflows.
All programming mistakes are security holes, because any software that doesn't behave as intended is a security hole. They might not all grant root access to random passerbys, but they are security holes nonetheless.
Anecdote time. After five years of working on a million+ line C/C++ codebase, I ran across my first buffer overflow last monday. I've seen many potential buffer overflows (and fixed them when I found them), but this was the first I've seen actually get thrown over the wall to QA.
If buffer overflows are getting past your unit tests, it's because you're not writing proper unit tests. Using a language as a substitute for proper testing is pathologic. If a tenth the energy spent proselytizing for certain languages was spent on proselytizing for correct software testing, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, I don't always do unit tests myself, so remember to do what I say and not what I do...
To be fair, 90% of what's written in Java doesn't need to be either. When you get right down to it, choice of language is STILL 100% personal choice, and arguments about garbage collectors and dynamic typing are for the sole purpose of self-justification.
Actually, I *HAVE* updated an entire FreeBSD system from 5.2 to 5.3 remotely. Dropping down to single mode is highly highly recommended, but I didn't want to walk over to the other machine to do it, so I tried it without. And it worked.
But that aside, how does Debian get away from it? Because in Debian everything, including the kernel, is a package. Even the package manager is a package. This was been planned for FreeBSD so that everything was a package, but the project (libh) died through overengineering (second system syndrome). DragonflyBSD is working on a similar project, and I have no doubts that it will back backported.
p.s. Of course the FreeBSD documentation is four pages long. That's because the documentation is COMPLETE.
In the strict dictionary definition of "proprietary", the GPL is indeed proprietary. Despite RMS' rants that software should not be owned, the GPL is a concrete legal stamp of ownership, and gives the owner considerable control over the software.
If the license holder can prevent you from doing something with the software, then it is technically proprietary software.
No, because neither Glibc nor Win32 is under the GPL.
That's wholly irrelevant to the point. The GPL is based on copyright law. And copyright covers both glibc and win32. It doesn't matter what the GPL says, it matters what copyright says.
The GPL cannot redefine "derivative". If something is a derivative work of a library then it is a derivative work REGARDLESS of the license used on the library. That the LGPL and MSEULA allow dynamic linkage is completely beside the point.
The definition of poverty used is "an extremely low level of income as compared to necesities of living".
That's pretty much what I said. The key here is "extremely". If it's extremely difficult to provide yourself and your family with the necessities of food, clothing and shelter, then you are in poverty. But I don't see this happening today in the US or Canada. For food there are food stamps, for clothing there are those $1 Chinese garments you mention. For shelter there is section 8 and low income housing. Just because you don't personally earn the money, and it is handed to you instead, doesn't mean it's not a resource.
I think the current number is $9,393 for a single adult yearly income
That figure does not include non-income resources, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and other forms of welfare.
Also they might just be able to get clothing that hides them better, these are the days of $1 Chinese garnments... Wallmarts are managing to hide the state of affairs by supplying the kinds of everyday goods that people still can afford.
If goods are cheaper, doesn't that help the poor? Why is this a bad thing? Cheaper goods lowers the cost of living, so that the poor find it easier to meet their basic necessities. There's a reason why the poor shop at Walmart instead of trendy expensive mainstreet boutiques.
Your own Census Bureau calculates that threshold based on family status, age, dependants etc.
But without knowing that calculation the threshold they come up with is meaningless. It's just an arbitrary number pulled out of their ass. But even if it were true, it only covers income. As I've already noted, real poverty is based on the total resources available, and not just merely income.
I've never thrown away a computer. I've either given them away or sold them. Somebody, somewhere is eventually going to have to throw one away, but I'm not the one.
You're throwing out a lot of statistics around without much backing them up. The only reference you have is to a Catholic charity site. While I do not in any way accuse them of bending the truth, I really would like to know how the define "poverty". That's because I do not see it in the US.
That's right, I don't see it. I see people poorer than me. I see people considerably poorer than me. But I don't see poverty. Let me explain. There is a difference between being poor and being in poverty. Poverty means destitution. It means you insufficient resources to cover the necessities.
But I don't see the destitute anymore like I did when I was a kid. The only people who are homeless are chemically dependent or mentally disabled, so are not homeless for economic reasons. The reason these destitution no longer exists is because the government is giving scads money to those on the bottom rungs in the form of welfare, food stamps, rent subsidies and similar. The poor in America today HAVE the resources to meet their necessities. That takes them out of "poverty".
That doesn't mean that there aren't poor people! It just means that the situation isn't as horribly desperate as it was forty years ago when we started the "War on Poverty".
