So your saying that as long as Ubuntu satisfies the needs of their growing user base, they will succeed in becoming a dominate player in the Linux distribution market.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Competition is good and it is not like Ubuntu is selling their distribution at a loss to put their competition out of business. Every distribution has a chance to grow in popularity, all they need to do is cater to their user's needs.
Implementing a sophisticated sandbox to run native code will actually add the possibility of an exploit not reduce it. If ChromeOS stuck with traditional web apps then I think the OS will remain relatively secure. However once you try to run native applications within the browser, you are opening the OS to the possibility of exploits. Sophisticated code is not always a good thing. The sandbox is sophisticated since securing native code is hard, not because it's an attribute that Google strived for.
I won't be surprised it the sandbox ends up with exploits. It's not like other companies haven't tried to deliver a similar function in other browsers.
I think the main theme is that it only appears secure since the teams that tried to hack Chrome OS hasn't really had as much time to work on exploits. Compare this to Pwn2Own where they have a year (or even years) to find and torture their targets. Also the recent initiative to run an office suite as a native app within the ChromeOS browser is a very attractive target for an exploit, and I'm sure people will concentrate their efforts on testing the mechanisms that will eventually allow that to work in the released version of the OS.
Too bad that's the opinion of way too many people on too many Linux forums. In fact, that attitude launched Linux. It wasn't about total computer cost or features. It was about "I'm better than you" and they shut out all the other problems Linux had to pretend it's an ideal OS instead of addressing them to make it more user-friendly.
I agree that there are elitists who join Linux forums, but this is no different than any other OS or pretty much anything else.
I disagree that this elitist attitude launched Linux. The way I remember it was that Linus posted an announcement on usenet and the contributions grew from there. Sure there were flamewars over how things would be implemented but that is to be expected when you have two groups who have different ideas on how something should be done and their way is the obvious correct method. In the end, things settle down and kernels get released.
Yes the thread can appear downright hostile to the new person who wants to help. This hostility originates from frustration not elitism. Nothing can be more annoying than having to stop a conversation and answer a question that has either been answered multiple times or worse not even on topic of the forum. You can't simply ignore the questions because people will just keep asking it until they get a response. Imagine having to deal with this on the scale of a popular open-source project.
Sure they can tone their hostility a little, but it is hard not to sympathize with them since a lot of their frustration originates with the new comer's inability to read the FAQ's or go to the correct forum.
He's side-stepping the issue in that the point is that Canonical wields more power than the average contributor, and thus is in more of an authoritarian relationship.
There is also a golden rule in life -- The one with the most gold makes the rules.
Seriously though, Canonical has more "skin in the game" than any other Ubuntu contributor and they are funding the lion's share of the expenses. You'd think this would be justification enough for them to "wield more power than the average contributor". Unlike other "authoritarian" regimes, you are free to leave and start your own fork without fear of being hunted down and shot. You can always go help Mint. I agree with Shuttleworth, if you don't like the conditions at Ubuntu then go somewhere else and try to be grown up and not poison the well when you leave.
However, he's hit on a bigger point, which is that in any collaborative software project, someone needs to be the silverback who forces everyone else to focus, or people do only what they want to do and blow off the unfun stuff...
I agree. I think Shuttleworth is just voicing his frustration with the very vocal few who dust up drama whenever they feel slighted like the recent announcement that Ubuntu Developer Summits will be held online and happen more frequently.
The article mentions that the battery is still installed in the phone. Keep in mind that this is a cubesat and things like temperature control, single event upsets, and outgassing are usually not considered mission critical since these are designed to be short lived amateur satellites in LEO (these sometimes live longer than planned, just no extra expense was made to insure longevity). This is to keep costs low while maintaining the programs original intent of education.
Actually I have seen the BBC in all of its glory. I also seen ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation - not the US network) and like both. PBS has just as good programming. It sounds like you have an issue with the PBS stations operated in your state.
My station has a nice mix of locally, nationally, and internationally produced shows. PBS produced shows include NOVA, NOVA scienceNow, Ken Burns American Stories, MotorWeek, Masterpiece (which co-produces Dowtown Abbey with Carnival Films), and the list goes on...
The objective of CAN-SPAM and "Do not call" was to address abuses that fell within the FCC's jurisdiction. Since those rules are written in such a way to target only the sources of those abuses and with a clear objective of protecting the recipient from coercion, fraud, or loss of privacy by wire, the courts (so far) has not ruled the laws to be unconstitutional. In each of the court cases, the court found that the rules were targeted and didn't prevent all forms of communication with a consumer.
