("Free Software" (with a capital F) is used solely with the gpl)
Heh. Thats new to me, and i think its BS. Free software is simply the definition put by the FSF. Free software doesn't equal the GPL. The GPL is an example of a free software license (FSF's definition). This fact can simply be proven by going to the Gnu.Org website. There the FSF states a number of licenses which are GPL-compatible and which are GPL-incompatible; those which are GPL-incompatible may or may not be free software -- some indeed are free software.
People generally use Capitals to show something is of Importance to them. For example, President of Germany, Queen of England, Your Rights are screwed -- etcetera. I generally don't follow these (written or unwritten) rules myself, except by definition for names (of people and places, not titles) and when i start a new sentence. I'm certainly not gonna do it with 'Free Software', implying that when i use 'Free Software' i mean the GPL alone and when i use 'free software' i mean... FSF's definition of free software -- quite idiotic IMO.
Open source software, and free software *depend* on copyright. Yes, depend on it.
Not by definition. Source code ('software') can be open source and / or free software *and* public domain; public domain means its *not* copyrighted.
Open source software, and free software *depend* on copyright. Yes, depend on it. Without copyright, then anyone could take the code, including large corporations, and modify it for their own interest, and sell it without releasing the source code. Basically, it'd defeat the point of the difference between "free", and "Free".
Regarding 'depend on it'. The GPL (and LGPL) depends more on it than say the BSD license (orginal or revised), MIT (or X11). There's some chances developers who use the BSD license (or any license i named after that one) wouldn't mind their software be public domain whereas the GPL tries to prevent the code to be liberal in the sense of being public domain, or similar (with the same rights, almost or ~ the same rights as PD source code).
Long message short: Open source software and / or free software != GPL by definition. There are licenses which allow: Without copyright, then anyone could take the code, including large corporations, and modify it for their own interest, and sell it without releasing the source code. but still are defined as open source and / or free software! Examples: BSD licensed (original, revised), MIT (aka X11), or (although not licensed at all, since there's no copyright claimed on it) simply public domain source code.
Re:Doctorate, schmoctorate...
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
IRCnet, popular at Europeans mostly, is quite useful these days. IPv4 and IPv6, not much netsplits, takeovers are more or less solved (during split one cannot receive chanmode +o). Even though they still are possible, you just have to put up a small but stable botnet, or actually make the channel +s, which you'd probably want anyway if you're running a community. If you know nice people, you invite them instead, and people who are interested know how to find you anyway.
Wether you're at IRC network X or Y doesn't matter when your community uses +s, except when you join multiple communities on the same IRC network. That's exactly what i'm doing, and with 3 IRC networks (2 big ones, 1 small) i don't feel the need to join another small one just for the sake of 'yet another community'. Exactly the reason why i'm not on e.g. irc.mozilla.org even though i loved the atmosphere on #firefox and other channels (very helpful crowd and informative chats).
That said, i never have a problem with IRCnet opers or admins. When i compare that with other, smaller IRC networks i'm not really satisfied with the way they handle their powers... at least, that's my experience on these networks.
eXeem is far from a succesor to the 'largest BitTorrent site on the Internet'.
First of all, i challenge the notion 'largest BitTorrent site on the Internet'. I think there are other websites which generate a lot of BitTorrent traffic albeit closed communities, or only counting original content (own trackers, or initialized for *that* community), or only counting legal content (e.g. lossless audio).
That aside, its only a beta as we speak. With only like, 200 active test persons from what i read in this thread. At least, nothing near the original counts of Suprnova.org.
Suprnova.org was build on the open source, MIT licensed BitTorrent technology which was open and fully specified. It ran because of donations (money, servers, bandwidth) and ads on the website. BitTorrent ran on a Solaris machine through Python. BitTorrent ran on an IRIX machine through Python. BitTorrent ran on Windows using Java. C clients were available (i know -- i ran all on previously mentioned platforms except the C implementations, those on Linux only). BitTorrent was (and still is) *very* portable.
