Suprise suprise... alot of people here have been dismissing RMS for being "too radical" for saying the GPL is the only truly "free" license. Now you can appreciate, in it's full ugliness, why he's been advocating the distinction between free software and open source.
There is a difference, and you just read about one of them. The GPL or a BSD-style license would not have these issues. The fact that a special exception was required says that the authors are ameniable to change (they didn't have to allow this you know), but wasn't the whole point of this movement to prevent somebody from holding that over your head in the first place?
It's unintuitive if you're new! I know it isn't nearly the kind of conceptual leap I needed to make between freebsd and linux as when I jumped ship from w98 to linux. That was painful.
Anyway, whenever I drop into a BSD shell it takes me a minute or two to reorient my brain to that environment... everything "seems" the same.. yet there are subtle things that need to be taken into account. It's not unlike converting regex expressions between perl, php3, egrep.. well.. try it some time, I guarantee you'll be a drooling mess by the end of the day if you have to do alot of it.:\
Don't try to do anything too exotic though... the "emulation" isn't flawless... and some things may break in strange ways.. I wouldn't want to try to run something like "fbcon" or anything that does direct I/O..
Any kernel dev people here (I know you're out there, step forward and be counted!) care to comment on the current state of the art right now on this front?
Okay, assuming you aren't familiar with the BSD-style of doing things (if you're a programmer - buy stock in Tylenol now).. there's alot of minor things that can get you shooting yourself in the foot in no time. Some things are just plain unintuitive - to use a somewhat related-yet-unrelated example, have you ever run "killall" on a solaris box thinking it acted the same way it did under linux? Well, unlike the linux version, solaris will happily kill everything just like you told it to!. The sysadmin was none-too-pleased after his carefully tuned box suddently coredumped a half-dozen programs and warm-booted.:\
BSD is kinda the same thing - for example your wonderful GNU-enhanced utilities no longer have those extensions... which can make life difficult for awhile until you figure out why a perfectly good command doesn't work anymore... there's other stuff too... best advice I can offer - if you're taking the plunge for the first time, be sure to RTFM, or you'll be bald by next tuesday.
On the plus side, the BSD stuff has alot of cool features you just can't find under linux - especially the filesystem stuff. The immutable flag is a very good way of tripping up crackers, and the bsd-style kind of file creation is to make the file creator's group match what the directories group is set to. Very nice, b/c I hate doing the find/grep/chown dance twenty times a day *muttering*....
If I haven't scared you off, take the plunge, but maintain a rigorous backup policy for the good of thy karma. You DO have backups, right? >:) ~ The BOFH
If you're new to the *BSDs, the usual recommendation is FreeBSD due to it's broad hardware support, user support, and ease of installation.
Each BSD has it's own goals - OpenBSD for example aims to be the "secure" BSD, and is designed package by package to make sure the l335 h4x0rs out there would rather pull their fingernails out than try to bypass the security safeguards on your box.
Sooooo... maybe it might be better if you told us what you're looking for- you've asked a really open-ended question!
This explains the new Soul type in C! No wonder he's so bent on saving people's souls - those things take up ALOT of memory! Of course perl had it before it had it, it's a post-modern language you know.... =)
I'd say one vote per organization that has aquired IP addresses. That solves the authentication and authenticity issues.. but leaves out the general population. Not sure whether that's a bad thing or not, however.
Anybody else find it ironic that we call ourselves a democracy yet cater to the minorities rather than the majorities? Here is just another example in a long string of attempts to please "everybody". Let's let the hungarians sit in, and maybe a few people from the names-you-can't-pronouce parts of Africa.. oh, and don't forget the eskimos - they've been really upset about being underrepresented since they got that T3 up.
Stop trying to please everybody! Instead do it right the first time and do a net election - let's VOTE these people into office, and simultaniously move the state of the art forward by making online democracy play a pivotal role in the future of the internet. It was created for democracy, now let it be governed by democracy!