Let's move on to the rich. Imagine ten people. Nine of them make $50,000 a year. One of them makes $450,000. That one person owns just as much as the other nine. That doesn't make those nine people poor. It doesn't place them into poverty. Now let's use YOUR numbers. I think they're fishy, but let's use them for the sake of argument. Imagine 99 people making $50k and one making $4,950k. That last guy is making a heck of a lot of money. But doesn't make the $50k everyone else has any less. In fact, that guy can't spend that kind of money without benefiting the other 99. It's basic economics.
You are entirely correct when you say "cooperation for mutual benefit". That's what I wanted to say before my brain froze and I muddled it all up. But here's a surprise for you: that's what free market economics is all about! Transactions can only occur through cooperation, and every transaction results in a benefit to both sides. This is Basic Economics 101.
Having seen a multitude of your earlier posts, it doesn't really matter how englightened mine will be, because you will still shit all over it if it doesn't match your preformed opinion of how the world should work. But I will do so nonetheless, for the edification of others.
First of all I must address the mathematics in your grandparent post. If 1% of the population is rich, and 90% is everyone else, what happened to the missing 9%? But no matter, economics is not a zero sum game. Just because the rich are getting richer does not mean that everyone else is getting poorer. In actual fact, nearly all segments of the population are getting richer. We have *WON* the war on poverty! Destitution no longer exists in the US. The poor today are considerably better off than they were in the 60s. If you want to see true poverty, you must LEAVE the U.S. and Canada and visit Mexico.
But on to your current post. Wealth does not automatically equate to exploitation. You are not exploited merely because someone else makes more money than you. But beyond that, "exploitation" is a word full of emotion but utterly devoid of meaning. I "exploit" my coworkers everyday by asking them to review my code. I exploit my grocer by taking advantage of his coupons. Heck, I exploit my fatcat employer by getting him to pay me for my skills! The point is, exploitation is done by everyone, even you.
What is the objective of society? We only need look at the history of civilization to find out. Why did we decide in ancient history to group ourselves together instead of living separate lives? There are two answers. The first was protection. It's easier to defend against bandits and marauders if you're part of a larger group. The second reason is more important: specialization.
In a society we no longer have to do everything ourselves. I can specialize in one thing and you in another, and we will both benefit. Trade is good. Trade promote progress.
The purpose of society has nothing to do with wealth. That's merely a side effect. The real purpose is to promote the free interaction of its members. Government is not society, government is a tool of society to protect society so that it can more easily facilitate the free interaction of its members.
That's in your opinion. It also happens to be the FSF's opinion. But this opinion is hardly universal. It is only true if the reference of one work by another work through an API qualifies as a derivative work. There is nothing in copyright that asserts this one way or the other. For static linkage, you're actually copying the library, so GPL will still apply. But for dynamic linkage the question is crucial. Is it only by the good graces of the glibc authors that any Linux application can even exist? Could Bill Gates legally assert ownership of every piece of Windows software that linked to Win32 should he wish?
Despite the opinion of the FSF, there are many people who hold other equally valid opinions. Larry Rosen has one of the best summations of the counter opinion at Linux Journal: <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366>. When the legal council for the FSF and the legal council for the OSI disagree, I think I am safe in asserting that the issue is far from resolved.
The result is that users still end up becoming "hostage" to a single entity...
Why? Who is holding a gun to their head forcing them to use the software? I think "hostage" should be added to the FSF's lists of words that shouldn't be used in reference to software....with no way to alter or maintain the software that they use...
It's a web application. They can't alter or maintain it anyway. Duh! The source code would give them ZERO benefit. Even if they were a developer knowledgable in the domain, it does them no good because they have no ability to fix or alter the application.
How much money did *YOU* personally give? That's all that counts. Charity is not taxation. Charity is not the redistribution of over people's money. Charity is giving of yourself without worrying about what your politicians doing. But what about yours? How much of your own personal funds did you personally donate for the relief effort?
The US government nmight not have sent as much money as some other nations, but the money it sent was matched in part by the private donation of its citizens. The money it sent did not have strings attached, were not loans, and were not credits. It also sent material support in the form of ships, helicopters and soldiers.
But really, I don't care how much my government sent, because that's not the point. The really relevancy is how much I've sent, and what I've sent is nothing to be ashamed of. How much did you send?
But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools...
Funny thing, firearms were banned in every US school BEFORE Columbine happened. Even if they were fake imitations in dayglo plastic that squirted water. But that didn't stop the tragedy that happened.