Compare that to eXeem which only runs on Windows and through WINE ("runs on Linux Slashdot? Yeah right. Not using my shell, and not on my SPARC for sure!) and is nothing of a succesor at all in the sense that its from the same developers. The corporation behind eXeem, who are trying to earn money through spyware/adware and tight-controlled proprietary software, are merely lifting on the popularity of Suprnova.org.
Its a piece of junk. About the only thing i might come up with, is that its convenient to use and more decentralized than BitTorrent; its not anonymous though, nor does this mean other initiatives can't catch up regarding convenience. So i'd say: case closed. Next! -- Next indeed; instead of reporting on eXeem, Slashdot would do good by ignoring the piece of junk instead. There are a number of much more _innovative_, _radical_, _interesting_ and _open_ initiatives developed as we speak. For example, there's one which tries to be more scalable than BitTorrent is, but its also open and allows the metadata to be transfered in a FTP-like way (using URI scheme's users may chose). There's also a new layer between those 'ride' server-programs and the 'tracker'.
A native binary is indeed something way different than just the fact its running under WINE and Linux != Linux/x86. And lets be honest: if you were running FreeBSD/x86 you'd rather have a native x86 binary for Linux than a Windows binary you'd run through WINE. Besides, BitTorrent ran just fine in Bash. Try that with Exeem...
They have the source, they can compile it under *NIX. Or they could give the community the source, to port it, or to understand the protocol and eventually writing an own implementation... but thats not what they want. They want to issue control. The spyware will be get rid of by the smarter users. The clueless ones won't run the Lite version just like with KaZaA. Just like with KaZaA and other proprietary protocols, it'll be reverse engineered.
Its not from Suprnova either. The Suprnova guys got paid by this corporation to basically sell their popularity to this 'new' technology. I hope it won't get popular though. Why not? Because 1) its tightly controlled / closed technology / adware, spyware 2) its not really revolutionary nor doesn't solve the anonomity problem; its just more decentralized in an easy manner 3) because they use Suprnova.org's name. Call me a wanker, but i oppose such abusive way of 'lifting' on someone else his popularity.
A very broad, wide and wildly interpretable detail of the statement indeed. AKA lawyer-speak or marketing-speak -- both not adored by techies.
However if you look at who wrote the article to which OSDL replies (the troll / FUDster / fisher known as `Maureen O'Gara') i'd say any detail in reply to her is unnecessary for that'd give credit to her fishing expeditions and related noise.
A broad statement as backfire is much more effective, although both HER as well as OSDLs statement are not news for any credible news organisation. Ie. don't feed the trolls, report real news, etcetera. The problem lies with those who reported about HER 'news' though because that started the misinformation problem in the first place.
Heh, well. I've yet to meet a anti-GM activist who's opposed to science in general. There's not one single person i mett (and i know a few) who's some kind of unabomber person. Most are quite into politics one way or another though.
As for your actual statement. Lets say you're a farmer and you have 5 fields of different vegetables. Naturally, you work hard for your money and then some research project is started near 1 of your fields. One of your fields becomes 'infected' with the GM seeds. What are your choices in your situation? 1) Keep it silent and sell it differently than it is given its now GM (it should IMO be obligated to label GM food as it is. It ought to be a right to be able to know what you eat as consumer). 2) Torch the field and start over which means money loss and/or the possibility you can't use the field anymore at all because its near a GM field. The possibility of 'infection' is always there though (wind, water, humans), its just less likely when the GM field is futher away. There's no alternative to 1 or 2 which doesn't involve a lot of money ('moving away' could be one, but thats expensive).
Is such situation likely right now? Given there's no widespread GM, not yet. But one should be warry to such situations, they're theories to evade for sure.
and they happen to start growing on my land with no help from me...
That's how it works with patented GM food. Even though seeds are spreaded by wind, water, humans (e.g. shoes). Those GM seeds 'infect' non-GM and the non-GM food becomes GM for a % of X. Its not natural anymore, but also now contains the patented GM parts.
