Remember a couple of weeks ago when the Washington Post lost its email connection because they forgot to renew the domain washpost.com. $9.99 * 100 = $999. That's a bit of money, but a whole lot less than it cost the WP to have no email for a day.
Maybe it won't take until 2006 to finish Longhorn, maybe they just need to wait until DRAM prices fall enough that people will be able to afford to run it.
Somehow you are assuming that the Sheriff owned the site. Mr. Richard created the site, and there is no indication in the article that he gave it to the Sheriff. He agreed to operate the site in return for publicity. Your explanation is ridiculous. At best he could be accused of breach of contract, but there is not even a strong case for that. It isn't clear whether publicity really counts as consideration. A better analogy would be one where I offer a service at a certain price and you refuse to buy it at that price. As far as I know, that is still legal. If the Sheriff didn't want to pay, he should build and host his own site.
Palo Alto runs it's own utilities. It's hard not to love the savings I get already with public utilities.
Palo Alto Utilities : $0.061 per KWh.
PG&E : $0.126 per KWh (and up)
The city already offer Dark Fiber Services and is running a trial project for FTTH. It's not clear yet whether Palo Alto could operate FTTH cost-effectively. It depends partly on being able to deliver TV over the fiber, and that means they would need to get channel providers to offer terms which are not substantially worse that what the big boys get.
Makes me laugh though when Conservatives and the Power Companies who support them complain about consumers saving money. How dare they save money!?!
Are there real exploits do this, i.e. execute code from the code sections? That sounds like it would be really hard if not impossible to do. Someone would need to go through all of the code sections and find exactly the right code in the existing binary, rather than putting in their own code and jumping there.
The article is thin on the details of how they are redesigning the chips to prevent overflow exploits, but Stack Protection (which as far as I know is what matters when it comes to buffer overflows) is available today. IBM's SSP project extends GCC to provide stack protection.
If you read Cringely's articles, you only encourage him to write more of them. I mean, he does have Superman-like abilities, like being able to bounce a wifi signal off a mountain, but he's still insufferable. Here's a reminder of his amazing feat...
I'm like many of you was having a little difficulty understanding what exactly isn't compatible with the GPL. I think part of the problem is that Moglen gets all of the section numbers wrong. He says that the only incompatibility is with Section 5. He writes:
Second, with respect to section 5:
FSF, having long warned against the dangers of software patents,
entirely shares the goal of providing protection against inappropriate
and destructive uses of patent claims to interfere with software
freedom. The Foundation expects version 3 of the GPL to incorporate
one or more license provisions designed to increase the collective
defense against patent abuse. The two provisions contained in section
5, however, embody two quite different theories of response.
But Section 5 isn't about software patents at all. Section 5 of the APL v.2.0 reads:
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
Furthermore, he complains earlier about problems with Section 3.c. There is no section 3.c There is a section 4.c which has roughly the provisions which he seems to be talking about.
I'm slightly disappointed. I usually expect better work from Eben Moglen. N.B., I have checked his references against the section numbers in the GPL and they don't refer to sections in the GPL.
I don't see what there is to complain about when government puts together information in PUBLICLY AVAILABLE databases in order to find people who aren't paying their taxes. You're really stretching the notion of spying if you think that this amounts to the government spying on you.
Would someone like to offer an argument against the following principle? Maybe you can change my mind, but it better be good.
If the existence of several separate publicly-available databases does not amount to inappropriate surveillance, then aggregating and drawing inferences using those databases does not amount to inappropriate surveillance.
But does the fact that the embedded developers are using XFree86 mean that they are claiming, implicitly or explicit, that they wrote the software that they use. No. The inference from "I am distributing this software" to "I wrote this software" is one that doesn't make any sense in a world with software under GPL, LGPL, Artistic, etc.. licences. If I give someone a CD which has a binary for KDE on it, am I claiming that I wrote KDE. The XFree86 team is just missing the point. Completely.
You really have to wonder about the judgement of the XFree86 team. The justification of the change was the following
The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you
wrote it" clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary
distributions of XFree86. While the original license covered this
adequately for source code redistribution, it has always been lacking
where binary redistribution was concerned.
