Personal information is different and you know it is. If you don't, try reading RMS's 3 types of information. But you're welcome to anything creative or useful I've made. Want the essays I wrote for GCSE English, or the little rot47 encoder/decoder I wrote, or my arrangement of Pacabel's cannon? Just ask.
No, they have a monopoly on hard drive, or, if you want me to be general, high capacity, media players the way MS has a monopoly on operating systems, or adobe has a monopoly on high end graphics programs. It doesn't matter that there are other alternatives, people don't buy them.
Apple wouldn't lose iPod sales, they would lose iTMS sales, but only if Real's music store outcompeted them. Which is how it should be. If they don't make much money on iTMS, why are they not letting others try and compete on it? In that case it shouldn't matter if it's Real or Apple selling the music for people to play on the iPod, people will still buy iPods, and the revenue they lose from not selling from iTMS should be insignificant. I suspect the real situation is that iTMS is an absolute racket. With all the iPod users there are, buying lots and lots of music, a margin of 15p or so (which since iirc iTMS sells at 99p and other places at 89p or even 79p seems reasonable) translates to enormous profits. They know that selling with 1/10 or 1/100 of that margin would be a viable business proposition, and they want to keep other people from trying this so they can keep their big profits. Which is abusing their monopoly to increase their profits at the expense of their customers.
No. That's why I mentioned "everyone's system". A program which is stable on some of the systems it runs on is not a stable program. Doubly so for something as critical as a kernel.
Younger people - yes, even as old as 21 - are less good at making decisions about risky things. That's a fact. Some people believe it means they deserve less punishment when they break the law.
Yes, the problem is that the changes are "just" not in the format they want. But that is a big problem. It goes against the whole spirit of open source, and possibly the letter as well. ("Preferred form for making modifications" anyone?)
Because they don't really think it is wrong. There are real criminals. People who kill people would be a clear example. And the reason we're discussing his future is because we're discussing the story. Speculation is an integral part of that.
Why isn't giving out a copy of it sharing? When I write a poem, giving out multiple pdfs of it is sharing. And I'd consider it to be sharing if other people gave each other copies of it too. It's sharing, plain and simple, the problem is selfish people who want to make money from the rarity of their stuff don't want you sharing it.
Wtf? You think that wanting to save people's lives is a bad reason to go into medicine? What should he have done. Good intentions are a good thing, and if that's honestly the way he feels, the world needs more people like him.
It's very relevant. He's broken the law. However, that doesn't mean it's necessary for Apple to sue the pants off him. As others have said, if they let him off with a warning it would probably be better for all involved. Screw the law, what matters is what is right. No, I'm not saying what he did was right, just that it wouldn't be right to financially destroy him for it.
Yes, it makes it okay. He didn't say he knew it was wrong, as far as I can see. If you do what you think is best you're doing the right thing, regardless of what the law or anyone else says. What more could you expect anyone to do?
It's not stable. When it runs on my system, and everyone's system, without crashing more than, say, hourly, then it's stable. 2.6 is nowhere near that.
That's because the internet as you know it *is* the web. But there's far more to the internet, and most of it was pre-90s - online games (via telnet), discussion fora (usenet), email and instant messaging were all well established in the 80s
Read his post again - he's claiming it only works if you compile a.out *and* elf in. I don't have any need for a.out support in my kernel, and you may well not either.
I think the best you can do is leave your password in a bank safe deposit box. Not 100% security, but if you can't trust your banker who can you trust, and it's better than forgetting your password and losing everything.
I'm willing to compare apples to apples, but if you want me to include the major apps installed on linux distros, you should also include lots of external software for windows - some of it third party, since there doesn't seem to be an MS alternative to (for example) the GIMP.
Slashdot Mirror
Personal information is different and you know it is. If you don't, try reading RMS's 3 types of information. But you're welcome to anything creative or useful I've made. Want the essays I wrote for GCSE English, or the little rot47 encoder/decoder I wrote, or my arrangement of Pacabel's cannon? Just ask.