People have been warning for this since Ages, but alas. Even Slashdotters were pro-GM in GM threads, but now you all see the Evil theory yourself... and people who actually fight against this, such as anti-GM activists, are 'criminals'... yeah right.
GTK+ != QT. QT is a lot more. It would be more accurate to say: Glib + GTK+ + Pango is similar to QT whereas Pango is one of the many options for rendering (others include e.g. Cairo). The problem is that Pango is slow. Oh and Python + GTK2 (PyGTK using Pango) applications are horrible slow...
Computer Techniek (C'T), a respected German magazine , also did a similar test.
From my memory they had a professional panel of 12, diverse audiophiles and the outcome was IIRC as follows: * 128 kbit CBR was easily distinguishable. * 192 kbit CBR was not distinguishable except by 1 or 2 persons. * 256 kbit CBR was not distinguishable.
However.
The other day i downloaded a lossless track of a band called 'Morcheeba' (ambient/triphopish) with the name 'Shoulder Holster' and i converted it to OGG Vorbis -q 7. I swear to you, that on my simple SB Live! with computer speakers and simple headphones, the start sounded *fucked up*. It starts very quiet, then builds up louder, but OGG Vorbis just wastes the sound when it is _very_ quiet. If i just listen it, its not a big deal, but when i compare it and really aim to care then this is horrible!
No! We haven't waiting a while for Exeem. At least, i haven't.
Exeem is: * Adware/commercial. * Proprietary, Windows-only. * It has nothing to do with Suprnova.org. The people behind Exeem just use Suprnova.org as part of their advertising by saying Exeem is a follow-up to Spurnova.org. It is not, however.
Give me equal or better software than this without adware, and with a honest developer behind it, and i'm over to that.
Excuse me, but thats about what an old O2 is worth these days. I would actually give $50 for an O2 (R5000). Unless it has a QED, that is, but its still freakin' slow.
Sorry for going OT but i've always wondered 1) wether thats correct English 2) what it exactly means. I mean when it woud say: "Why? Big Blue, of ofcourse." i'd understand the logics behind it, NP. However i've never seen it with that , and that makes me wondering wether i have the correct meaning of it.
That's what i were thinking. You would think that they'd actually make their case more versatile than the standard cases. Perhaps they don't have to do much maintenance. I've seen lego casemods earlier and i'm not easily impressed with such things. Neither with this one. If it would have something special, like making a very easy maintainable server then i'd be interested or impressed.
Anyway, this one was funny: http://members.cox.net/richw/4-2.jpg is it just me or does it say SCO?
If it's not supposed to be a discussion forum, then why does every news article have a "add your comments" link to it?
Not sure who uses that wording, but i advise the one who uses that wording to change and/or specify it more clearly. It really depends on the Indymedia. Some Indymedia's have this in their policy that only information in the form of contributions may be added, not comments or opinions, because there are other places where thats possible already. I'm a contributor to a local, non-English Indymedia and i'm sure as hell our policy and language is clear on this issue. Trolls, ofcourse, don't really care for it... those are also the whiners who actually state their 'opinions are censored' -- which happens with every 'opinion'.
Why are my news submissions, even the good ones, never accepted?
Can't really speak for every Indymedia here but i'm quite sure that (except for one IMC) news is almost never deleted unless its really not according to the policy. Even then its most of the times open trash, publicly viewable.
You only go there when you want to hear people support your own positions.
Strange that you seem to know why every visitor of Indymedia goes to Indymedia? I go to Indymedia for mainly 3 reasons which are 1) Information 2) Action news 3) Ongoing actions in future. Case in point 1: the info is not covered by regular media. Case in point 2: the info is not covered by regular media. Case in point 3: the info is not covered by regular media. As for opinions, i'm not really interested in those. If i want opinions i go to a bar or become interviewer.
I agree with that viewpoint I'm not trying to say this example is a trend or something but i decided to surf around at the Wikinews beta project to search for a news item which i know a bit of background on.
