It can indeed run in the users home directory, but it can't affect system wide settings.
Why would it want to? it doesn't need to affect system settings to scan your evolution/thunderbird/kmail settings for your ISP's smtp server, start listening on a TCP port (above 1000), or connect to an IRC channel and then wait for the orders to start spamming. It probably doesn't even need root to start keylogging.
The worst it can do is destroy a users data.
Which is also the worst it can do as root - except as root it can do it to multiple users. Reinstalling the operating system is a pain, but not disastrous. Losing all your data is devastating. How many of the sorts of users that are prone to running random executables do you think have an effective backup regime?
But having said that, losing all your data or destroying your computer is not what modern malware does - that would make people notice it. Instead it's either going to be sending spam, or trying to grab your passwords. (which are probably nicely stored in places like ~/.mozilla/profile/ with only simple encryption). Neither of those require root.
On Vista, it asks for privilege escalation and you...
...accept it because in its current implementation there's no way to know exactly what its wanting to do, and escalation is required too often by too many important programs for this innocuous one to raise any eyebrows. (Software firewalls fail in this way too).
I like the idea of UAC, and I think it's a good move if implemented properly, but I ended up turning it off. Not because of the "allow or deny" dialogues - which were a little annoying, but only a little bit - you knew when you were going to face them. The reason I turned it off is because stuff just didn't work. There were programs that either wouldn't run, or wouldn't install properly with it on. Sure, that means it's probably the fault of the developers of those programs, not Microsoft's - but it doesn't change the fact that I had to turn it off to use my computer they way I wanted to. Not using those programs isn't an option, because I just don't care enough - I just wanted to get on with what I was doing, and had already lost enough hours figuring out it was UAC causing the problem. So now I leave it off so that there's one less potential cause of frustration in the future.
The person you're replying to also wasn't saying that Homosexuality _was_ fine. Just that it _was_ a natural thing.
The problem is you've confused the two things in your mind. Whether or not something is "natural" is completely unrelated to whether or not it is acceptable.
Cayene8's original statement was that people found it offensive because it wasn't natural. However, it _is_ natural so if that's the only thing those people have against it, then they are wrong, and need to reconsider their position.
The more honest answer is "people consider it offensive because they are offended by anything different". And that is _their_ problem.
AFK instead of IRL does kind of make some sense though. It used to be that talking to someone online was such a novel concept that there was a distinction between online and "real life".
Using AFK to mean what IRL did seems to be evidence that people now acknowledge that talking to someone online is no different to talking to them on a telephone - it's a real conversation, being had in the real world between two real people. So to meet offline would be to merely meet Away From the Keyboard, rather than In Real Life.
Would you say the same thing about, say, Debian's apt-get and friends?
No, because they are done correctly.
if CPAN is to be likened to apt, then it's like using Debian Experimental all the time with no option to switch to Unstable, Testing or Stable - or to switch to a particular numbered release and stay there, only getting bugfixes. It's latest bleeding mess or nothing.
CPAN _was_ an excellent thing - in 1997. Now, the GP is exactly right - it's a mess.
You absolutely need to install the latest perl before you use it - because the perl (or the modules installed with it) installed with your OS is always too old for any particular module you want to install, and even then you have a chance that the module you want is either broken, or depends on a currently broken module.
CPAN is the heart of perl, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. It seriously needs fixing.
The Windows 7 beta has been out for so long now that this is not early anything. The "article" is a joke. Baseless, unsubstantiated claims from someone no one has ever heard of do not make any sort of article.
The Greens don't want anything to do with it. Those senators are only relevant in the case where the Greens are on side and the Coalition is against.
Also, Xenephon won't get his gambling filtered. If the government added that they'd risk having even their own members crossing the floor. Maybe he might still vote for it even without gambling added, but it still doesn't matter without the Greens.
This filter is definitely a bad idea, and we definitely need to protest it, and keep up the pressure until it's finally buried - as it's never a good idea to let stupidity like this go under the radar. But the thought of it having even the remotest chance of passing is laughable.
