In my experience rigid fundamentalism and hypocrisy generally go hand-in-hand.
So basically if Stallman said that everything should be treated the same, he'd be a fundamentalist, and if he said that different things should be treated differently, he'd be a hypocrite. Hard to win that one.
Stallman is inconsistent here. How can a game script be considered different from code?
Ok, you find Stallman to be inconsistent. I find it rather uninteresting whether he is consistent or not. What is more interesting is this: Do you think that game scripts should be allowed to be kept proprietary?
The tube of typical monitor contains 4-8 lbs of lead.
Yes I knew that much. But as far as I am aware, lead glass is stable and does not leak lead into the environment. Incidentally, you can get unleaded crystal with chalk instead -- "Bohemian Crystal".
If oil became significantly more expensive, you'd insulate your house and/or switch to better fuels (wood would be the obvious choice, since it is available in cheap forms which are easy to handle.)
1000l of oil consumed in a month for a single home is ridiculous anyway.
Eratosthenes does not seem particularly stupid to me, and he lived more than 2000 years ago.
There are many many ways to discover that the Earth is round. If anyone thought it was flat they were either stupid or deliberately misguided (or blind or they spent their lives at the bottom of deep valleys perhaps).
The GPL is usually considered to not apply to internal distribution. MySQL thinks differently. What the courts think will be very interesting to find out.
There used to be stuff to learn from Solaris, for sure. But now, when Linux scales to 512 CPUs (and soon 1024) with a single system image, and Solaris is stuck at less than 256? Solaris is fine for a commercial Unix and it's by far the commercial Unix with most software available. It's just not very innovative anymore.
Linus once in a while says something definitive that makes people rush out to do hard work and prove him wrong. In this case he'll probably be drowned in detailed studies of what Solaris does better, and perhaps even code for Linux with some of the improvements. Assuming that Solaris does anything better of course.
You can do offline attacks on the shared private key with WPA-PSK, if you just sniff the key exchange. I would be surprised if you change your shared private key every 60 minutes. That would be an awful lot of work.
If you have automatic server authentication (which is often fairly easy to do with certificates or simply stored keys a la ssh) then you can avoid man-in-the-middle.
Heh, I love the fact that they mention 40-bit RSA. 40-bit symmetric could be sort of used back in the 80's. With 40-bit RSA it's faster to break the encryption than to type in the key.
You could also display the EULA in a readable way. But perhaps I'm forgetting all those sites which show text in tiny windows ALL UPPERCASE in order to make it easier for their viewers.
Once they change your system, it is not legal to downgrade to the previous system.
I am fairly sure you are wrong about this one. Note the beginning: To use a Product identified as an upgrade[...]. This only applies if you bought an upgrade version of some product. Then you can't use both the old product and the new product, and you can't decide later that you want to go back.
I feel fairly confident that I could make a court agree that this section doesn't apply to stuff I bought which doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere, even if there are later service packs made available for free (or hotfixes installed without my knowledge).
I write an application called QTRedReader run-time linking against the GPL version of QT, I sell my application as a closed source product without the QT libraries, so you have to download and install QT from trolltech to use it.
I can't do this under the terms of the GPL, even though I am not 'copying' the original product.
The GPL tries to restrict you, but the restriction will only work if copyright law allows you to make that restriction. There are different views of whether copyright allows that restriction, but the FSF believes that it does. If copyright doesn't allow that restriction, that doesn't suddenly turn the GPL into a EULA, it simply means the restriction isn't there after all.
Interfaces are a matter of fact and not copyrightable.
In a sane world you are right, for sure. Whether the world is sane is up for debate.
There's no point in signed executables when you don't trust the certificate hierarchy. Take a look at the trusted root certificates in your favourite browser. Consider how many of those you have actually heard of. Consider how many of those you have both heard of and trust.
Mirrors are a *good* thing. The only thing that should possibly be changed is that links to mirrors should all have.mozilla.org in the name (for example sg-depaul.mirror-firefox.mozilla.org).
Putting mozilla.org in the name would create the appearance of more security without actually adding any. I prefer that it is clear that the sites are not controlled by the Mozilla organization.
Slashdot Mirror
The game engine for Doom 3 is Free Software? Where can I get it?
So basically if Stallman said that everything should be treated the same, he'd be a fundamentalist, and if he said that different things should be treated differently, he'd be a hypocrite. Hard to win that one.