Now if yellowbook somehow teleported the phonebooks to your residence using a medium regulated by the FCC in a manner that proved to be an immediate threat to your privacy, then the examples you gave may be relevant.
If you have read the decision on the "Do Not Cal" list given by the tenth circuit court, you'd see that the court used a three-prong test to determine constitutionality:
1) The court found that the do-not-call registry addressed the governmental interests in protecting the privacy of an individual within their homes and from abusive and coercive solicitation.
2) The list affected the sources of the majority of the consumer complaints that fell within the governmental agency's jurisdiction while allowing calls from political action committees, charitable organizations, etc, (The law targeted a particular type of abuser).
3) The list didn't restrict more speech than necessary since it was opt-in.
Since unsolicited phonebooks aren't a threat to ones privacy, coercive and does't immediately initiate a sales transaction between the phonebook distributor and the resident, it doesn't satisfy the first prong of the test.
Lucky you, free recycling pickup has stopped in my community.
The glut of paper waiting for recycling has made the material too cheap to recover expenses and the paper is being stockpiled or shipped overseas. The paper industry probably favor raw wood chips over recycled due to the extra processing that would be required to reach the level of whiteness that their customer demands. When they mention recycling on the package, it mostly refers to pre-consumer recycling (recycling paper scraps created during production).
The problem is that this was a case of the city offering an opt out for the phonebooks. It's not a legitimate 1st amendment issue, there is no right to an audience anywhere in the 1st amendment. Now, had the city made it opt in, that likely would have been different, but the courts seriously fucked up the ruling by suggesting that the people don't have a right to say no to the deliveries through the city's system.
The courts decided correctly that this was a violation of the 1st amendment. The government is not allowed to censor speech regardless if that is what the citizens want. The 1st amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech. However, you have no right to ask the government to squelch the speech on your behalf. In this particular case, Seattle was using the opt-out website as a way to lower the number of phonebooks that end up filling their landfill.
Seattle should set up phonebook collection sites around the city and encourage its citizens to discard their phonebooks there. Afterwards, Seattle could bill the phonebook companies for the cost of disposing the phonebooks. This way nobody's first amendment rights are being violated and there is a disincentive for the phonebook companies to deliver phonebooks that nobody wants. Economic forces would come into play and eventually the phonebook companies would only want to deliver phonebooks to people that would most likely use them. The only issue being that an ordinance which gives the city to right to demand reimbursement for disposal will need to be passed and survive the tests by the court.
A side-effect of the disposal site program would be the ability for the city to proclaim how many phonebooks are collected as unwanted by the recipients. This public campaign, in theory, would lower the value of yellow book advertising.
By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.
Except that the majority of the government backed researchers already make their data available to the public. So your example isn't as great as you think it is.
Well according to the title having only 16% people like Android was enough to declare that embedded developers love Android. So consider the editor/submitter.
You've confused me with the following (not disputing just need clarification):
Some don't need CPU (nor software). Some require a simple microcontroller, and some require true connectivity, true multitasking, lots of RAM, and maybe an MMU.
A CPU can be a traditional ASIC, RISC, microcontroller, or FPGA based. An majority of embedded applications can not take advantage of lots of RAM or have a MMU.
Especially since only Linux offers a proper setup for Android development.
I don't understand your point. Android runs on top of the Linux kernel and if you go the native app route then you will be making Linux system calls. Unlike iOS, you can develop for Android using Windows and OS X too.
You may want to google "microC/OS". It is a simple library that you can add to your program. MicroC/OS-II was free for use if you purchase the book "microC/OS The Real-Time Kernel". I think it has since gone commercial at Micrium.
My speciality is embedded systems and I can attest to Linux being a dominate force for the past decade. Mainly due to a lot of work requirements being downgraded to soft real-time instead of the default hard real-time. QNX, VxWorks, and Phar Lap ETS still are preferred for projects with hard real-time requirements (Phar Lap ETS has fallen out of favor in our shop).
While Linux is growing in dominance it is not the only rising star. Projects like L4/fiasco looks promising and being deployed in projects (though not by us). I believe Qualcomm is incorporating L4 microkernel in their chipset.
My colleagues "just down the hall" have used RTEMS, and my colleagues farther "down the hall" are the ones maintaining it. If you are interested in an open sourced RTOS then please check it out.
Component manufacturers target OEMs for the bulk of their sales. They will build to the price point that may win them a sale. The $3 to $20 amount may not make a difference to a consumer purchasing one from NewEgg, but to someone who purchases in blocks of 1000 it may.