As a Canadian, I'm proud of our former prime minister (Jean Chretien) had the balls to stay out of an aggressive unprovoked invasion on a soverign nation rather than being just another American cheerleader.
Does Canada still have troops in Bosnia? I'm too lazy to look it up.
It's pretty much the same thing. If you're not a hobbyist, you will be distributing your modifications.
In some cases the distribution will be to a fellow employee, and if you both work for a corporation, then law considers you a single legal entity. But don't do it after hours! And don't give it to any of your subcontractors or suppliers! And don't do it if you work for an un-incorporated business! Don't apply it as a patch to any product your sell! Don't burn it into the chips of your embedded product! Don't! Don't! Don't! Don't!
For all practical purposes, modifications will be distributed.
Now, let's stop pretending that there is any useful analogy between the intellectual fraud known as "intellectual property" and real property.
Please do that. Please stop pretending that public domain works can be make proprietary. Disney may have made a movie on the novel, but Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame is *STILL* public domain.
Information is not material property. You cannot treat it as such. It cannot be stolen. It cannot be destroyed. It cannot be hijacked.
It has no need for the "protection" that the GPL provides. The purpose of the GPL is not protection, and the sooner its advocates realized that the sooner we can engage in rational discourse.
We don't need a GNU/BSD distribution. There is no reason to through out the superior BSD userland. Everything that GNU offers which BSD needs is already in BSD.
Yes, I said "superior BSD userland." The only advantages to the GNU tools to their BSD counterparts are twenty thousand additional command line options. This isn't a "good UI", this is feature creep. Oh, the GNU tools are more portable, but that doesn't add any advantage because the BSD tools are already there and native.
Speaking of "good UI", where is Darwin's? It doesn't have one! Yet it's still the operating system for Mac OSX desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
So what? At the present time, *NO* preinstalled Linux is going to kept intact by the average Linux user. I you like Fedora and the sytem comes with SuSE, you're going to wipe it. If you like Mandrake and it comes with Debian, you're going to wipe it.
Some languages prevent some classes of serious security mistakes. Other languages prevent other classes of serious security mistakes. But no language prevents all classes of serious security mistakes.
Then they're not "high grade". If you need to use strings, you use the string class. If you need to use a bounded array you use the STL vector. If you can't use the STL, you guard your arrays. Those three things, which are normal "high grade" C++ coding style, avoids the vast majority of potential overflows.
All programming mistakes are security holes, because any software that doesn't behave as intended is a security hole. They might not all grant root access to random passerbys, but they are security holes nonetheless.
Anecdote time. After five years of working on a million+ line C/C++ codebase, I ran across my first buffer overflow last monday. I've seen many potential buffer overflows (and fixed them when I found them), but this was the first I've seen actually get thrown over the wall to QA.
If buffer overflows are getting past your unit tests, it's because you're not writing proper unit tests. Using a language as a substitute for proper testing is pathologic. If a tenth the energy spent proselytizing for certain languages was spent on proselytizing for correct software testing, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, I don't always do unit tests myself, so remember to do what I say and not what I do...
To be fair, 90% of what's written in Java doesn't need to be either. When you get right down to it, choice of language is STILL 100% personal choice, and arguments about garbage collectors and dynamic typing are for the sole purpose of self-justification.
You're right. Those languages are popular for small applications, but very rare for large applications or systems software.
Actually, I *HAVE* updated an entire FreeBSD system from 5.2 to 5.3 remotely. Dropping down to single mode is highly highly recommended, but I didn't want to walk over to the other machine to do it, so I tried it without. And it worked.
But that aside, how does Debian get away from it? Because in Debian everything, including the kernel, is a package. Even the package manager is a package. This was been planned for FreeBSD so that everything was a package, but the project (libh) died through overengineering (second system syndrome). DragonflyBSD is working on a similar project, and I have no doubts that it will back backported.
p.s. Of course the FreeBSD documentation is four pages long. That's because the documentation is COMPLETE.
In the strict dictionary definition of "proprietary", the GPL is indeed proprietary. Despite RMS' rants that software should not be owned, the GPL is a concrete legal stamp of ownership, and gives the owner considerable control over the software.
If the license holder can prevent you from doing something with the software, then it is technically proprietary software.
Commercial vendors can also write a proprietary driver withough causing a shitstorm in the kernel mailing lists.
No, because neither Glibc nor Win32 is under the GPL.
That's wholly irrelevant to the point. The GPL is based on copyright law. And copyright covers both glibc and win32. It doesn't matter what the GPL says, it matters what copyright says.
