Tell ya what, you go spend 18 months in prison, then refer to it as a 'slap on the wrist'. Even better, while inside, refer to it as a 'slap on the wrist' to the other inmates. Good luck.
Well, big one - Windows desktop and web application developers can decide to migrate their code to either be platform independant or run exclusively under mono on *nix on the order of days.
It is also faster to do rapid application dev in C#/GTK# than in C on gnome/gtk or C++ on KDE. This is one of the reasons I think there are a lot of cool apps coming out written to run on mono - things are just a lot faster, and mono is surprisingly fast for gui apps, especially for people who are expecting java swing performance;-)
Actually, more than that, this is someone spending time adding window shimmer rather than improving the atrocious default widget set on gnome, or working on something which genuinely improve user productivity (rather than make the user experience more shiny)
eye candy is great, but there are a lot of turds in Gnome and KDE. You cannot polish them enough to make them anything other than shiny turds.
I think most of the groans you hear are people who know damn well that this will be a distraction from the linux UI camps actually fixing their fundamental problems. "Our desktop looks so much better than last year" rather than "our desktop _works_ so much better than last year"
but what about things like LaTex, emacs, gcc... things I use on a daily basis?... are there ports? Can you merely run these from the terminal like you would on any ordinary BSD or linux box?
Gcc is "on the second disk", as part of the XCode development package. Every mac ships with it. Emacs appears to be installed by default as a console app, there are gui ports of it and xemacs. For more tools, I usually tell people to go the 'fink' route, see http://fink.sf.net.
XML, being a text format, required proper text encoding. In particular, XML does not allow most of the codepoints (speaking in unicode terms) between 0 and 31 (tab and newline excluded). If you use UTF-8, you cannot use byte values beyond 126 as those are used for forming higher-value unicode characters. In addition, the five main XML markup characters (< > and &) can only be used in some places.
So, to make a long story short, you base64 everything. For every three bytes you have, you output 4, giving you a 33% increase in space.
outside of the XML document you do not have to require text. data can be considered 8-bit clean and sent in a big binary block.
So for example, an additional requirement of 200 bytes for specifying all the MIME information would be made up for within the first 600 bytes worth of binary data. Even without this space benefit, you get the benefits of a standard way of including binaries, and the ability to potentially access the binary data directly if the transport was indeed 8-bit clean.
Um, just because he is president doesn't mean I have to like him, anymore than I am forced to like my boss or employer.
Luckily, I have a lot more choice when it comes to getting a job than getting elected, so I happen to enjoy and respect the people making at least some of the decisions touching my life.
You obviously are unfamiliar with the CVS dungpile, err.. codebase. For instance, there is no access provider mechanism - they copied and pasted the code from the filesystem tree to make the pserver tree, then nobody thought "hey, maybe this will be a maintainability problem later?"
There is also no application-level interface to CVS. CVS tools typically use regexp or other parsing techniques to invoke the CVS command-line and parse its contents.
If this causes a slower transition to Subversion, it will be because people don't need to run away from the existing CVS implementation screaming anymore. A good implementation of CVS will put the emphasis of subversion right where it should be - adding compelling features which will convince people to move to it.
As far as 'less interoperability between operating systems' is concerned, I do not see why this would be restricted to BSD systems, any more than openssh was.
You can still listen to all the one hit wonders from the 80s, but try to go buy a few of their albums today. There is not enough profit in selling them, the original distributed media is reaching the end of its lifetime, but random people still will not be able to legally duplicate and redistribute them for a few more decades. I'd be interested in your argument that says the complete death of these artistic works is somehow in the public good (all kidding of artistic quality aside).
I would argue that current US copyright laws are immoral. Mass Media and Pop culture are pretty much the only culture we have anymore.
My great grandchildren will not be able to watch the movies or listen to the music I like today because it will _still_ be under copyright in 70 years. How could you possibly think having some random corporate entity charge royalties for "Happy Birthday" can be right moral compromise?
Granted people aren't being physically harmed, but random people are being threatened with lawsuits and financially harmed for something which really benefits the public good; having creative works exposed to as many people as possible.
To take laws written to protect the authors from the powerful publishers and turn them as a weapon for publishers to legally threaten their own customers, how is _that_ moral?
Yes, but there are no facts. Real did not document how they were wedging their DRM system into Apple's FairPlay enforcement, so it is very possible that this broke as a side effect.
If your notebook manufacturer issues a bios upgrade to add functionality which happens to break linux booting, you can cry all you want - but they never said it would be supported. Don't install the upgrade, or downgrade.
Yes, but trackers themselves do not put up torrent files. Actually, all they do is coordinate peers based on a hash of the original file. There is no way technologically to know as a tracker what files are being traded.