Like all things coming from the White House Petition Site, this is an opportunity for the President to appear like he is in touch with the common man. Expect an official looking executive directive and a press release from the relevant agency. After that... We'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
So your saying that as long as Ubuntu satisfies the needs of their growing user base, they will succeed in becoming a dominate player in the Linux distribution market.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Competition is good and it is not like Ubuntu is selling their distribution at a loss to put their competition out of business. Every distribution has a chance to grow in popularity, all they need to do is cater to their user's needs.
Or you could take public mass transportation.
Implementing a sophisticated sandbox to run native code will actually add the possibility of an exploit not reduce it. If ChromeOS stuck with traditional web apps then I think the OS will remain relatively secure. However once you try to run native applications within the browser, you are opening the OS to the possibility of exploits. Sophisticated code is not always a good thing. The sandbox is sophisticated since securing native code is hard, not because it's an attribute that Google strived for.
I won't be surprised it the sandbox ends up with exploits. It's not like other companies haven't tried to deliver a similar function in other browsers.
I think the main theme is that it only appears secure since the teams that tried to hack Chrome OS hasn't really had as much time to work on exploits. Compare this to Pwn2Own where they have a year (or even years) to find and torture their targets. Also the recent initiative to run an office suite as a native app within the ChromeOS browser is a very attractive target for an exploit, and I'm sure people will concentrate their efforts on testing the mechanisms that will eventually allow that to work in the released version of the OS.
Let's see how well Chrome OS does next year after it's been released to the public for a while.
I agree that there are elitists who join Linux forums, but this is no different than any other OS or pretty much anything else.
I disagree that this elitist attitude launched Linux. The way I remember it was that Linus posted an announcement on usenet and the contributions grew from there. Sure there were flamewars over how things would be implemented but that is to be expected when you have two groups who have different ideas on how something should be done and their way is the obvious correct method. In the end, things settle down and kernels get released.
Yes the thread can appear downright hostile to the new person who wants to help. This hostility originates from frustration not elitism. Nothing can be more annoying than having to stop a conversation and answer a question that has either been answered multiple times or worse not even on topic of the forum. You can't simply ignore the questions because people will just keep asking it until they get a response. Imagine having to deal with this on the scale of a popular open-source project.
Sure they can tone their hostility a little, but it is hard not to sympathize with them since a lot of their frustration originates with the new comer's inability to read the FAQ's or go to the correct forum.
There is also a golden rule in life -- The one with the most gold makes the rules.
Seriously though, Canonical has more "skin in the game" than any other Ubuntu contributor and they are funding the lion's share of the expenses. You'd think this would be justification enough for them to "wield more power than the average contributor". Unlike other "authoritarian" regimes, you are free to leave and start your own fork without fear of being hunted down and shot. You can always go help Mint. I agree with Shuttleworth, if you don't like the conditions at Ubuntu then go somewhere else and try to be grown up and not poison the well when you leave.
I agree. I think Shuttleworth is just voicing his frustration with the very vocal few who dust up drama whenever they feel slighted like the recent announcement that Ubuntu Developer Summits will be held online and happen more frequently.
The article mentions that the battery is still installed in the phone. Keep in mind that this is a cubesat and things like temperature control, single event upsets, and outgassing are usually not considered mission critical since these are designed to be short lived amateur satellites in LEO (these sometimes live longer than planned, just no extra expense was made to insure longevity). This is to keep costs low while maintaining the programs original intent of education.
This is not the first satellite that used much cheaper off-the-shelf hardware. They have already proven successful in their LEO missions.
Actually I have seen the BBC in all of its glory. I also seen ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation - not the US network) and like both. PBS has just as good programming. It sounds like you have an issue with the PBS stations operated in your state.
My station has a nice mix of locally, nationally, and internationally produced shows. PBS produced shows include NOVA, NOVA scienceNow, Ken Burns American Stories, MotorWeek, Masterpiece (which co-produces Dowtown Abbey with Carnival Films), and the list goes on...
The objective of CAN-SPAM and "Do not call" was to address abuses that fell within the FCC's jurisdiction. Since those rules are written in such a way to target only the sources of those abuses and with a clear objective of protecting the recipient from coercion, fraud, or loss of privacy by wire, the courts (so far) has not ruled the laws to be unconstitutional. In each of the court cases, the court found that the rules were targeted and didn't prevent all forms of communication with a consumer.