I can just see it now - Microsoft gets in on this and release MS-Tami. Upon starting it up... "By using this product, you are consenting to be bound..." upon which you promptly just hit YES anyway without reading any further. After it starts up, it demands to be fed. And fed. And fed. It bloats out and weighs about 60 lbs. Then for some reason it falls asleep, asphyxiates and dies. You just accept this and reinitialize it.
Then you have the RMSiatchi... it doesn't need to be fed. Instead it harvests the collective IQ of computer geeks everywhere and syntesizes food out of ambient light. Unfortunately it won't stop beeping at you and insisting that "I'm not open source, I'm FREE I tell you! FREEeeeeeeee!" It may also occasionally bust a beat and start singing.
Lastly you have Robiatchi. It likes to drink beer. Lots of beer. Then it writes funny symbols across the screen. Half the time it writes them really slow, and half the time really fast. Sometimes Robiatchi becomes non-responsive for several minutes. Don't worry though - it's growing quickly and will get out of this mode. Someday.
KDE is not the next Microsoft. They cannot, and will not develop "proprietary" protocols because of the way open source works. It's obvious Gnome and KDE are going two seperate paths. Rather than complaining about this, we should be commending both groups efforts in the GUI arena.
The scenario alot of slashdotters believe (which is not addressed in the article) is that KDE is somehow going to become the de facto GUI. Well, due in part to the paranoia that alot of us have as well as the fact that the two groups have seperate goals, that isn't going to happen. One may be more popular than the other (How many people still use fvwm instead of E?), but because of open source (Yes, Richard, I know it's not free software..) it's impossible for either gnome or kde to co-op the other.
Besides, if that happened the paranoia many of us share in this community would quickly fork the tree and continue along a "free" path, essentially killing the old version.
So relax - there is NOTHING to worry about in this area. And while I'm up here on this soapbox - Redhat is OK too - so stop complaining about them becoming the next MS too.
The latest on digital signatures appears to be legislation being passed in several states (and some stuff moving through congress now on the federal level) to make "digital signatures" as valid as your john hancock RealWorld signature.
Currently almost all digital signatures (and by extension, crypto in general) are based on the fact that large prime numbers are currently difficult to factor.
Based on these two facts, do you think legally binding digital signatures are secure; why?
I thought this might be something worth mentioning as it relates directly to many people's perceptions of computer geeks, and by extension, anything or anyone they don't understand...
It has long been an article of our folklore that too much knowledge or skill, or especially consummate expertise, is a bad thing. It dehumanizes those who achieve it, and makes difficult their commerce with just plain folks, in whom good old common sense has not been obliterated by mere book learning or fancy notions. This popular delusion flourishes now more than ever, for we are all infected with it in the schools, where educationists have elevated it from folklore to Article of Belief. It enhances their self-esteem and lightens their labors by providing theoretical justification for deciding that appreciation, or even simple awareness, is more to be prized than knowledge, and relating (to self and others), more than skill, in which minimum competence will be quite enough. -- The Underground Grammarian
I take issue with the idea that this program will "only" be used to determine who's going to be violent. This tool will be misused and abused.. and "false positives" will get alot of people into trouble. Everybody at some point or another gets *very* pissed about something. Does this mean we should lock them up because they can't have 100% self control?
This program came about because politicians are looking for a "cheap fix" to the educational system. Well.. there is none. Even in maximum security prisons people get killed. There is an equilibrium we must strike between personal freedoms and security - they are mutually exclusive.
I have taken 13 psychological evaluations. I've talked with a half-dozen psychologists. I can talk the talk and walk the walk. Every single test, and I mean every test was different - by reading those 13 reports you would never know it was the same person if you didn't look at the title and see my name.
Psychology is a soft-science. It is not presently capable of making precision diagnoses. It can give you a basic understanding of how people think. It even has a very limited ability to predict what people will do in a NORMAL situation. But when you start throwing people into high-pressure and high-stress situations you don't need to be a psychologist to say they are unstable. Nobody can guess what they're going to do. In this respect, people are just like machines - they have operational limits. Exceed those, and something is likely to break. And since even the best psychologist can't say where that point is, I'll be damned if a computer program can!
In short - this tool will not meet it's goal of determining who is violent and who is not because human nature is such that normally non-violent people can become violent if put under pressure.