The GPL cannot redefine "derivative". If something is a derivative work of a library then it is a derivative work REGARDLESS of the license used on the library. That the LGPL and MSEULA allow dynamic linkage is completely beside the point.
The definition of poverty used is "an extremely low level of income as compared to necesities of living".
That's pretty much what I said. The key here is "extremely". If it's extremely difficult to provide yourself and your family with the necessities of food, clothing and shelter, then you are in poverty. But I don't see this happening today in the US or Canada. For food there are food stamps, for clothing there are those $1 Chinese garments you mention. For shelter there is section 8 and low income housing. Just because you don't personally earn the money, and it is handed to you instead, doesn't mean it's not a resource.
I think the current number is $9,393 for a single adult yearly income
That figure does not include non-income resources, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and other forms of welfare.
Also they might just be able to get clothing that hides them better, these are the days of $1 Chinese garnments... Wallmarts are managing to hide the state of affairs by supplying the kinds of everyday goods that people still can afford.
If goods are cheaper, doesn't that help the poor? Why is this a bad thing? Cheaper goods lowers the cost of living, so that the poor find it easier to meet their basic necessities. There's a reason why the poor shop at Walmart instead of trendy expensive mainstreet boutiques.
Your own Census Bureau calculates that threshold based on family status, age, dependants etc.
But without knowing that calculation the threshold they come up with is meaningless. It's just an arbitrary number pulled out of their ass. But even if it were true, it only covers income. As I've already noted, real poverty is based on the total resources available, and not just merely income.
I've never thrown away a computer. I've either given them away or sold them. Somebody, somewhere is eventually going to have to throw one away, but I'm not the one.
You're throwing out a lot of statistics around without much backing them up. The only reference you have is to a Catholic charity site. While I do not in any way accuse them of bending the truth, I really would like to know how the define "poverty". That's because I do not see it in the US.
That's right, I don't see it. I see people poorer than me. I see people considerably poorer than me. But I don't see poverty. Let me explain. There is a difference between being poor and being in poverty. Poverty means destitution. It means you insufficient resources to cover the necessities.
But I don't see the destitute anymore like I did when I was a kid. The only people who are homeless are chemically dependent or mentally disabled, so are not homeless for economic reasons. The reason these destitution no longer exists is because the government is giving scads money to those on the bottom rungs in the form of welfare, food stamps, rent subsidies and similar. The poor in America today HAVE the resources to meet their necessities. That takes them out of "poverty".
That doesn't mean that there aren't poor people! It just means that the situation isn't as horribly desperate as it was forty years ago when we started the "War on Poverty".
Let's move on to the rich. Imagine ten people. Nine of them make $50,000 a year. One of them makes $450,000. That one person owns just as much as the other nine. That doesn't make those nine people poor. It doesn't place them into poverty. Now let's use YOUR numbers. I think they're fishy, but let's use them for the sake of argument. Imagine 99 people making $50k and one making $4,950k. That last guy is making a heck of a lot of money. But doesn't make the $50k everyone else has any less. In fact, that guy can't spend that kind of money without benefiting the other 99. It's basic economics.
You are entirely correct when you say "cooperation for mutual benefit". That's what I wanted to say before my brain froze and I muddled it all up. But here's a surprise for you: that's what free market economics is all about! Transactions can only occur through cooperation, and every transaction results in a benefit to both sides. This is Basic Economics 101.
Having seen a multitude of your earlier posts, it doesn't really matter how englightened mine will be, because you will still shit all over it if it doesn't match your preformed opinion of how the world should work. But I will do so nonetheless, for the edification of others.
First of all I must address the mathematics in your grandparent post. If 1% of the population is rich, and 90% is everyone else, what happened to the missing 9%? But no matter, economics is not a zero sum game. Just because the rich are getting richer does not mean that everyone else is getting poorer. In actual fact, nearly all segments of the population are getting richer. We have *WON* the war on poverty! Destitution no longer exists in the US. The poor today are considerably better off than they were in the 60s. If you want to see true poverty, you must LEAVE the U.S. and Canada and visit Mexico.
But on to your current post. Wealth does not automatically equate to exploitation. You are not exploited merely because someone else makes more money than you. But beyond that, "exploitation" is a word full of emotion but utterly devoid of meaning. I "exploit" my coworkers everyday by asking them to review my code. I exploit my grocer by taking advantage of his coupons. Heck, I exploit my fatcat employer by getting him to pay me for my skills! The point is, exploitation is done by everyone, even you.