Little bit later i stumbled upon Pinochet arrested after Supreme Court ruling and i read the article. What striked me was the following sentence: The crimes where a part of "Operation Condor," an attempt to supress opposition to the government. The dictator ruled from a 1973 coup, overthrowing the elected socialist Salvador Allende, until 1990.
This statement is true, but not accurate. Its not news either, its background information for the uninformed reader. From here, the power of Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) could be used to link to history but the nice thing is that this is the Internet and that websites and Wiki's can easily 'connect' to each other. That'd be a good way IMO. Because now it misses all the facts of the CIA which were involved in this coup and who have blood on their hands, which is regulary censored or evaded (comes down to the same). I verified, and yes the wikipedia entry for Salvador Allende contains some information on this piece of history of Chille.
I'd like to know why they don't link to the encyclopedia for background information...
And why on earth do you think that they should give you answers to your doubts in THAT text file?
Simple: I consider that part of the research. I consider it part of fill disclosure. Do A, do B. If not then no A+ but B-. This smells blackhatish.
In full-cisclosure they were accussed of not wanting to be "full disclosure" because they asked people not to release exploits for the vulnerabilities for a couple of weeks (the fix was already available, they was asking to give time to users to upgrade)
So? There's no corelation. If there was a Solution (preferably theoretical and practical) then i'd have no problems with the question of wether there's an Exploit, or not. I'd prefer the Exploit to come out after the Solution though.
[...] since for most uses getting access to a user account is already more then enough to cause serious damage. I can use up all the machines CPU and might even be able to crash it[1], I can delete the users files, I can send spam mails, I can spy and crack passwords (yppasswd), etc. no need to become root for any of those.
You can do that when you have SSH access on your friend's desktop/server/router Linux computer residing in his mother's basement on a so-called broadband connection. A computer which is seriously configured and on which users have (shell) access to do Real work, you won't be able to do several or all of the above and even if you were able to do it then your account would be suspended and/or you'd be in trouble quite quickly.
For example, its easy to restrict outgoing connections or more specific restrict outgoing connections to any IP port 25. Actually, who says you're allowed to start a connection to anything? You assume you can use the computer to connect to 'the Internet' but perhaps it only accepts SSH to connect to it and HTTP to connect from it (either by root on that computer or some higher power). Or that and a connection to the corporation's SMTP server (which may or may not use a NIDS as well, which may or may not even detect wether you're spamming or so). Its easy to use something like SGI's CSA to restrict a user on a computer. Deleting a user's files is a laughable one. Anyone who takes himself seriously creates backups. Finally, YP is legacy. Really, the point is that home computers are of little concern and a majority but in serious environment you'll have to try better and there this matters.
Really? I'm not so sure on their way of acting in this one. I was looking in the text file and didn't find anything which said: "Linux kernel maintainers have been contacted" or "Workaround is X" or "Patch is under way". Nothing. Only about the problem but not about anything related to the solution. Since it seems like they're releasing a half-baked advisory with exploit in the wild while a patch or workaround ain't there it also seems to me more like a blackhat manner to me. Note that that's not due to Linux being the target, because i'm well aware they've made advisories for all kind of OSes. I'm merely noting what i described.
Exactly. They claim this is 'the mother of all CPU charts' and on page 2 they say they have a complete chart from year X to Y yet they evaded other x86 processors which are not from AMD and Intel such as Transmeta's Crusoe, RISC processors (MIPS, POWER, ALPHA, SPARC, PA-RISC). These processors were still popular in the 90s. Some still are, although not in consumer market. They're perfectly aware of at least the ALPHA given they state that in page 1.
I sended a similar message as here above as feedback and asked wether they'd made their statements more clear or graph more complete, but i'm not holding my breath. Not to say its not a useful article, its a useful article to compare the 2 market leaders; Intel and AMD.
