If you "upgrade" a piece of software, then discover it requires a complete manual system restart to remain stable, the prudent thing to do in any other circumstance would be a rollback.
This reminds me of back in the DOS and pre-DOS days, and even Win 3.x, when most software I saw around was copied. I can remember bringing bits and pieces of software home from the office to use on my computer, such as it was at the time.
It's interesting to see how this plays out. On the one hand, we have the tried-and-tested Windows, which, from their point of view, is easier, but costs a lot of money...or Linux, which has no legal threats [ignoring, for the moment, the SCO lawsuits, certain video codecs, and other matters of similar irrelevance], but something of a porting cost, given that you'll have to train the former M$ pirates to run Linux.
Also, it's important to note that an improperly configured Linux system is even more vulnerable than an improperly configured Windows system...after all, how many Windows systems will let you run cat/dev/zero >/dev/hda without rebooting? =)
I was referring exclusively to EA's properties. I am well aware of the turn-based games, and, indeed, am a big fan of them.
In addition, turn-based online games are still pretty rare. Yes, I am aware of the Worms series. Yes, I know of others. But they are still rare compared to the multitude of realtime or pseudorealtime games available.
My apologies; I have limited experience with EA's online gaming.
But if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying is that they're an ignorant startup who never corrected their mistakes and was rich enough to keep going anyway?
Really? I threw a [modified to write to HD] Knoppix disc in a machine with a blank FAT32 partition, as an experiment, and my entire school used it for a week with no complaints.
And if you'll look at statistics, as I recall, 3% of the userbase is Linux.
Do some research before you flame, will you?
So, a company like EA offers to run XBox Live servers, and their games are having problems with the usage levels.
How unexpected. Because, you know, EA has tons of experience with realtime online games.
But seriously. EA's servers shouldn't be causing problems with their games; they should just be a small drop in the pond of XBox Live servers...I'm not saying that's how it's implemented, I'm saying that's how it should be implemented.
I could be misunderstanding it, but Connolly seems to be saying his code, which he paid a developer to write and told he could not GPL and rerelease it, was put into the Mambo main branch, while his developer is saying it's similar code in function, not [necessarily] form, and reimplementing it for free after being paid to write a proprietary version isn't the same as submitting the code he wrote for Connolly to the Mambo source tree. I could be mistaken here, but couldn't this easily be resolved by a simple comparison of the Mambo and Futuremore source code? I mean, really.
In addition, the Newsforge article's summary claims that Connolly's code is out in the wild, whether it should be or not. That's not been proven, in any of the data I've read. Shouldn't the dispute first resolve whether the code is actually from the Furthermore source before the issue of licensing even comes up?
I don't know about you, but this does sound a lot like SCO... 10 PRINT "Your open source project has our code!" 20 PRINT "Prove it!" 30 PRINT "We don't have to prove it, it's our code!" 40 GOTO 20
I run three Gentoo boxes, and I must say, Gentoo is, by far, the most convenient Linux I've installed...when you already know what you're doing. =)
If you don't know what you're doing, and something is slightly off-kilter...you're better off in Debian or some other distro with an easier installer which won't give you a scary cryptic error message.
Also, Portage is the single best software management I've ever encountered, bar none...though occasionally, user error means you wait awhile for packages to become stable.
When you run stable, though, you very rarely have a problem with a "required" upgrade due to a bug...relatively rarely, of course. =)
In addition, Gentoo is second to none in documentation and error repair...the mailing list sends out documentation of a bug, along with complete list of affected versions of a package, and fixes.
Finally, 2004.2 fixes a few nasty bugs in the installer LiveCD, so, in my experience, it's far more stable and reliable for certain hardware configurations.
Note: I've only done x86 installs myself, so YMMV. =)
IMO, these guides are useful for general Linux users who want a guide to various tools on their desktop.
Slackware users, on the other hand, tend to prefer a more terminal/console-centric view, so the usefulness of this guide to anyone using Slackware for, as I've usually seen it, a server of some kind [printer, file, FTP, web], would probably do better to read someotherdocumentation.
1) Even Sun has succumbed to recursive acronyms, now.