Now, trackers can limit access to a specific set of files, which I suppose could be equated to having a public meeting place where people could conceivably deal drugs, without taking adequate precautions. But as far as I know, this is not a crime in the physical world.
the draw of SVN (loved or hated) is that it has a good client and the command line client is easy to drive with scripting to
Even more than that, SVN actually has an API. CVS does not; you must exec the cvs process and read out its results, or attempt to re-implement CVS in order to get a direct API (such as Eclipse has done).
Unfortunately, there is also no way to split a message (stanza) apart multiple frames, and no way to cancel a stanza halfway through because that would be non-well-formed xml.
So sending of a message as it comes in is a huge DoS vulnerability against a client: picture a remote client written to send just enough for the server to know there is an IM message, going to a certain user's client, and then stalls. if you are event-based and broadcasting immediately, the client has gotten the opening tag for the message now.. but the remote client now just disconnects.
Mission accomplished, there is nothing that can be done for the user receiving the message but to consider that xml document, and thus the user's whole session as being unrecoverable.
With framing, you could have partial stanzas, you could have size limitations, and you could cancel partial stanzas before they ever hit an xml parser. You could also consider xml errors to be a message error, not a connection-level error. And if you made routing part of the framing, a server could relay the information as straight bytes rather than putting them through an xml parser at all.
3.5 is a dev series (odd minor version # = dev for most gnu software)
So the following stable release would be either 3.6 or 4.0. My understanding is that the decision was made to call it 4.0 - although there are not a lot of user visible changes, the change to SSA and GIMPLE radically changed the internals.
SSL certificates (and certificates in general) do not attest to the trustworthiness of an individual or machine, but to the authenticity of that entity.
Wildcard certificates are prefectly valid because they are issued to an individual who has proved their authenticity to a certificate issuer, and because you need to have the private key (which is known only to the individual requesting the certificate) in order to be validated as authentic.
So, whether I put the certificate on one machine or ten, I'm still the same person, and the certificate still asserts that.
operator overloading is statically determined, so you can only support both methods with overloaded equals if the compiler knows that cheeseDoodle is a CheeseDoodle at compile-time. Otherwise, you have to make equals(Object) look at the type of the argument and determine which subtype equals to call.
Could you clarify - what legal ramifications would something like Java and C# have (aside from trying to distribute a proprietary, copyrighted version without permission) that Python does not?
I'm sure what they are really saying is that the code has shared copyright between the DSPAM governors and the contributor of code - if the contributor of the code relinquishes their copyright interest, the DSPAM governors retain sole copyright interest
...because I had to buy a new soundcard when windows 2000 came out. They dropped support for my sound card because there was no vendor around to bully into upgrading the driver for them.
So windows 2000 also cannot do what windows 95 did, which is 'work with my pro audio spectrum 16'
A business _could_ take your personal information and publish it on their website (ignoring legal reprocussions). What prevents them from doing so is this business policy that you are bashing.
Businesses are.. well, in the business of making money. This means that they cannot afford to upset their customers by selling personal information. Even if you doubt this, they cannot risk the legal reprocussions of sharing your credit card information then having the remote site hacked. There are now heavy legal restrictions in place for sharing of someone's "personal" information, differing per country. Being publicly blasted for being insecure and taken to court by some government does not promote their primary goal.
If anyone had even bothered to read the Liberty overview, you'd see that it is extremely user privacy focused. For the default case, for instance, a user must have accounts set up on both services and choose to link the two services in order for liberty to 'start'. The token each service uses to talk to the other about you is a unique id, preventing different sites from being able to cross-reference information about you. Finally, personal information sharing is a service - and this service can be run on your local PC or cell-phone. You actually do have the ability to exert absolute control over your personal information sharing, by having all requests (say hypothetically a weather site asking for your zip code) go through a local policy engine to choose whether to always allow, always refuse, or to prompt.
The purpose of federated identity is not to steal and sell consumer's personal information; it is to reduce IT costs due to multiple passwords within an enterprise, and to make online purchasing more secure, more private, and thus more trusted by the user. Only by making online commerce feel 'safe' to the end consumer can they really encourage mainstream consumer (i.e. buying) usage of the internet.
SourceID is a project which has two open-source implementations, one in Java and one in C#/ASP.NET (which I wrote). Also, the IPL may be under a GNU-compatible license.
Re:The phrase in question seems to be:
on
LGPL is Viral for Java
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are effects on your own code, or rather 'responsibilities': - you must allow for reverse-engineering in your license - you must allow linking against other versions of the library
The problem is that these clauses are considered viral. Apache gives these rights, but doesn't require transferrance of these rights for projects which use Apache code. Once an Apache project uses LGPL code, those using the Apache project have to make these provisions in their products.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell ya what, you go spend 18 months in prison, then refer to it as a 'slap on the wrist'. Even better, while inside, refer to it as a 'slap on the wrist' to the other inmates. Good luck.