Ok, you find Stallman to be inconsistent. I find it rather uninteresting whether he is consistent or not. What is more interesting is this: Do you think that game scripts should be allowed to be kept proprietary?
So basically you're blaming Richard Stallman for not being a rigid fundamentalist? That's new.
Yes I knew that much. But as far as I am aware, lead glass is stable and does not leak lead into the environment. Incidentally, you can get unleaded crystal with chalk instead -- "Bohemian Crystal".
Not around here. Lead is not allowed in projectiles.
Lead encased in computer monitor glass is a huge crisis
I have not heard anything about that. As far as I know putting lead into glass is a pretty good way of disposing of it.
If oil became significantly more expensive, you'd insulate your house and/or switch to better fuels (wood would be the obvious choice, since it is available in cheap forms which are easy to handle.) 1000l of oil consumed in a month for a single home is ridiculous anyway.
There are many many ways to discover that the Earth is round. If anyone thought it was flat they were either stupid or deliberately misguided (or blind or they spent their lives at the bottom of deep valleys perhaps).
The GPL is usually considered to not apply to internal distribution. MySQL thinks differently. What the courts think will be very interesting to find out.
Who would write the drivers? Look at Darwin. They aren't drowning in contributed device driver as far as I can tell.
His wife was karate champion of Finland six times. If she wants him grounded, he stays grounded.
There used to be stuff to learn from Solaris, for sure. But now, when Linux scales to 512 CPUs (and soon 1024) with a single system image, and Solaris is stuck at less than 256? Solaris is fine for a commercial Unix and it's by far the commercial Unix with most software available. It's just not very innovative anymore.
Linus once in a while says something definitive that makes people rush out to do hard work and prove him wrong. In this case he'll probably be drowned in detailed studies of what Solaris does better, and perhaps even code for Linux with some of the improvements. Assuming that Solaris does anything better of course.
WPA-PEAP requires a Radius-server, right? I'm concerned about WPA-PSK; once Radius is in the picture you can do proper one-time passwords if you want.
You can do offline attacks on the shared private key with WPA-PSK, if you just sniff the key exchange. I would be surprised if you change your shared private key every 60 minutes. That would be an awful lot of work.
If you have automatic server authentication (which is often fairly easy to do with certificates or simply stored keys a la ssh) then you can avoid man-in-the-middle.
Heh, I love the fact that they mention 40-bit RSA. 40-bit symmetric could be sort of used back in the 80's. With 40-bit RSA it's faster to break the encryption than to type in the key.
But the good ones only allow online dictionary attacts. LEAP, PPTP, WEP, and unfortunately WPA all allow offline attacks.
You could also display the EULA in a readable way. But perhaps I'm forgetting all those sites which show text in tiny windows ALL UPPERCASE in order to make it easier for their viewers.
And on the site, the EULA will be displayed in a window 3 words wide, 2 lines high, ALL UPPER CASE.
I am fairly sure you are wrong about this one. Note the beginning: To use a Product identified as an upgrade[...]. This only applies if you bought an upgrade version of some product. Then you can't use both the old product and the new product, and you can't decide later that you want to go back.
I feel fairly confident that I could make a court agree that this section doesn't apply to stuff I bought which doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere, even if there are later service packs made available for free (or hotfixes installed without my knowledge).
I can't do this under the terms of the GPL, even though I am not 'copying' the original product.
The GPL tries to restrict you, but the restriction will only work if copyright law allows you to make that restriction. There are different views of whether copyright allows that restriction, but the FSF believes that it does. If copyright doesn't allow that restriction, that doesn't suddenly turn the GPL into a EULA, it simply means the restriction isn't there after all.
Interfaces are a matter of fact and not copyrightable.
In a sane world you are right, for sure. Whether the world is sane is up for debate.
What's bizarre except the fact that you just keep writing jokes which aren't funny? Those moderations seem entirely fair to me.
There's no point in signed executables when you don't trust the certificate hierarchy. Take a look at the trusted root certificates in your favourite browser. Consider how many of those you have actually heard of. Consider how many of those you have both heard of and trust.
Putting mozilla.org in the name would create the appearance of more security without actually adding any. I prefer that it is clear that the sites are not controlled by the Mozilla organization.