What is the objective of society? We only need look at the history of civilization to find out. Why did we decide in ancient history to group ourselves together instead of living separate lives? There are two answers. The first was protection. It's easier to defend against bandits and marauders if you're part of a larger group. The second reason is more important: specialization.
In a society we no longer have to do everything ourselves. I can specialize in one thing and you in another, and we will both benefit. Trade is good. Trade promote progress.
The purpose of society has nothing to do with wealth. That's merely a side effect. The real purpose is to promote the free interaction of its members. Government is not society, government is a tool of society to protect society so that it can more easily facilitate the free interaction of its members.
That's in your opinion. It also happens to be the FSF's opinion. But this opinion is hardly universal. It is only true if the reference of one work by another work through an API qualifies as a derivative work. There is nothing in copyright that asserts this one way or the other. For static linkage, you're actually copying the library, so GPL will still apply. But for dynamic linkage the question is crucial. Is it only by the good graces of the glibc authors that any Linux application can even exist? Could Bill Gates legally assert ownership of every piece of Windows software that linked to Win32 should he wish?
Despite the opinion of the FSF, there are many people who hold other equally valid opinions. Larry Rosen has one of the best summations of the counter opinion at Linux Journal: <http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366>. When the legal council for the FSF and the legal council for the OSI disagree, I think I am safe in asserting that the issue is far from resolved.
The result is that users still end up becoming "hostage" to a single entity...
...with no way to alter or maintain the software that they use...
Why? Who is holding a gun to their head forcing them to use the software? I think "hostage" should be added to the FSF's lists of words that shouldn't be used in reference to software.
It's a web application. They can't alter or maintain it anyway. Duh! The source code would give them ZERO benefit. Even if they were a developer knowledgable in the domain, it does them no good because they have no ability to fix or alter the application.
How much money did *YOU* personally give? That's all that counts. Charity is not taxation. Charity is not the redistribution of over people's money. Charity is giving of yourself without worrying about what your politicians doing. But what about yours? How much of your own personal funds did you personally donate for the relief effort?
The US government nmight not have sent as much money as some other nations, but the money it sent was matched in part by the private donation of its citizens. The money it sent did not have strings attached, were not loans, and were not credits. It also sent material support in the form of ships, helicopters and soldiers.
But really, I don't care how much my government sent, because that's not the point. The really relevancy is how much I've sent, and what I've sent is nothing to be ashamed of. How much did you send?
The objective of society has NOTHING to do with how much money someone has. Stop being an idiot.
But since they banned every weapon, real AND imagined in schools...
Funny thing, firearms were banned in every US school BEFORE Columbine happened. Even if they were fake imitations in dayglo plastic that squirted water. But that didn't stop the tragedy that happened.
As a Canadian, I'm proud of our former prime minister (Jean Chretien) had the balls to stay out of an aggressive unprovoked invasion on a soverign nation rather than being just another American cheerleader.
Does Canada still have troops in Bosnia? I'm too lazy to look it up.
It's pretty much the same thing. If you're not a hobbyist, you will be distributing your modifications.
In some cases the distribution will be to a fellow employee, and if you both work for a corporation, then law considers you a single legal entity. But don't do it after hours! And don't give it to any of your subcontractors or suppliers! And don't do it if you work for an un-incorporated business! Don't apply it as a patch to any product your sell! Don't burn it into the chips of your embedded product! Don't! Don't! Don't! Don't!
For all practical purposes, modifications will be distributed.
Now, let's stop pretending that there is any useful analogy between the intellectual fraud known as "intellectual property" and real property.
Please do that. Please stop pretending that public domain works can be make proprietary. Disney may have made a movie on the novel, but Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame is *STILL* public domain.
Information is not material property. You cannot treat it as such. It cannot be stolen. It cannot be destroyed. It cannot be hijacked.
It has no need for the "protection" that the GPL provides. The purpose of the GPL is not protection, and the sooner its advocates realized that the sooner we can engage in rational discourse.
You don't read your employment agreements before you sign them? Are you fscking nuts!
I don't understand what you're asking. The ability to do this has been around since day one.
We don't need a GNU/BSD distribution. There is no reason to through out the superior BSD userland. Everything that GNU offers which BSD needs is already in BSD.
Yes, I said "superior BSD userland." The only advantages to the GNU tools to their BSD counterparts are twenty thousand additional command line options. This isn't a "good UI", this is feature creep. Oh, the GNU tools are more portable, but that doesn't add any advantage because the BSD tools are already there and native.
Speaking of "good UI", where is Darwin's? It doesn't have one! Yet it's still the operating system for Mac OSX desktop.