I disagree. You're comparing two totally seperate methodologies - sociology and psychology.
Sociology teaches us that if you take a large group, you can predict with a fair amount of accuracy what that group will do. For example, if I take 100 black people and 100 Klu Klux Clansmen, the result will be mass chaos and insurrection. HOWEVER, and this is the key point - if I single out one of those black people and a KKK member and put them in the same room... I can't say what will happen.
This is where a system like the one mentioned in the article can do incredible harm - and why we must draw the line there. My thoughts are my own business, and nobody else's. It is by actions and actions alone that we must be judged. To do otherwise invites disaster.
I hope you found my source-code leak humorous, but now for the more serious commentary. First off this is NOT being done because it is effective at predicting who's going to suddenly snap and go on a murderous rampage. There are several reasons for this. Let's look at the #1 reason why this software is being implimented - the columbine massacre. The kids parents honestly didn't know what was going on - and what parent really believes their kid is a psycho-crazed killer? Not many. Even if they do, they try to ignore it. Did you see last night's south park episode? That illustrates my point nicely. Second reason - the FBI has been using profiles to catch suspected "drug carriers" in airports. The result? Alot of people's civil rights are violated, alot of innocent people are hurt, and very little drugs are actually found (try to find a newspaper that had any articles on drugs being found on an airplane in the last year). Infact on atleast one occasion a pregnant woman was detained by authorities for suspected drug-smuggling. She was given multiple enemas and over the course of three days not treated very well. As a result she had a miscarriage. The law holds that this is perfectly OK. It is also morally reprehensible.
My last point is that most murders are second degree murders. The typical scenario is the person loses it due to a tramatic event (ie: finding your wife sleeping with another guy) and goes on a shooting spree. Sooo, maybe we should prevent people from having sex so that doesn't happen?
This is another example of mainstream prejudices being wrapped around some politically-correct methodology and being re-presented for acceptance. And the prejudice, my good readers - is that mainstream society doesn't like people who are different. Racism, sexism, white supremacy, the haves and the have nots - what's in common with all of them? One group is different from another. Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.
Psst! I managed to get the source out of the company and I'm now posting it to slashdot... the police are after me, and I don't have much time.. here goes!
printf("He's normal.. nothing to worry about!\n"); return EXIT_SUCCESS; } /* program notes: this program should be compiled with -DPARANOID for maximum effect.
Also, profiling support is currently broken - contact the FBI if you have a suspicion, or even if you don't - they need the money you know.
I would like to remind everyone that there is no universal answer for finding Mr. or Ms. Perfect. Even though geeks at large are a homogenious group, there can be no easy answer. Best advice I, and likely anyone, can offer you is to ask yourself what you're looking for in a relationship, and then set out to find someone that meets your expectations. Do you want somebody who's witty, charming? Or just looks good? Be realistic too - like shopping for your next computer you can't get all the peripherals and addons you'd like.. so keep in mind what you really need, and what "would be nice". Everybody wants Cindy Crawford with all the addons and a 180 IQ...
Just a reality check for all of you out there. I'd like to hear what both sexes are looking for in the geek community... I suspect the answers will suprise both sides.
Actually this would explain alot - afterall they took control of the IETF.. and that RFC on "tcp over carrier pigeon" might actually have been a covert signal from our breathren before being assimilated... they're trying to tell us how to survive in the post-post-microsoftian era!
Yes, but I want to know that the round object is doing a zero-g pull towards the satellite - and don't you tell me THAT was a JUST another weather balloon!
It's the biggest coverup of all time! NASA knows about the existance of ET! They've been denying it all this time, but they can't forever!!! We're going to find out, and then your world's gonna END!
Oh, gotta go... the intern's calling for me to take my meds again..
Slashdot Mirror
Suprise suprise... alot of people here have been dismissing RMS for being "too radical" for saying the GPL is the only truly "free" license. Now you can appreciate, in it's full ugliness, why he's been advocating the distinction between free software and open source.
There is a difference, and you just read about one of them. The GPL or a BSD-style license would not have these issues. The fact that a special exception was required says that the authors are ameniable to change (they didn't have to allow this you know), but wasn't the whole point of this movement to prevent somebody from holding that over your head in the first place?