Slashdot Mirror
("Free Software" (with a capital F) is used solely with the gpl)
Heh. Thats new to me, and i think its BS. Free software is simply the definition put by the FSF. Free software doesn't equal the GPL. The GPL is an example of a free software license (FSF's definition). This fact can simply be proven by going to the Gnu.Org website. There the FSF states a number of licenses which are GPL-compatible and which are GPL-incompatible; those which are GPL-incompatible may or may not be free software -- some indeed are free software.
People generally use Capitals to show something is of Importance to them. For example, President of Germany, Queen of England, Your Rights are screwed -- etcetera. I generally don't follow these (written or unwritten) rules myself, except by definition for names (of people and places, not titles) and when i start a new sentence. I'm certainly not gonna do it with 'Free Software', implying that when i use 'Free Software' i mean the GPL alone and when i use 'free software' i mean... FSF's definition of free software -- quite idiotic IMO.
Not by definition. Source code ('software') can be open source and / or free software *and* public domain; public domain means its *not* copyrighted.
Regarding 'depend on it'. The GPL (and LGPL) depends more on it than say the BSD license (orginal or revised), MIT (or X11). There's some chances developers who use the BSD license (or any license i named after that one) wouldn't mind their software be public domain whereas the GPL tries to prevent the code to be liberal in the sense of being public domain, or similar (with the same rights, almost or ~ the same rights as PD source code).
Long message short: Open source software and / or free software != GPL by definition. There are licenses which allow: Without copyright, then anyone could take the code, including large corporations, and modify it for their own interest, and sell it without releasing the source code. but still are defined as open source and / or free software! Examples: BSD licensed (original, revised), MIT (aka X11), or (although not licensed at all, since there's no copyright claimed on it) simply public domain source code.
IRCnet, popular at Europeans mostly, is quite useful these days. IPv4 and IPv6, not much netsplits, takeovers are more or less solved (during split one cannot receive chanmode +o). Even though they still are possible, you just have to put up a small but stable botnet, or actually make the channel +s, which you'd probably want anyway if you're running a community. If you know nice people, you invite them instead, and people who are interested know how to find you anyway.
Wether you're at IRC network X or Y doesn't matter when your community uses +s, except when you join multiple communities on the same IRC network. That's exactly what i'm doing, and with 3 IRC networks (2 big ones, 1 small) i don't feel the need to join another small one just for the sake of 'yet another community'. Exactly the reason why i'm not on e.g. irc.mozilla.org even though i loved the atmosphere on #firefox and other channels (very helpful crowd and informative chats).
That said, i never have a problem with IRCnet opers or admins. When i compare that with other, smaller IRC networks i'm not really satisfied with the way they handle their powers... at least, that's my experience on these networks.
eXeem is far from a succesor to the 'largest BitTorrent site on the Internet'.
First of all, i challenge the notion 'largest BitTorrent site on the Internet'. I think there are other websites which generate a lot of BitTorrent traffic albeit closed communities, or only counting original content (own trackers, or initialized for *that* community), or only counting legal content (e.g. lossless audio).
That aside, its only a beta as we speak. With only like, 200 active test persons from what i read in this thread. At least, nothing near the original counts of Suprnova.org.
Suprnova.org was build on the open source, MIT licensed BitTorrent technology which was open and fully specified. It ran because of donations (money, servers, bandwidth) and ads on the website. BitTorrent ran on a Solaris machine through Python. BitTorrent ran on an IRIX machine through Python. BitTorrent ran on Windows using Java. C clients were available (i know -- i ran all on previously mentioned platforms except the C implementations, those on Linux only). BitTorrent was (and still is) *very* portable.
Compare that to eXeem which only runs on Windows and through WINE ("runs on Linux Slashdot? Yeah right. Not using my shell, and not on my SPARC for sure!) and is nothing of a succesor at all in the sense that its from the same developers. The corporation behind eXeem, who are trying to earn money through spyware/adware and tight-controlled proprietary software, are merely lifting on the popularity of Suprnova.org.