First, I don't understand what problem they take themselves to be remedying. Does anyone really think that if Redhat and Mandrake didn't put the notice in their documentation, that anyone would think that they had written the code. I mean that would be really amazing, if both Redhat and Mandrake and all of the other distributions had all each written XFree86. I think the XFree86 people aren't correctly understanding their own principle. It says "you can do anything you want, except claim you wrote it". When someone distibutes binary software, that is not a claim, explicit or implicit, that they wrote the software. However, instead of seeing that the advertising clause does not even fit their stated principle, they go on to make it more odious by requiring all distributors to get permission from XFree86 to use the name XFree86 outside of the notice required by the licence agreement. The text of the licence is as follows:
Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
This will likely have two effects. Distributions may decide that it isn't worth their while, and they simply won't promote their products as containing Xfree86, even if they do include XFree86 4.4. Or, they may decide, as Mandrake has done, that XFree86 4.3 is good enough for them and they can wait for freedesktop.org to mature. In either case, I don't see what XFree86 has gained, even relative to their stated goal, since in the first case, they miss out on the free publicity, in the second, their new license doesn't have any effect because it simply turned users away.
I'm not going to run it. Everyone who writes software has a right to decide on their own licence, but everyone also has a right to choose not to use it.
I grew up in Pittsburgh and the airport was designed as an "Airmall" where people waiting for flights or waiting to pick people up would shop and eat. Unlike many airports, the prices are no more than they would be on Main Street. However, all of the shops are on the secure side of the security controls, and so when after 9/11 they changed the rules so that only ticketed passengers could go through security, the shops and restaurants lost half of their customers. Part of the motivation must be, I guess, to help out the restaurants by hoping that passengers will linger for a coffee or a Big Mac while they check their mail before they go to their gates.
I find it strange that someone considers putting Claudia Schiffer on his desktop proper workplace behavior. Maybe it is if you work at a garage, but it's not going to be accepable at any Fortune 500 company. They need to react strongly in order to avoid lawsuits and, frankly, I'm glad they do.
This is my summary of the content of this article:
Back in my day, when we got home from a hard day of making hoopskirts, we were happy enough to use our K6-II 450's to read plain old HTML 4.0.1 and maybe serve some web pages with Apache 1.3 like my granpappy used to do. Now the kids these days, they got their Althon64 and use Mozilla to read XHTML and probably use IMAP to a remote mail store. Won't those kids ever learn that the world was perfect in 1995 and that no improvement can be made on it except maybe by continually patching the same tools and standards that we already have.
I wish that Mozilla development had been finised sooner, but there's no reason for nostagia for Netscape 4.* . Simple fact is that it was not standards-compliant, and from what I am told, it would've been a nightmare to remove all of the well-tuned bits of code that made the behavior non-standard. That's when it makes sense to start from scratch, look at the standards, and implement them.
The authors complaints about speed are unwarranted and conflict with my experience. Mozilla (the suite) is reasonably fast although I have switched to using the individual apps, Firebird and Thunderbird. Both are plenty fast and don't -- in my experience -- have any problems that make them unusable.
More important than this is IBM's motion to compel discovery. SCO claims that they will comply by today, declaring what code they consider to be in violation of their intellectual property. See Groklaw for the details. Of course, we won't see any of this, but IBM will be able to assess whether SCO's claims are a bunch of baloney or not.
How does somebody become a tech pundit? When I use the term, I'm thinking mostly of people like John Dvorak and Robert X. Cringely. I'm sure there are others but those two are certainly the worst offenders. They come out every week and state things that are either completely false or uninformed, make predictions which anyone can figure out will never happen, and advise people to do things which come out of business plans that would've been laughable even in 1999. For this they are considered "visionary." I don't understand why they are taken seriously and why they just won't go away.
>"They tried to scare me," Borrayo said. "They told me,
>'You're a pirate!' I said, 'C'mon, guys, pirates are all at >sea. I just work in a parking lot.' "
Slashdot Mirror
Enterprise Linux AS 3.0 ISO's
You don't get support, but you aren't paying for it.
Here is an article on the event.
Thanks. I was wondering that.
GIMP Mailing List Post
It has dockable windows. This is an announcement for GTK 2.4. I don't know whether GIMP 2.0 will use GTK 2.4.
The button was right there next to the power button, "Turbo". Must've used turbo codes when you pressed it. ;)
Maybe it won't take until 2006 to finish Longhorn, maybe they just need to wait until DRAM prices fall enough that people will be able to afford to run it.