Well, big one - Windows desktop and web application developers can decide to migrate their code to either be platform independant or run exclusively under mono on *nix on the order of days.
;-)
It is also faster to do rapid application dev in C#/GTK# than in C on gnome/gtk or C++ on KDE. This is one of the reasons I think there are a lot of cool apps coming out written to run on mono - things are just a lot faster, and mono is surprisingly fast for gui apps, especially for people who are expecting java swing performance
Actually, more than that, this is someone spending time adding window shimmer rather than improving the atrocious default widget set on gnome, or working on something which genuinely improve user productivity (rather than make the user experience more shiny)
eye candy is great, but there are a lot of turds in Gnome and KDE. You cannot polish them enough to make them anything other than shiny turds.
I think most of the groans you hear are people who know damn well that this will be a distraction from the linux UI camps actually fixing their fundamental problems. "Our desktop looks so much better than last year" rather than "our desktop _works_ so much better than last year"
but what about things like LaTex, emacs, gcc... things I use on a daily basis?... are there ports? Can you merely run these from the terminal like you would on any ordinary BSD or linux box?
Gcc is "on the second disk", as part of the XCode development package. Every mac ships with it. Emacs appears to be installed by default as a console app, there are gui ports of it and xemacs. For more tools, I usually tell people to go the 'fink' route, see http://fink.sf.net .
Incorrect.
XML, being a text format, required proper text encoding. In particular, XML does not allow most of the codepoints (speaking in unicode terms) between 0 and 31 (tab and newline excluded). If you use UTF-8, you cannot use byte values beyond 126 as those are used for forming higher-value unicode characters. In addition, the five main XML markup characters (< > and &) can only be used in some places.
So, to make a long story short, you base64 everything. For every three bytes you have, you output 4, giving you a 33% increase in space.
outside of the XML document you do not have to require text. data can be considered 8-bit clean and sent in a big binary block.
So for example, an additional requirement of 200 bytes for specifying all the MIME information would be made up for within the first 600 bytes worth of binary data. Even without this space benefit, you get the benefits of a standard way of including binaries, and the ability to potentially access the binary data directly if the transport was indeed 8-bit clean.
Um, just because he is president doesn't mean I have to like him, anymore than I am forced to like my boss or employer.
Luckily, I have a lot more choice when it comes to getting a job than getting elected, so I happen to enjoy and respect the people making at least some of the decisions touching my life.
There is no direct money in open source, all they have is politics and ideals...
"Any remaining problems"?
You obviously are unfamiliar with the CVS dungpile, err.. codebase. For instance, there is no access provider mechanism - they copied and pasted the code from the filesystem tree to make the pserver tree, then nobody thought "hey, maybe this will be a maintainability problem later?"
There is also no application-level interface to CVS. CVS tools typically use regexp or other parsing techniques to invoke the CVS command-line and parse its contents.
If this causes a slower transition to Subversion, it will be because people don't need to run away from the existing CVS implementation screaming anymore. A good implementation of CVS will put the emphasis of subversion right where it should be - adding compelling features which will convince people to move to it.
As far as 'less interoperability between operating systems' is concerned, I do not see why this would be restricted to BSD systems, any more than openssh was.
Abandonware. Look it up.
You can still listen to all the one hit wonders from the 80s, but try to go buy a few of their albums today. There is not enough profit in selling them, the original distributed media is reaching the end of its lifetime, but random people still will not be able to legally duplicate and redistribute them for a few more decades. I'd be interested in your argument that says the complete death of these artistic works is somehow in the public good (all kidding of artistic quality aside).
I would argue that current US copyright laws are immoral. Mass Media and Pop culture are pretty much the only culture we have anymore.
My great grandchildren will not be able to watch the movies or listen to the music I like today because it will _still_ be under copyright in 70 years. How could you possibly think having some random corporate entity charge royalties for "Happy Birthday" can be right moral compromise?
Granted people aren't being physically harmed, but random people are being threatened with lawsuits and financially harmed for something which really benefits the public good; having creative works exposed to as many people as possible.
To take laws written to protect the authors from the powerful publishers and turn them as a weapon for publishers to legally threaten their own customers, how is _that_ moral?
Yes, but there are no facts. Real did not document how they were wedging their DRM system into Apple's FairPlay enforcement, so it is very possible that this broke as a side effect.
If your notebook manufacturer issues a bios upgrade to add functionality which happens to break linux booting, you can cry all you want - but they never said it would be supported. Don't install the upgrade, or downgrade.