Sensationalist defeatist pessimism will only hurt the cause.
uh, no it hasn't. The trial will begin when the ISPs have got the equipment, and Conroy's announcement didn't say how soon that would be. Not only that, but unless you've read the article, there's an excellent chance that you're not using one of the ISPs taking part.
I'm doing it to prove that, one day, someone tougher than me will come along and make me pay for it, but for now I will continue punching you in the face.
In this case, iiNet, and its customers are that someone, and they'll punch you right back.
iiNet want to show that they're tougher than Mr. Conroy, and boycotting them takes some of their power away.
The trial will happen, it may even get extended, but the filter itself will never happen. It will never get through parliament, and even Conroy himself isn't actually saying the filter is a certainty - just that the trial is.
Users aren't the target market of any operating system. The point of an operating system is to provide a convienient programming environment to make a computer do stuff. It's the kernel plus a set of APIs and frameworks.
The parts a user care about are the programs written on top of that operating system.
So when introducing a concept for a new operating system, it makes no sense to hype it up to users until you have the developers on side. In fact, it never makes sense to hype it up to users, save the hype for the flashy user interface that one of the developers will have to write.
The only real problem with this guy's concept is that he's effectively going to rewrite the concept of a Smalltalk Image in Java.
If you read his FAQ, every point can be answered by Smalltalk. (And could be 30 years ago). Unfortunately I have a feeling he's never seen Smalltalk, so he's going to re-implement it poorly.
Actually, that's described popular music for the last 250 years, ever since keyboards became popular in middle class homes. Ordinary people can't play complicated music and sing at the same time, therefore the early music publishing business made its money by encouraging simple single line melodies with a very basic left hand accompaniment. After J.S. Bach's time, music simplified significantly, and even musicians such as Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt "sold out" by publishing the simple stuff that the publishers to pay the bills while they wrote their more serious stuff. (Liszt is particularly interesting - he was a pop star in every sense of the word, from hordes of screaming women, to destroying instruments on stage - though he had the sense to quit while he was ahead, and retired into the background before piano virtuosos went out of fashion).
There's really nothing new in the music industry, it sunk to its lowest point five minutes after it was created - as with every other commercial enterprise - everything since then is just more crawling along the bottom.
Do people not realize that the city of Washington D.C. has a government which is distinct from that of the Federal Government?
If it's anything like the situation in Australia with Canberra, then probably not.
No matter how many times I see "Canberra said," or "Canberra will do X" in Sydney or Melbourne papers, I still go through a brief moment of "WTF does Canberra have to do with it?" or "Why is the ACT Chief Minister making foreign policy decisions?" before it ocurrs to me that they really meant: "The Commonwealth Government"
No he has it perfectly correct. Your statement is also correct, but they can both be true.
Yes, if there were no software patents then there would be no software patent trolls. There are, however, software patents, so Microsoft and other companies have to take out software patents to protect themselves from the resulting trolls.
How is _any_ user supposed to know any of those details?
By reading the welcome document their ISP provides. The only part of that they couldn't be expected to know, is the gnome-ppp part.
And the GP was talking about 3G, so in that case none of it is required anyway. Ubuntu detects it, pops up a notification saying it's detected it, and clicks you through a simple wizard consisting of no more complicated questions than "what country are you in, who is your provider?".
but he would not be receiving 100k a year from individuals that were happy with his work.
Quite a few of the core kernel developers actually _are_ paid to work on the kernel these days. Whether or not the end users pay for it has nothing to do with whether or not the developers get paid.
In addition, if this test case has come from the community, then it would _never have happened_ if the kernel was not an open source project.
That's further than the Australian ISP level filtering has got - that hasn't even been put before parliament yet. But do you think that stops slashdotters from assuming that Australians are already living under an oppressive, heavily censored dictatorship?
Re:I'm not a copyright lawyer
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
....and distribute it with your binary.
Merely linking to a library at runtime is not creating a derivative work.
Slashdot Mirror
It can indeed run in the users home directory, but it can't affect system wide settings.
Why would it want to? it doesn't need to affect system settings to scan your evolution/thunderbird/kmail settings for your ISP's smtp server, start listening on a TCP port (above 1000), or connect to an IRC channel and then wait for the orders to start spamming. It probably doesn't even need root to start keylogging.