--
Anyway, whenever I drop into a BSD shell it takes me a minute or two to reorient my brain to that environment... everything "seems" the same.. yet there are subtle things that need to be taken into account. It's not unlike converting regex expressions between perl, php3, egrep.. well.. try it some time, I guarantee you'll be a drooling mess by the end of the day if you have to do alot of it. :\
--
Any kernel dev people here (I know you're out there, step forward and be counted!) care to comment on the current state of the art right now on this front?
--
BSD is kinda the same thing - for example your wonderful GNU-enhanced utilities no longer have those extensions... which can make life difficult for awhile until you figure out why a perfectly good command doesn't work anymore... there's other stuff too... best advice I can offer - if you're taking the plunge for the first time, be sure to RTFM, or you'll be bald by next tuesday.
On the plus side, the BSD stuff has alot of cool features you just can't find under linux - especially the filesystem stuff. The immutable flag is a very good way of tripping up crackers, and the bsd-style kind of file creation is to make the file creator's group match what the directories group is set to. Very nice, b/c I hate doing the find/grep/chown dance twenty times a day *muttering* ....
If I haven't scared you off, take the plunge, but maintain a rigorous backup policy for the good of thy karma. You DO have backups, right? >:) ~ The BOFH
--
Each BSD has it's own goals - OpenBSD for example aims to be the "secure" BSD, and is designed package by package to make sure the l335 h4x0rs out there would rather pull their fingernails out than try to bypass the security safeguards on your box.
Sooooo... maybe it might be better if you told us what you're looking for- you've asked a really open-ended question!
--
--
Oh damn, I think he reversed the byte order - he's really talking about Dogs..... =)
--
I'd say one vote per organization that has aquired IP addresses. That solves the authentication and authenticity issues.. but leaves out the general population. Not sure whether that's a bad thing or not, however.
--
Stop trying to please everybody! Instead do it right the first time and do a net election - let's VOTE these people into office, and simultaniously move the state of the art forward by making online democracy play a pivotal role in the future of the internet. It was created for democracy, now let it be governed by democracy!
--
Signal 11 here, slashdot is on the blink again.. the above comment is mine...
--
Then you have the RMSiatchi... it doesn't need to be fed. Instead it harvests the collective IQ of computer geeks everywhere and syntesizes food out of ambient light. Unfortunately it won't stop beeping at you and insisting that "I'm not open source, I'm FREE I tell you! FREEeeeeeeee!" It may also occasionally bust a beat and start singing.
Lastly you have Robiatchi. It likes to drink beer. Lots of beer. Then it writes funny symbols across the screen. Half the time it writes them really slow, and half the time really fast. Sometimes Robiatchi becomes non-responsive for several minutes. Don't worry though - it's growing quickly and will get out of this mode. Someday.
=)
--
Somebody put that in a sig block quick! :)
--
The scenario alot of slashdotters believe (which is not addressed in the article) is that KDE is somehow going to become the de facto GUI. Well, due in part to the paranoia that alot of us have as well as the fact that the two groups have seperate goals, that isn't going to happen. One may be more popular than the other (How many people still use fvwm instead of E?), but because of open source (Yes, Richard, I know it's not free software..) it's impossible for either gnome or kde to co-op the other.
Besides, if that happened the paranoia many of us share in this community would quickly fork the tree and continue along a "free" path, essentially killing the old version.
So relax - there is NOTHING to worry about in this area. And while I'm up here on this soapbox - Redhat is OK too - so stop complaining about them becoming the next MS too.
--
Sorry... not mine. I can't even train my own hands to duplicate my own signature reliably. :)
--
Currently almost all digital signatures (and by extension, crypto in general) are based on the fact that large prime numbers are currently difficult to factor.
Based on these two facts, do you think legally binding digital signatures are secure; why?