2) Is it just me, or is the post surprisingly bereft of unique details? I mean, integration with all existing applications is rather assumed, given that it's a file system and all...
This is Slashdot. As David Craig Simpson once drew: "Both of those views have been expressed with a straight face; therefore, I must treat them both as equally valid!" [idrewthis.org]
But yeah. It's moderately flawed. Nevertheless, it sent me into a quick Google-powered refresher of licenses, so it can't be entirely bad. =P
Your lawyer is either more intelligent than the GNU foundation, or didn't read the GPL FAQ. [quote] Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.
As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs. [end quote]
[source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html] I'm not going to argue about your modifications to the kernel; I don't know enough about kernel code to competently do that. I can argue that you can use GCC to compile things and not release the source. That's just a blatant piece of FUD, unless I'm mistaken.
Microsoft is pretty good for releasing new versions...eventually. The only risk is whether someone discovers the exploit before Microsoft announces it and releases a patch six months later. =)
If they block this at the request of the Chinese government, one wonders how long it will take before the US government makes similar requests...
I hope that the government won't do this. I doubt they will, any time soon. But with the way government regulation of IT is going, I wouldn't be surprised at legislation like this...
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies for being a dolt.
I shall attempt to RTFA more carefully in the future.
Silly IT departments.
If you "upgrade" a piece of software, then discover it requires a complete manual system restart to remain stable, the prudent thing to do in any other circumstance would be a rollback.
Unfortunately, since this is an IT department, it must run Windows; after all, where could you ever find support for Linux?
This reminds me of back in the DOS and pre-DOS days, and even Win 3.x, when most software I saw around was copied. I can remember bringing bits and pieces of software home from the office to use on my computer, such as it was at the time.
/dev/zero > /dev/hda without rebooting? =)
It's interesting to see how this plays out. On the one hand, we have the tried-and-tested Windows, which, from their point of view, is easier, but costs a lot of money...or Linux, which has no legal threats [ignoring, for the moment, the SCO lawsuits, certain video codecs, and other matters of similar irrelevance], but something of a porting cost, given that you'll have to train the former M$ pirates to run Linux.
Also, it's important to note that an improperly configured Linux system is even more vulnerable than an improperly configured Windows system...after all, how many Windows systems will let you run cat
I apologize for being unclear.
I was referring exclusively to EA's properties. I am well aware of the turn-based games, and, indeed, am a big fan of them.
In addition, turn-based online games are still pretty rare. Yes, I am aware of the Worms series. Yes, I know of others. But they are still rare compared to the multitude of realtime or pseudorealtime games available.
Ah. That explains it. I'd heard about the shunting crap from the infamous PA rant linked in the post, but I didn't know it was that bad.
My apologies; I have limited experience with EA's online gaming.
But if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying is that they're an ignorant startup who never corrected their mistakes and was rich enough to keep going anyway?
Really? I threw a [modified to write to HD] Knoppix disc in a machine with a blank FAT32 partition, as an experiment, and my entire school used it for a week with no complaints.
And if you'll look at statistics, as I recall, 3% of the userbase is Linux. Do some research before you flame, will you?
So, a company like EA offers to run XBox Live servers, and their games are having problems with the usage levels.
How unexpected. Because, you know, EA has tons of experience with realtime online games.
But seriously. EA's servers shouldn't be causing problems with their games; they should just be a small drop in the pond of XBox Live servers...I'm not saying that's how it's implemented, I'm saying that's how it should be implemented.
Exactly. =)
Nice sig, incidentally. Is it GPL'd, so I can use it?
When Coral stops throwing up "*website*: too many files open" errors randomly.
I could be misunderstanding it, but Connolly seems to be saying his code, which he paid a developer to write and told he could not GPL and rerelease it, was put into the Mambo main branch, while his developer is saying it's similar code in function, not [necessarily] form, and reimplementing it for free after being paid to write a proprietary version isn't the same as submitting the code he wrote for Connolly to the Mambo source tree. I could be mistaken here, but couldn't this easily be resolved by a simple comparison of the Mambo and Futuremore source code? I mean, really.
