> the people that encrypt their emails because they > think it will hide what they're sending from a > network admisitrator...
And won't it ? I consider myself a competent network administrator, but barring local access to the sending or receiving computer I couldn't read an encrypted email. What did you mean by this ?
> limited or unlimited terms if it is permitted by the copyright holder?
There's the rub... in the case of SCO and Linux, the agreement with the copyright holder is the GPL, and they've withdrawn from that agreement. So the question is, IN ABSENCE of any agreement with a copyright holder, what are the rights of any other person to redistribute the copyrighted content ?
> When they have a written statement from a court of law saying that > the GPL is unenforcable and the copyright of all GPL'd work is > null and void, then maybe they could try this.
It's simpler than all that, even. If the GPL is declared null and void, then you revert back to conventional copyright law which doesn't allow redistribution in the first place.
> Companies benefiting from OSS should donate some money to the OSS developement teams to > help keep things going. I'd like to know if that is actually happening.
My company does this is some small way, certainly not in proportion to how much we use open source. That said, I don't suspect open source will thrive on donations made by companies out of the goodness of their hearts, any more than the forest will thrive on the goodwill of logging companies.
I would counter that companies should commission the developers of OSS to add features they need, fix bugs that bite them, and support and document the projects that benefit them. That seems to be the best way forward for an open source business model in my mind.
-nod- Kucinich is scrappy, and would have been my utopian candidate (although I pick Clarke for best chance of winning), until I found out he's anti-choice. =(
> Fucking bible thumpers. I don't know any other group that does this...:P
There are Muslim fundamentalist groups that are even more extreme in this respect. There was an incident recently in Saudi Arabia in which a group of hard right Muslim fundamentalists trapped 15 girls in a burning schoolhouse because they weren't properly covered up to come outside; they wouldn't allow rescue workers to enter since they would be mixing with the opposite sex.
Lighten up, Mr. Glass is Half Empty, look at it this way: in a battle between Microsoft and Trivial Software Patents 'r' Us, the bad guys will DEFINITELY lose.
> I'm a little confused as to why the article just references 'QuickTime' when > really we're talking about only one codex out of the (what, 200?) media types > QT understands.
-nod- I was wondering that, too... last time I checked, QuickTime was a file format, and not a codec at all? Has Apple muddied the waters even further by making a codec named QuickTime ?
> But NAT is here and now, and enjoys very wide usage.
The same is true of NFS and NetMeeting, and I'd sooner take a caning than try to make them run through NAT gateways on a regular basis. Even FTP, as relatively simple as it is, is a headache and requires, at the least, some ugly application-layer traffic inspection on the firewall to handle properly.
While there are plenty of reasons to give everyone a public IP, there's just no good reason for using NAT -except- the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. Anyone who claims you need NAT to hide internal machines from external traffic needs to spend 5 minutes learning how to configure a firewall.
As a CS professor of mine once said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
NAT works terrifically in theory. In practice, lots of things you would want to do are horribly borked. There's a reason why any protocol more complex than one or two simple pipes totally craps itself between NATted hosts. While we admins tend to bitch at the protocols themselves (netmeeting, NFS) there's no limitation in the IP spec that says they should keep it to one unidirectional TCP pipe... NAT imposes that unique limitation.
Re:Cool.. but my Xbox does that as well...
on
New Linux PVR Box
·
· Score: 1
> Oops but I don't think they've managed to run Xfree on Xbox > yet, so that's another thing you have to solve.
You're quite mistaken. The normal nv (open source nVidia driver) provides accelerated 2D on X-Box.
I did hear on the news that the kids were using a Magic Sword... if they were also using,say, a Golden Axe on their little Adventure then I think they really might have a case.
> Yes, but either Win2K or XP can, and that's what they'll be replacing NT with.
If the parent poster is willing to make the non-trivial change from domain to AD network-wide, just because Microsoft says it's time (and in the presence of solid, Free software alternatives), then I would submit that his committment to the "Windows Server Line" is overriding his good sense.
On the other hand, maybe I've just had abnormally good luck with Samba.
Slashdot Mirror
> IM, it seems to me, just doesn't have the
> permanency and longevity that email does.
Enable logging.
You don't REALLY want to usher in a time when network device drivers surreptitiously send email, hit websites, etc. Do you ?
> the people that encrypt their emails because they > think it will hide what they're sending from a
> network admisitrator...
And won't it ? I consider myself a competent network administrator, but barring local access to the sending or receiving computer I couldn't read an encrypted email. What did you mean by this ?
> At this point Pixar is asking, why are we busting our
> butts for the mouse and letting them rake in all the money?
I don't have anything to add, except to say that I think this is my favorite sentence ever posted on slashdot.
> this wouldn't solve much.. now the barrier for
> adding a backdoor would be hacking a contributor's
> computer.
And guessing his passphrase, if he's got two brain cells to rub together.
> limited or unlimited terms if it is permitted by the copyright holder?