The worst it can do is destroy a users data.
Which is also the worst it can do as root - except as root it can do it to multiple users.
Reinstalling the operating system is a pain, but not disastrous.
Losing all your data is devastating.
How many of the sorts of users that are prone to running random executables do you think have an effective backup regime?
But having said that, losing all your data or destroying your computer is not what modern malware does - that would make people notice it. Instead it's either going to be sending spam, or trying to grab your passwords. (which are probably nicely stored in places like ~/.mozilla/profile/ with only simple encryption). Neither of those require root.
On Vista, it asks for privilege escalation and you...
...accept it because in its current implementation there's no way to know exactly what its wanting to do, and escalation is required too often by too many important programs for this innocuous one to raise any eyebrows. (Software firewalls fail in this way too).
I like the idea of UAC, and I think it's a good move if implemented properly, but I ended up turning it off.
Not because of the "allow or deny" dialogues - which were a little annoying, but only a little bit - you knew when you were going to face them. The reason I turned it off is because stuff just didn't work.
There were programs that either wouldn't run, or wouldn't install properly with it on.
Sure, that means it's probably the fault of the developers of those programs, not Microsoft's - but it doesn't change the fact that I had to turn it off to use my computer they way I wanted to.
Not using those programs isn't an option, because I just don't care enough - I just wanted to get on with what I was doing, and had already lost enough hours figuring out it was UAC causing the problem.
So now I leave it off so that there's one less potential cause of frustration in the future.
it existed because someone _created it_.
It didn't exist as a natural phenomenon.
and Unisys and HP have done it too, for just as long.
I think the original poster has a confused idea of exactly what a mainframe is.
Duke Nuke'm Forever.
That's just crazy talk!
The person you're replying to also wasn't saying that Homosexuality _was_ fine. Just that it _was_ a natural thing.
The problem is you've confused the two things in your mind.
Whether or not something is "natural" is completely unrelated to whether or not it is acceptable.
Cayene8's original statement was that people found it offensive because it wasn't natural.
However, it _is_ natural so if that's the only thing those people have against it, then they are wrong, and need to reconsider their position.
The more honest answer is "people consider it offensive because they are offended by anything different".
And that is _their_ problem.
AFK instead of IRL does kind of make some sense though.
It used to be that talking to someone online was such a novel concept that there was a distinction between online and "real life".
Using AFK to mean what IRL did seems to be evidence that people now acknowledge that talking to someone online is no different to talking to them on a telephone - it's a real conversation, being had in the real world between two real people. So to meet offline would be to merely meet Away From the Keyboard, rather than In Real Life.
Would you say the same thing about, say, Debian's apt-get and friends?
No, because they are done correctly.
if CPAN is to be likened to apt, then it's like using Debian Experimental all the time with no option to switch to Unstable, Testing or Stable - or to switch to a particular numbered release and stay there, only getting bugfixes.
It's latest bleeding mess or nothing.
CPAN _was_ an excellent thing - in 1997.
Now, the GP is exactly right - it's a mess.
You absolutely need to install the latest perl before you use it - because the perl (or the modules installed with it) installed with your OS is always too old for any particular module you want to install, and even then you have a chance that the module you want is either broken, or depends on a currently broken module.
CPAN is the heart of perl, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. It seriously needs fixing.
The Windows 7 beta has been out for so long now that this is not early anything. The "article" is a joke. Baseless, unsubstantiated claims from someone no one has ever heard of do not make any sort of article.
The Greens don't want anything to do with it. Those senators are only relevant in the case where the Greens are on side and the Coalition is against.
Also, Xenephon won't get his gambling filtered. If the government added that they'd risk having even their own members crossing the floor. Maybe he might still vote for it even without gambling added, but it still doesn't matter without the Greens.
This filter is definitely a bad idea, and we definitely need to protest it, and keep up the pressure until it's finally buried - as it's never a good idea to let stupidity like this go under the radar. But the thought of it having even the remotest chance of passing is laughable.
Sensationalist defeatist pessimism will only hurt the cause.
uh, no it hasn't.