In addition, the Newsforge article's summary claims that Connolly's code is out in the wild, whether it should be or not. That's not been proven, in any of the data I've read. Shouldn't the dispute first resolve whether the code is actually from the Furthermore source before the issue of licensing even comes up?
I don't know about you, but this does sound a lot like SCO...
10 PRINT "Your open source project has our code!"
20 PRINT "Prove it!"
30 PRINT "We don't have to prove it, it's our code!"
40 GOTO 20
I run three Gentoo boxes, and I must say, Gentoo is, by far, the most convenient Linux I've installed...when you already know what you're doing. =)
If you don't know what you're doing, and something is slightly off-kilter...you're better off in Debian or some other distro with an easier installer which won't give you a scary cryptic error message.
Also, Portage is the single best software management I've ever encountered, bar none...though occasionally, user error means you wait awhile for packages to become stable.
When you run stable, though, you very rarely have a problem with a "required" upgrade due to a bug...relatively rarely, of course. =)
In addition, Gentoo is second to none in documentation and error repair...the mailing list sends out documentation of a bug, along with complete list of affected versions of a package, and fixes.
Finally, 2004.2 fixes a few nasty bugs in the installer LiveCD, so, in my experience, it's far more stable and reliable for certain hardware configurations.
Note: I've only done x86 installs myself, so YMMV. =)
General Linux Your Mileage May Vary, but I've heard a lot of people talk about it. You never specified usable.
IMO, these guides are useful for general Linux users who want a guide to various tools on their desktop.
Slackware users, on the other hand, tend to prefer a more terminal/console-centric view, so the usefulness of this guide to anyone using Slackware for, as I've usually seen it, a server of some kind [printer, file, FTP, web], would probably do better to read some other documentation.
Just my $0.25.
As I recall, one takes the nth root of the number.
The fifth root of 3125, for instance, is five. =)
HTH.
1) Even Sun has succumbed to recursive acronyms, now.
2) Is it just me, or is the post surprisingly bereft of unique details? I mean, integration with all existing applications is rather assumed, given that it's a file system and all...
This is Slashdot. As David Craig Simpson once drew: "Both of those views have been expressed with a straight face; therefore, I must treat them both as equally valid!" [idrewthis.org]
But yeah. It's moderately flawed. Nevertheless, it sent me into a quick Google-powered refresher of licenses, so it can't be entirely bad. =P
Your lawyer is either more intelligent than the GNU foundation, or didn't read the GPL FAQ.
[quote]
Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop non-free programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them?
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons--for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.
As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop non-free programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for non-free programs.
[end quote]
[source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html]
I'm not going to argue about your modifications to the kernel; I don't know enough about kernel code to competently do that. I can argue that you can use GCC to compile things and not release the source. That's just a blatant piece of FUD, unless I'm mistaken.
HTH.
You guys forgot the Coral cache already?
ubuntulinux.org.nyud.net:8090 works for me! =D
Work on a PERL 6 compiler has started.
Guess I'd better start learning PERL, lest I be left behind with the rush of people who discover PERL in a year or two when the compiler comes out.
Indeed.
Microsoft is pretty good for releasing new versions...eventually. The only risk is whether someone discovers the exploit before Microsoft announces it and releases a patch six months later. =)
I recognize that the RAM is, if not the, then one of the most intricate and cost-intensive parts to produce and to purchase.
I was simply pointing out that it's bloody expensive, too.
Does that mean I can upgrade my RAM for less than the cost of a new processor now?
I mean, seriously. The prices were ludicrous for high-end manufacturers, and the low-end can sometimes die, and you have no recourse.
Huzzah!
If IE breaks, we find out about it when M$ releases a new version.
If Mozilla breaks, we find out about it when M.org releases a new version.
What's the difference?
The difference is, IE is hooked into the OS, so it's a lot easier to run destructive arbitrary code to wreck your external data in IE than Mozilla.
Winner: Mozilla.
If they block this at the request of the Chinese government, one wonders how long it will take before the US government makes similar requests...
I hope that the government won't do this. I doubt they will, any time soon. But with the way government regulation of IT is going, I wouldn't be surprised at legislation like this...