Its a piece of junk. About the only thing i might come up with, is that its convenient to use and more decentralized than BitTorrent; its not anonymous though, nor does this mean other initiatives can't catch up regarding convenience. So i'd say: case closed. Next! -- Next indeed; instead of reporting on eXeem, Slashdot would do good by ignoring the piece of junk instead. There are a number of much more _innovative_, _radical_, _interesting_ and _open_ initiatives developed as we speak. For example, there's one which tries to be more scalable than BitTorrent is, but its also open and allows the metadata to be transfered in a FTP-like way (using URI scheme's users may chose). There's also a new layer between those 'ride' server-programs and the 'tracker'.
A native binary is indeed something way different than just the fact its running under WINE and Linux != Linux/x86. And lets be honest: if you were running FreeBSD/x86 you'd rather have a native x86 binary for Linux than a Windows binary you'd run through WINE. Besides, BitTorrent ran just fine in Bash. Try that with Exeem...
They have the source, they can compile it under *NIX. Or they could give the community the source, to port it, or to understand the protocol and eventually writing an own implementation... but thats not what they want. They want to issue control. The spyware will be get rid of by the smarter users. The clueless ones won't run the Lite version just like with KaZaA. Just like with KaZaA and other proprietary protocols, it'll be reverse engineered.
Its not from Suprnova either. The Suprnova guys got paid by this corporation to basically sell their popularity to this 'new' technology. I hope it won't get popular though. Why not? Because 1) its tightly controlled / closed technology / adware, spyware 2) its not really revolutionary nor doesn't solve the anonomity problem; its just more decentralized in an easy manner 3) because they use Suprnova.org's name. Call me a wanker, but i oppose such abusive way of 'lifting' on someone else his popularity.
A very broad, wide and wildly interpretable detail of the statement indeed. AKA lawyer-speak or marketing-speak -- both not adored by techies.
However if you look at who wrote the article to which OSDL replies (the troll / FUDster / fisher known as `Maureen O'Gara') i'd say any detail in reply to her is unnecessary for that'd give credit to her fishing expeditions and related noise.
A broad statement as backfire is much more effective, although both HER as well as OSDLs statement are not news for any credible news organisation. Ie. don't feed the trolls, report real news, etcetera. The problem lies with those who reported about HER 'news' though because that started the misinformation problem in the first place.
Heh, well. I've yet to meet a anti-GM activist who's opposed to science in general. There's not one single person i mett (and i know a few) who's some kind of unabomber person. Most are quite into politics one way or another though.
As for your actual statement. Lets say you're a farmer and you have 5 fields of different vegetables. Naturally, you work hard for your money and then some research project is started near 1 of your fields. One of your fields becomes 'infected' with the GM seeds. What are your choices in your situation?
1) Keep it silent and sell it differently than it is given its now GM (it should IMO be obligated to label GM food as it is. It ought to be a right to be able to know what you eat as consumer).
2) Torch the field and start over which means money loss and/or the possibility you can't use the field anymore at all because its near a GM field. The possibility of 'infection' is always there though (wind, water, humans), its just less likely when the GM field is futher away. There's no alternative to 1 or 2 which doesn't involve a lot of money ('moving away' could be one, but thats expensive).
Is such situation likely right now? Given there's no widespread GM, not yet. But one should be warry to such situations, they're theories to evade for sure.
and they happen to start growing on my land with no help from me...
That's how it works with patented GM food. Even though seeds are spreaded by wind, water, humans (e.g. shoes). Those GM seeds 'infect' non-GM and the non-GM food becomes GM for a % of X. Its not natural anymore, but also now contains the patented GM parts.
People have been warning for this since Ages, but alas. Even Slashdotters were pro-GM in GM threads, but now you all see the Evil theory yourself... and people who actually fight against this, such as anti-GM activists, are 'criminals'... yeah right.
Bill Gates is a nazi!!!11
GTK+ != QT. QT is a lot more. It would be more accurate to say: Glib + GTK+ + Pango is similar to QT whereas Pango is one of the many options for rendering (others include e.g. Cairo). The problem is that Pango is slow. Oh and Python + GTK2 (PyGTK using Pango) applications are horrible slow...