Yes, but trackers themselves do not put up torrent files. Actually, all they do is coordinate peers based on a hash of the original file. There is no way technologically to know as a tracker what files are being traded.
Now, trackers can limit access to a specific set of files, which I suppose could be equated to having a public meeting place where people could conceivably deal drugs, without taking adequate precautions. But as far as I know, this is not a crime in the physical world.
the draw of SVN (loved or hated) is that it has a good client and the command line client is easy to drive with scripting to
Even more than that, SVN actually has an API. CVS does not; you must exec the cvs process and read out its results, or attempt to re-implement CVS in order to get a direct API (such as Eclipse has done).
Unfortunately, there is also no way to split a message (stanza) apart multiple frames, and no way to cancel a stanza halfway through because that would be non-well-formed xml.
So sending of a message as it comes in is a huge DoS vulnerability against a client: picture a remote client written to send just enough for the server to know there is an IM message, going to a certain user's client, and then stalls. if you are event-based and broadcasting immediately, the client has gotten the opening tag for the message now.. but the remote client now just disconnects.
Mission accomplished, there is nothing that can be done for the user receiving the message but to consider that xml document, and thus the user's whole session as being unrecoverable.
With framing, you could have partial stanzas, you could have size limitations, and you could cancel partial stanzas before they ever hit an xml parser. You could also consider xml errors to be a message error, not a connection-level error. And if you made routing part of the framing, a server could relay the information as straight bytes rather than putting them through an xml parser at all.
3.5 is a dev series (odd minor version # = dev for most gnu software)
So the following stable release would be either 3.6 or 4.0. My understanding is that the decision was made to call it 4.0 - although there are not a lot of user visible changes, the change to SSA and GIMPLE radically changed the internals.
SSL certificates (and certificates in general) do not attest to the trustworthiness of an individual or machine, but to the authenticity of that entity.
Wildcard certificates are prefectly valid because they are issued to an individual who has proved their authenticity to a certificate issuer, and because you need to have the private key (which is known only to the individual requesting the certificate) in order to be validated as authentic.
So, whether I put the certificate on one machine or ten, I'm still the same person, and the certificate still asserts that.
operator overloading is statically determined, so you can only support both methods with overloaded equals if the compiler knows that cheeseDoodle is a CheeseDoodle at compile-time. Otherwise, you have to make equals(Object) look at the type of the argument and determine which subtype equals to call.
Could you clarify - what legal ramifications would something like Java and C# have (aside from trying to distribute a proprietary, copyrighted version without permission) that Python does not?
I'm sure what they are really saying is that the code has shared copyright between the DSPAM governors and the contributor of code - if the contributor of the code relinquishes their copyright interest, the DSPAM governors retain sole copyright interest
...because I had to buy a new soundcard when windows 2000 came out. They dropped support for my sound card because there was no vendor around to bully into upgrading the driver for them.
So windows 2000 also cannot do what windows 95 did, which is 'work with my pro audio spectrum 16'
Businesses are.. well, in the business of making money. This means that they cannot afford to upset their customers by selling personal information. Even if you doubt this, they cannot risk the legal reprocussions of sharing your credit card information then having the remote site hacked. There are now heavy legal restrictions in place for sharing of someone's "personal" information, differing per country. Being publicly blasted for being insecure and taken to court by some government does not promote their primary goal.
If anyone had even bothered to read the Liberty overview, you'd see that it is extremely user privacy focused. For the default case, for instance, a user must have accounts set up on both services and choose to link the two services in order for liberty to 'start'. The token each service uses to talk to the other about you is a unique id, preventing different sites from being able to cross-reference information about you. Finally, personal information sharing is a service - and this service can be run on your local PC or cell-phone. You actually do have the ability to exert absolute control over your personal information sharing, by having all requests (say hypothetically a weather site asking for your zip code) go through a local policy engine to choose whether to always allow, always refuse, or to prompt.
The purpose of federated identity is not to steal and sell consumer's personal information; it is to reduce IT costs due to multiple passwords within an enterprise, and to make online purchasing more secure, more private, and thus more trusted by the user. Only by making online commerce feel 'safe' to the end consumer can they really encourage mainstream consumer (i.e. buying) usage of the internet.
SourceID is a project which has two open-source implementations, one in Java and one in C#/ASP.NET (which I wrote). Also, the IPL may be under a GNU-compatible license.
I get excited about an awesome car with a sexy girl in it, who has an active e-mail address ;-)
n/t
There are effects on your own code, or rather 'responsibilities':
- you must allow for reverse-engineering in your license
- you must allow linking against other versions of the library
The problem is that these clauses are considered viral. Apache gives these rights, but doesn't require transferrance of these rights for projects which use Apache code. Once an Apache project uses LGPL code, those using the Apache project have to make these provisions in their products.