You don't have to be the only supplier of something to have a monopoly on it.
Apple wouldn't lose iPod sales, they would lose iTMS sales, but only if Real's music store outcompeted them. Which is how it should be. If they don't make much money on iTMS, why are they not letting others try and compete on it? In that case it shouldn't matter if it's Real or Apple selling the music for people to play on the iPod, people will still buy iPods, and the revenue they lose from not selling from iTMS should be insignificant. I suspect the real situation is that iTMS is an absolute racket. With all the iPod users there are, buying lots and lots of music, a margin of 15p or so (which since iirc iTMS sells at 99p and other places at 89p or even 79p seems reasonable) translates to enormous profits. They know that selling with 1/10 or 1/100 of that margin would be a viable business proposition, and they want to keep other people from trying this so they can keep their big profits. Which is abusing their monopoly to increase their profits at the expense of their customers.
No. That's why I mentioned "everyone's system". A program which is stable on some of the systems it runs on is not a stable program. Doubly so for something as critical as a kernel.
Younger people - yes, even as old as 21 - are less good at making decisions about risky things. That's a fact. Some people believe it means they deserve less punishment when they break the law.
Yes, the problem is that the changes are "just" not in the format they want. But that is a big problem. It goes against the whole spirit of open source, and possibly the letter as well. ("Preferred form for making modifications" anyone?)
He didn't take it. He copied it.
It's not ok to murder people, but that still doesn't justify calling murder stealing.
Because they don't really think it is wrong. There are real criminals. People who kill people would be a clear example. And the reason we're discussing his future is because we're discussing the story. Speculation is an integral part of that.
Why isn't giving out a copy of it sharing? When I write a poem, giving out multiple pdfs of it is sharing. And I'd consider it to be sharing if other people gave each other copies of it too. It's sharing, plain and simple, the problem is selfish people who want to make money from the rarity of their stuff don't want you sharing it.
Wtf? You think that wanting to save people's lives is a bad reason to go into medicine? What should he have done. Good intentions are a good thing, and if that's honestly the way he feels, the world needs more people like him.
It's very relevant. He's broken the law. However, that doesn't mean it's necessary for Apple to sue the pants off him. As others have said, if they let him off with a warning it would probably be better for all involved. Screw the law, what matters is what is right. No, I'm not saying what he did was right, just that it wouldn't be right to financially destroy him for it.
Yes, it makes it okay. He didn't say he knew it was wrong, as far as I can see. If you do what you think is best you're doing the right thing, regardless of what the law or anyone else says. What more could you expect anyone to do?
It's not stable. When it runs on my system, and everyone's system, without crashing more than, say, hourly, then it's stable. 2.6 is nowhere near that.
That's because the internet as you know it *is* the web. But there's far more to the internet, and most of it was pre-90s - online games (via telnet), discussion fora (usenet), email and instant messaging were all well established in the 80s
Why is this funny? Sticking with 2.0 is the way to go if you want real stability and security.
The average home user, however, is safe.
Read his post again - he's claiming it only works if you compile a.out *and* elf in. I don't have any need for a.out support in my kernel, and you may well not either.
Surely in that case you'd expect apache to be exploited even more, since its admins are likely to be less competent?
Anything suspicious should be run in a chroot as well. But yes, it is a serious exploit.
I think the best you can do is leave your password in a bank safe deposit box. Not 100% security, but if you can't trust your banker who can you trust, and it's better than forgetting your password and losing everything.
No, we are comparing root exploits with root exploits. As someone else said, show me a root exploit in one of the other linux apps.
My lilo is passworded, as is my BIOS which is set only to boot from hd. And my case is alarmed. OK it isn't really, but what would you do if it was?
I'm willing to compare apples to apples, but if you want me to include the major apps installed on linux distros, you should also include lots of external software for windows - some of it third party, since there doesn't seem to be an MS alternative to (for example) the GIMP.
Yes, but the server is running there by default. Wheras every linux distro I've seen will only turn on ssh/telnet/etc if you ask it to.