Computer Techniek (C'T), a respected German magazine , also did a similar test.
From my memory they had a professional panel of 12, diverse audiophiles and the outcome was IIRC as follows:
* 128 kbit CBR was easily distinguishable.
* 192 kbit CBR was not distinguishable except by 1 or 2 persons.
* 256 kbit CBR was not distinguishable.
However.
The other day i downloaded a lossless track of a band called 'Morcheeba' (ambient/triphopish) with the name 'Shoulder Holster' and i converted it to OGG Vorbis -q 7. I swear to you, that on my simple SB Live! with computer speakers and simple headphones, the start sounded *fucked up*. It starts very quiet, then builds up louder, but OGG Vorbis just wastes the sound when it is _very_ quiet. If i just listen it, its not a big deal, but when i compare it and really aim to care then this is horrible!
"Make it easier to disable flash temporarily so I can turn it off on those sites that abuse it." ..please, do the same with JavaScript.
I'm not sure of that. He's doing a form of journalism after all... and journalists are protected from revealing their sources.
No! We haven't waiting a while for Exeem. At least, i haven't.
Exeem is:
* Adware/commercial.
* Proprietary, Windows-only.
* It has nothing to do with Suprnova.org. The people behind Exeem just use Suprnova.org as part of their advertising by saying Exeem is a follow-up to Spurnova.org. It is not, however.
Give me equal or better software than this without adware, and with a honest developer behind it, and i'm over to that.
(Although i prefer Usenet.)
Excuse me, but thats about what an old O2 is worth these days. I would actually give $50 for an O2 (R5000). Unless it has a QED, that is, but its still freakin' slow.
Anything special you are gonna do with it btw?
Why Big Blue, of course
Sorry for going OT but i've always wondered 1) wether thats correct English 2) what it exactly means. I mean when it woud say: "Why? Big Blue, of ofcourse." i'd understand the logics behind it, NP. However i've never seen it with that , and that makes me wondering wether i have the correct meaning of it.
Please explain? How does this 'work'? TIA.
Belgium (Indymedia.be). Not the local Belgian collectives btw. Belgium heavily censors and is in control of a Belgium, stalinistic political party.
That's what i were thinking. You would think that they'd actually make their case more versatile than the standard cases. Perhaps they don't have to do much maintenance. I've seen lego casemods earlier and i'm not easily impressed with such things. Neither with this one. If it would have something special, like making a very easy maintainable server then i'd be interested or impressed.
Anyway, this one was funny: http://members.cox.net/richw/4-2.jpg is it just me or does it say SCO?
If it's not supposed to be a discussion forum, then why does every news article have a "add your comments" link to it?
Not sure who uses that wording, but i advise the one who uses that wording to change and/or specify it more clearly. It really depends on the Indymedia. Some Indymedia's have this in their policy that only information in the form of contributions may be added, not comments or opinions, because there are other places where thats possible already. I'm a contributor to a local, non-English Indymedia and i'm sure as hell our policy and language is clear on this issue. Trolls, ofcourse, don't really care for it... those are also the whiners who actually state their 'opinions are censored' -- which happens with every 'opinion'.
Why are my news submissions, even the good ones, never accepted?
Can't really speak for every Indymedia here but i'm quite sure that (except for one IMC) news is almost never deleted unless its really not according to the policy. Even then its most of the times open trash, publicly viewable.
You only go there when you want to hear people support your own positions.
Strange that you seem to know why every visitor of Indymedia goes to Indymedia? I go to Indymedia for mainly 3 reasons which are 1) Information 2) Action news 3) Ongoing actions in future. Case in point 1: the info is not covered by regular media. Case in point 2: the info is not covered by regular media. Case in point 3: the info is not covered by regular media. As for opinions, i'm not really interested in those. If i want opinions i go to a bar or become interviewer.
I agree with that viewpoint I'm not trying to say this example is a trend or something but i decided to surf around at the Wikinews beta project to search for a news item which i know a bit of background on.