Somehow you are assuming that the Sheriff owned the site. Mr. Richard created the site, and there is no indication in the article that he gave it to the Sheriff. He agreed to operate the site in return for publicity. Your explanation is ridiculous. At best he could be accused of breach of contract, but there is not even a strong case for that. It isn't clear whether publicity really counts as consideration. A better analogy would be one where I offer a service at a certain price and you refuse to buy it at that price. As far as I know, that is still legal. If the Sheriff didn't want to pay, he should build and host his own site.
You can't win in a dispute with a cracker sheriff. Can't wait until he gets tried in front of a cracker judge and cracker jury.
Palo Alto Utilities : $0.061 per KWh.
PG&E : $0.126 per KWh (and up)
The city already offer Dark Fiber Services and is running a trial project for FTTH. It's not clear yet whether Palo Alto could operate FTTH cost-effectively. It depends partly on being able to deliver TV over the fiber, and that means they would need to get channel providers to offer terms which are not substantially worse that what the big boys get.
Makes me laugh though when Conservatives and the Power Companies who support them complain about consumers saving money. How dare they save money!?!
DOS is better than a remote root exploit. When your machine goes down you know you at least know about it.
Are there real exploits do this, i.e. execute code from the code sections? That sounds like it would be really hard if not impossible to do. Someone would need to go through all of the code sections and find exactly the right code in the existing binary, rather than putting in their own code and jumping there.
http://www.trl.ibm.com/projects/security/ssp/
Gentoo-specific info here.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/hardened/propolice.x ml
http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/wlg/1124
Furthermore, he complains earlier about problems with Section 3.c. There is no section 3.c There is a section 4.c which has roughly the provisions which he seems to be talking about.
I'm slightly disappointed. I usually expect better work from Eben Moglen. N.B., I have checked his references against the section numbers in the GPL and they don't refer to sections in the GPL.
But does the fact that the embedded developers are using XFree86 mean that they are claiming, implicitly or explicit, that they wrote the software that they use. No. The inference from "I am distributing this software" to "I wrote this software" is one that doesn't make any sense in a world with software under GPL, LGPL, Artistic, etc.. licences. If I give someone a CD which has a binary for KDE on it, am I claiming that I wrote KDE. The XFree86 team is just missing the point. Completely.
I'm not going to run it. Everyone who writes software has a right to decide on their own licence, but everyone also has a right to choose not to use it.
I grew up in Pittsburgh and the airport was designed as an "Airmall" where people waiting for flights or waiting to pick people up would shop and eat. Unlike many airports, the prices are no more than they would be on Main Street. However, all of the shops are on the secure side of the security controls, and so when after 9/11 they changed the rules so that only ticketed passengers could go through security, the shops and restaurants lost half of their customers. Part of the motivation must be, I guess, to help out the restaurants by hoping that passengers will linger for a coffee or a Big Mac while they check their mail before they go to their gates.
Last I heard, SuSE had made Operating Thetans Level 3, while Red Hat was still in the Purification Rundown.
I find it strange that someone considers putting Claudia Schiffer on his desktop proper workplace behavior. Maybe it is if you work at a garage, but it's not going to be accepable at any Fortune 500 company. They need to react strongly in order to avoid lawsuits and, frankly, I'm glad they do.
The authors complaints about speed are unwarranted and conflict with my experience. Mozilla (the suite) is reasonably fast although I have switched to using the individual apps, Firebird and Thunderbird. Both are plenty fast and don't -- in my experience -- have any problems that make them unusable.
More important than this is IBM's motion to compel discovery. SCO claims that they will comply by today, declaring what code they consider to be in violation of their intellectual property. See Groklaw for the details. Of course, we won't see any of this, but IBM will be able to assess whether SCO's claims are a bunch of baloney or not.
How does somebody become a tech pundit? When I use the term, I'm thinking mostly of people like John Dvorak and Robert X. Cringely. I'm sure there are others but those two are certainly the worst offenders. They come out every week and state things that are either completely false or uninformed, make predictions which anyone can figure out will never happen, and advise people to do things which come out of business plans that would've been laughable even in 1999. For this they are considered "visionary." I don't understand why they are taken seriously and why they just won't go away.
>'You're a pirate!' I said, 'C'mon, guys, pirates are all at
>sea. I just work in a parking lot.' "
What a great line!