Now if yellowbook somehow teleported the phonebooks to your residence using a medium regulated by the FCC in a manner that proved to be an immediate threat to your privacy, then the examples you gave may be relevant.
Obviously, IANAL.
If you have read the decision on the "Do Not Cal" list given by the tenth circuit court, you'd see that the court used a three-prong test to determine constitutionality:
1) The court found that the do-not-call registry addressed the governmental interests in protecting the privacy of an individual within their homes and from abusive and coercive solicitation.
2) The list affected the sources of the majority of the consumer complaints that fell within the governmental agency's jurisdiction while allowing calls from political action committees, charitable organizations, etc, (The law targeted a particular type of abuser).
3) The list didn't restrict more speech than necessary since it was opt-in.
Since unsolicited phonebooks aren't a threat to ones privacy, coercive and does't immediately initiate a sales transaction between the phonebook distributor and the resident, it doesn't satisfy the first prong of the test.
Like PBS?
Lucky you, free recycling pickup has stopped in my community.
The glut of paper waiting for recycling has made the material too cheap to recover expenses and the paper is being stockpiled or shipped overseas. The paper industry probably favor raw wood chips over recycled due to the extra processing that would be required to reach the level of whiteness that their customer demands. When they mention recycling on the package, it mostly refers to pre-consumer recycling (recycling paper scraps created during production).
The courts decided correctly that this was a violation of the 1st amendment. The government is not allowed to censor speech regardless if that is what the citizens want. The 1st amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Now you as an audience member are free to ignore the speech. However, you have no right to ask the government to squelch the speech on your behalf. In this particular case, Seattle was using the opt-out website as a way to lower the number of phonebooks that end up filling their landfill.
Seattle should set up phonebook collection sites around the city and encourage its citizens to discard their phonebooks there. Afterwards, Seattle could bill the phonebook companies for the cost of disposing the phonebooks. This way nobody's first amendment rights are being violated and there is a disincentive for the phonebook companies to deliver phonebooks that nobody wants. Economic forces would come into play and eventually the phonebook companies would only want to deliver phonebooks to people that would most likely use them. The only issue being that an ordinance which gives the city to right to demand reimbursement for disposal will need to be passed and survive the tests by the court.
A side-effect of the disposal site program would be the ability for the city to proclaim how many phonebooks are collected as unwanted by the recipients. This public campaign, in theory, would lower the value of yellow book advertising.
By his own reasoning, Rep Ed Orcutt needs to lower his CO2 production by keeping his mouth shut. He would do both the planet and his colleagues a favor.
Except that the majority of the government backed researchers already make their data available to the public. So your example isn't as great as you think it is.
Well according to the title having only 16% people like Android was enough to declare that embedded developers love Android. So consider the editor/submitter.
You've confused me with the following (not disputing just need clarification):
A CPU can be a traditional ASIC, RISC, microcontroller, or FPGA based. An majority of embedded applications can not take advantage of lots of RAM or have a MMU.
I don't understand your point. Android runs on top of the Linux kernel and if you go the native app route then you will be making Linux system calls. Unlike iOS, you can develop for Android using Windows and OS X too.
(substitute the greek letter for the word micro)
You may want to google "microC/OS". It is a simple library that you can add to your program. MicroC/OS-II was free for use if you purchase the book "microC/OS The Real-Time Kernel". I think it has since gone commercial at Micrium.
My speciality is embedded systems and I can attest to Linux being a dominate force for the past decade. Mainly due to a lot of work requirements being downgraded to soft real-time instead of the default hard real-time. QNX, VxWorks, and Phar Lap ETS still are preferred for projects with hard real-time requirements (Phar Lap ETS has fallen out of favor in our shop).
While Linux is growing in dominance it is not the only rising star. Projects like L4/fiasco looks promising and being deployed in projects (though not by us). I believe Qualcomm is incorporating L4 microkernel in their chipset.
My colleagues "just down the hall" have used RTEMS, and my colleagues farther "down the hall" are the ones maintaining it. If you are interested in an open sourced RTOS then please check it out.
Component manufacturers target OEMs for the bulk of their sales. They will build to the price point that may win them a sale. The $3 to $20 amount may not make a difference to a consumer purchasing one from NewEgg, but to someone who purchases in blocks of 1000 it may.
Get me a working budget first, then let's worry about the next big internet petition.
Like all things coming from the White House Petition Site, this is an opportunity for the President to appear like he is in touch with the common man. Expect an official looking executive directive and a press release from the relevant agency. After that... We'll see.