The trial will begin when the ISPs have got the equipment, and Conroy's announcement didn't say how soon that would be. Not only that, but unless you've read the article, there's an excellent chance that you're not using one of the ISPs taking part.
I'm doing it to prove that, one day, someone tougher than me will come along and make me pay for it, but for now I will continue punching you in the face.
In this case, iiNet, and its customers are that someone, and they'll punch you right back.
iiNet want to show that they're tougher than Mr. Conroy, and boycotting them takes some of their power away.
Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?
All of them.
The trial will happen, it may even get extended, but the filter itself will never happen.
It will never get through parliament, and even Conroy himself isn't actually saying the filter is a certainty - just that the trial is.
And how exactly do you get developers on side before the users?
Linus didn't release a full user desktop in 1991, yet somehow developers developed for it.
Developers _like_ programming as a rule, and new and interesting platforms on which to develop excite and interest them.
Users aren't the target market of any operating system.
The point of an operating system is to provide a convienient programming environment to make a computer do stuff. It's the kernel plus a set of APIs and frameworks.
The parts a user care about are the programs written on top of that operating system.
So when introducing a concept for a new operating system, it makes no sense to hype it up to users until you have the developers on side. In fact, it never makes sense to hype it up to users, save the hype for the flashy user interface that one of the developers will have to write.
The only real problem with this guy's concept is that he's effectively going to rewrite the concept of a Smalltalk Image in Java.
If you read his FAQ, every point can be answered by Smalltalk. (And could be 30 years ago).
Unfortunately I have a feeling he's never seen Smalltalk, so he's going to re-implement it poorly.
Actually, that's described popular music for the last 250 years, ever since keyboards became popular in middle class homes. Ordinary people can't play complicated music and sing at the same time, therefore the early music publishing business made its money by encouraging simple single line melodies with a very basic left hand accompaniment.
After J.S. Bach's time, music simplified significantly, and even musicians such as Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt "sold out" by publishing the simple stuff that the publishers to pay the bills while they wrote their more serious stuff.
(Liszt is particularly interesting - he was a pop star in every sense of the word, from hordes of screaming women, to destroying instruments on stage - though he had the sense to quit while he was ahead, and retired into the background before piano virtuosos went out of fashion).
There's really nothing new in the music industry, it sunk to its lowest point five minutes after it was created - as with every other commercial enterprise - everything since then is just more crawling along the bottom.
You mean like the recording industry?
Do people not realize that the city of Washington D.C. has a government which is distinct from that of the Federal Government?
If it's anything like the situation in Australia with Canberra, then probably not.
No matter how many times I see "Canberra said," or "Canberra will do X" in Sydney or Melbourne papers, I still go through a brief moment of "WTF does Canberra have to do with it?" or "Why is the ACT Chief Minister making foreign policy decisions?" before it ocurrs to me that they really meant: "The Commonwealth Government"
No he has it perfectly correct.
Your statement is also correct, but they can both be true.
Yes, if there were no software patents then there would be no software patent trolls. There are, however, software patents, so Microsoft and other companies have to take out software patents to protect themselves from the resulting trolls.
How is _any_ user supposed to know any of those details?
By reading the welcome document their ISP provides.
The only part of that they couldn't be expected to know, is the gnome-ppp part.
And the GP was talking about 3G, so in that case none of it is required anyway. Ubuntu detects it, pops up a notification saying it's detected it, and clicks you through a simple wizard consisting of no more complicated questions than "what country are you in, who is your provider?".
but he would not be receiving 100k a year from individuals that were happy with his work.
Quite a few of the core kernel developers actually _are_ paid to work on the kernel these days.
Whether or not the end users pay for it has nothing to do with whether or not the developers get paid.
In addition, if this test case has come from the community, then it would _never have happened_ if the kernel was not an open source project.
That's further than the Australian ISP level filtering has got - that hasn't even been put before parliament yet. But do you think that stops slashdotters from assuming that Australians are already living under an oppressive, heavily censored dictatorship?
....and distribute it with your binary.
Merely linking to a library at runtime is not creating a derivative work.