There's the rub... in the case of SCO and Linux, the agreement with the copyright holder is the GPL, and they've withdrawn from that agreement. So the question is, IN ABSENCE of any agreement with a copyright holder, what are the rights of any other person to redistribute the copyrighted content ?
> When they have a written statement from a court of law saying that
> the GPL is unenforcable and the copyright of all GPL'd work is
> null and void, then maybe they could try this.
It's simpler than all that, even. If the GPL is declared null and void, then you revert back to conventional copyright law which doesn't allow redistribution in the first place.
> Companies benefiting from OSS should donate some money to the OSS developement teams to
> help keep things going. I'd like to know if that is actually happening.
My company does this is some small way, certainly not in proportion to how much we use open source. That said, I don't suspect open source will thrive on donations made by companies out of the goodness of their hearts, any more than the forest will thrive on the goodwill of logging companies.
I would counter that companies should commission the developers of OSS to add features they need, fix bugs that bite them, and support and document the projects that benefit them. That seems to be the best way forward for an open source business model in my mind.
Easy enough to do in a platform-independant way with whatever print queue software you use. Check out the 'pdfwrite' output driver to ghostscript.
> Kucinich is my guy too
-nod- Kucinich is scrappy, and would have been my utopian candidate (although I pick Clarke for best chance of winning), until I found out he's anti-choice. =(
http://issues2002.org/OH/Dennis_Kucinich.htm
Not to mention particle weapons. Or force fields and faster-than-light travel. (for your A-Wing, yes, I know TIE fighters are unshielded and sublight)
This doesn't make any sense ! If Chewbacca is a Wookie, then you must acquit !
Look at the monkey ! Look at the silly monkey !
> Fucking bible thumpers. I don't know any other group that does this... :P
0 15 /diatribes292-312/diatribes310.htm
There are Muslim fundamentalist groups that are even more extreme in this respect. There was an incident recently in Saudi Arabia in which a group of hard right Muslim fundamentalists trapped 15 girls in a burning schoolhouse because they weren't properly covered up to come outside; they wouldn't allow rescue workers to enter since they would be mixing with the opposite sex.
http://www.8bm.com/diatribes/volume01/diatribes
The problem is religious fundamentalism.
> Free speech isn't going to go away
Bribery is not now, nor has it ever been, protected speech. $2000 per individual worth of bribery is $2000 too much.
>> What's to stop me
Palladium.
> This presents quite a dilemma.
Lighten up, Mr. Glass is Half Empty, look at it this way: in a battle between Microsoft and Trivial Software Patents 'r' Us, the bad guys will DEFINITELY lose.
> I'm a little confused as to why the article just references 'QuickTime' when
> really we're talking about only one codex out of the (what, 200?) media types
> QT understands.
-nod- I was wondering that, too... last time I checked, QuickTime was a file format, and not a codec at all? Has Apple muddied the waters even further by making a codec named QuickTime ?
> But NAT is here and now, and enjoys very wide usage.
The same is true of NFS and NetMeeting, and I'd sooner take a caning than try to make them run through NAT gateways on a regular basis. Even FTP, as relatively simple as it is, is a headache and requires, at the least, some ugly application-layer traffic inspection on the firewall to handle properly.
While there are plenty of reasons to give everyone a public IP, there's just no good reason for using NAT -except- the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. Anyone who claims you need NAT to hide internal machines from external traffic needs to spend 5 minutes learning how to configure a firewall.
> NAT works, and works well.
As a CS professor of mine once said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
NAT works terrifically in theory. In practice, lots of things you would want to do are horribly borked. There's a reason why any protocol more complex than one or two simple pipes totally craps itself between NATted hosts. While we admins tend to bitch at the protocols themselves (netmeeting, NFS) there's no limitation in the IP spec that says they should keep it to one unidirectional TCP pipe... NAT imposes that unique limitation.
> Oops but I don't think they've managed to run Xfree on Xbox
> yet, so that's another thing you have to solve.
You're quite mistaken. The normal nv (open source nVidia driver) provides accelerated 2D on X-Box.
> Openoffice has really matured lately
I knew it had arrived when I heard Clark Howard, the self-declared "techno-idiot" talk about it.
http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2002/06/20.html
I did hear on the news that the kids were using a Magic Sword... if they were also using,say, a Golden Axe on their little Adventure then I think they really might have a case.
> Oh, the irony... "Microsoft's Bitch". Hehe
Sorry, Alanis. That ain't irony.
> Yes, but either Win2K or XP can, and that's what they'll be replacing NT with.
If the parent poster is willing to make the non-trivial change from domain to AD network-wide, just because Microsoft says it's time (and in the presence of solid, Free software alternatives), then I would submit that his committment to the "Windows Server Line" is overriding his good sense.
On the other hand, maybe I've just had abnormally good luck with Samba.
> Samba can't act as an Active Dreictory domain controller
Neither can NT4, which is what you're replacing....