Little bit later i stumbled upon Pinochet arrested after Supreme Court ruling and i read the article. What striked me was the following sentence: The crimes where a part of "Operation Condor," an attempt to supress opposition to the government. The dictator ruled from a 1973 coup, overthrowing the elected socialist Salvador Allende, until 1990.
This statement is true, but not accurate. Its not news either, its background information for the uninformed reader. From here, the power of Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) could be used to link to history but the nice thing is that this is the Internet and that websites and Wiki's can easily 'connect' to each other. That'd be a good way IMO. Because now it misses all the facts of the CIA which were involved in this coup and who have blood on their hands, which is regulary censored or evaded (comes down to the same). I verified, and yes the wikipedia entry for Salvador Allende contains some information on this piece of history of Chille.
I'd like to know why they don't link to the encyclopedia for background information...
And why on earth do you think that they should give you answers to your doubts in THAT text file?
Simple: I consider that part of the research. I consider it part of fill disclosure. Do A, do B. If not then no A+ but B-. This smells blackhatish.
In full-cisclosure they were accussed of not wanting to be "full disclosure" because they asked people not to release exploits for the vulnerabilities for a couple of weeks (the fix was already available, they was asking to give time to users to upgrade)
So? There's no corelation. If there was a Solution (preferably theoretical and practical) then i'd have no problems with the question of wether there's an Exploit, or not. I'd prefer the Exploit to come out after the Solution though.
[...] since for most uses getting access to a user account is already more then enough to cause serious damage. I can use up all the machines CPU and might even be able to crash it[1], I can delete the users files, I can send spam mails, I can spy and crack passwords (yppasswd), etc. no need to become root for any of those.
You can do that when you have SSH access on your friend's desktop/server/router Linux computer residing in his mother's basement on a so-called broadband connection. A computer which is seriously configured and on which users have (shell) access to do Real work, you won't be able to do several or all of the above and even if you were able to do it then your account would be suspended and/or you'd be in trouble quite quickly.
For example, its easy to restrict outgoing connections or more specific restrict outgoing connections to any IP port 25. Actually, who says you're allowed to start a connection to anything? You assume you can use the computer to connect to 'the Internet' but perhaps it only accepts SSH to connect to it and HTTP to connect from it (either by root on that computer or some higher power). Or that and a connection to the corporation's SMTP server (which may or may not use a NIDS as well, which may or may not even detect wether you're spamming or so). Its easy to use something like SGI's CSA to restrict a user on a computer. Deleting a user's files is a laughable one. Anyone who takes himself seriously creates backups. Finally, YP is legacy. Really, the point is that home computers are of little concern and a majority but in serious environment you'll have to try better and there this matters.
Really? I'm not so sure on their way of acting in this one. I was looking in the text file and didn't find anything which said: "Linux kernel maintainers have been contacted" or "Workaround is X" or "Patch is under way". Nothing. Only about the problem but not about anything related to the solution. Since it seems like they're releasing a half-baked advisory with exploit in the wild while a patch or workaround ain't there it also seems to me more like a blackhat manner to me. Note that that's not due to Linux being the target, because i'm well aware they've made advisories for all kind of OSes. I'm merely noting what i described.
Exactly. They claim this is 'the mother of all CPU charts' and on page 2 they say they have a complete chart from year X to Y yet they evaded other x86 processors which are not from AMD and Intel such as Transmeta's Crusoe, RISC processors (MIPS, POWER, ALPHA, SPARC, PA-RISC). These processors were still popular in the 90s. Some still are, although not in consumer market. They're perfectly aware of at least the ALPHA given they state that in page 1.
I sended a similar message as here above as feedback and asked wether they'd made their statements more clear or graph more complete, but i'm not holding my breath. Not to say its not a useful article, its a useful article to compare the 2 market leaders; Intel and AMD.
Linus Torvals does this as well (with Linux). The guy on the FSF board is credited as Moeglin or something. His name is Moglen though; Eben Moglen.