--
It has long been an article of our folklore that too much knowledge or skill, or especially consummate expertise, is a bad thing. It dehumanizes those who achieve it, and makes difficult their commerce with just plain folks, in whom good old common sense has not been obliterated by mere book learning or fancy notions. This popular delusion flourishes now more than ever, for we are all infected with it in the schools, where educationists have elevated it from folklore to Article of Belief. It enhances their self-esteem and lightens their labors by providing theoretical justification for deciding that appreciation, or even simple awareness, is more to be prized than knowledge, and relating (to self and others), more than skill, in which minimum competence will be quite enough.
-- The Underground Grammarian
--
This program came about because politicians are looking for a "cheap fix" to the educational system. Well.. there is none. Even in maximum security prisons people get killed. There is an equilibrium we must strike between personal freedoms and security - they are mutually exclusive.
I have taken 13 psychological evaluations. I've talked with a half-dozen psychologists. I can talk the talk and walk the walk. Every single test, and I mean every test was different - by reading those 13 reports you would never know it was the same person if you didn't look at the title and see my name.
Psychology is a soft-science. It is not presently capable of making precision diagnoses. It can give you a basic understanding of how people think. It even has a very limited ability to predict what people will do in a NORMAL situation. But when you start throwing people into high-pressure and high-stress situations you don't need to be a psychologist to say they are unstable. Nobody can guess what they're going to do. In this respect, people are just like machines - they have operational limits. Exceed those, and something is likely to break. And since even the best psychologist can't say where that point is, I'll be damned if a computer program can!
In short - this tool will not meet it's goal of determining who is violent and who is not because human nature is such that normally non-violent people can become violent if put under pressure.
--
Check out my source posting earlier in this article. :^)
--
Sociology teaches us that if you take a large group, you can predict with a fair amount of accuracy what that group will do. For example, if I take 100 black people and 100 Klu Klux Clansmen, the result will be mass chaos and insurrection. HOWEVER, and this is the key point - if I single out one of those black people and a KKK member and put them in the same room... I can't say what will happen.
This is where a system like the one mentioned in the article can do incredible harm - and why we must draw the line there. My thoughts are my own business, and nobody else's. It is by actions and actions alone that we must be judged. To do otherwise invites disaster.
--
Or maybe i and o are right next to each other on a qwerty-style keyboard and my finger slipped? :) Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one.
--
My last point is that most murders are second degree murders. The typical scenario is the person loses it due to a tramatic event (ie: finding your wife sleeping with another guy) and goes on a shooting spree. Sooo, maybe we should prevent people from having sex so that doesn't happen?
This is another example of mainstream prejudices being wrapped around some politically-correct methodology and being re-presented for acceptance. And the prejudice, my good readers - is that mainstream society doesn't like people who are different. Racism, sexism, white supremacy, the haves and the have nots - what's in common with all of them? One group is different from another. Welcome to the tyranny of the majority.
--
Psst! I managed to get the source out of the company and I'm now posting it to slashdot... the police are after me, and I don't have much time.. here goes!
/* psych eval results don't
/* skip the psych eval, they're always
#include "manic_depressive.h"
#include "psycho_killer_chicken.h"
#include "geek.h"
#ifndef _POLITICS_
#include "conservative.h"
#endif
if(!conservative){
do_psych_eval();
killer++;
}
if(!normal){
do_psych_eval();
killer += 50;
}
while(different){
killer++;
if(killer > 150){
do_psych_eval();
expel_student();
matter, expel anyway. */
do_politically_correct_dance(& parents);
}
}
while(geek){
nuts */
wierd++;
if(wierd > 50){
suspect_computer_crime(*student);
}
}
printf("He's normal.. nothing to worry about!\n");
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
/* program notes:
this program should be compiled with -DPARANOID for maximum effect.
Also, profiling support is currently broken -
contact the FBI if you have a suspicion, or
even if you don't - they need the money you
know.
*/
--
Just a reality check for all of you out there. I'd like to hear what both sexes are looking for in the geek community... I suspect the answers will suprise both sides.
--
=)
--
It's the biggest coverup of all time! NASA knows about the existance of ET! They've been denying it all this time, but they can't forever!!! We're going to find out, and then your world's gonna END!
Oh, gotta go... the intern's calling for me to take my meds again..
--