If I or my partner installed loggers and other kinds of baby-sitter software on the computers at home and my kids didn't detect and disable them, I wouldn't let them use the computers at all.
Why would "birth control information sites" be inappropriate?
Have you ever been at http://www.durex.com/? What exactly is inappropriate with that site?
Here in New Zealand, they're currently debating the shortage of people that may sterilise women (because there's currently a lot of low-income women getting a lot of kids). I haven't heard the word "condom" being mentioned once in the debate. Condoms even protect against AIDS; it's the only thing that does (apart from not having sex).
Wait! I'm from Sweden and I'm in an old British colony, why should I be surprised?!
I'm currently looking for "old" computers to play with at home, and I came accross the following link when searching for "surplus computer new zealand" (for some reason I currently live in NZ) using the Google (http://www.google.com/):
The concept of frequency hopping was invented by Hedy Lamarr in the 1930's. It is currently being used in several countries as a secure way of sending military orders.
The advantage of frequency hopping to IP hopping seems to be that it's (probably) harder to predict frequencies than it is to predict IP addresses. No doubt they will/have figure/d out how to allocate a large anough IP space to make a fairly secure transmission and how to sync the sender and receiver.
(...and what to do about the unused IP's... hmmm... You only really need one big pool of IP addresses for a set of computers, don't you? Then it's just a matter of juggling the IP's around and make sure every computer in the set of computers know what IP they themselves and their respective communication partner at any moment have... The more computer that are communicationg over the pool of IP's, the more secure the channel is.)
And now, let's all repeat the mantra of the day: Computers do what we tell them to do. Thus no computer system will ever be completely secure.
A thing that is being teared apart by three or four more or less extremist religious movements and that explodes as soon as you prod it? A thing that people go to for the clensing of their souls, only to return unchanged, only a bit more tanned? A thing that people/fractions will fight over for millennia just to get to say "we saw it first"? Nah.
You: Let's face it, you were trying to be a know-it-all and you made a few assumptions that you shouldn't have.
Sorry but you're wrong. Mastodon Linux (whatever that is) would not be at allif it wasn't for GNU. And yet again, I did not say that every GPLd thing was a part of the GNU project.
You: Again, despite it's use on most Linux systems, I see no reason to start calling Linux GNU/Linux. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that point.
You: While GPL was originally designed for the GNU project, that doesn't mean that every project under the GPL is a GNU project.
I don't believe I made that claim. What I did say was "You simply can't have a running Linux environment without GNU!" and I still think that this is a valid claim.
If you are a Linux user (and therefore also a GNU utility user and user of a vast amount of GPLd software), you should think more than once before saying the GNU project is nonsense.
You: Pardon me... how did they write that editor? The compiler? The tools? They wrote them using "non-free" (for Stallman's definition of "free") versions of the same tools.
Maybe they did it so that they immediately could start to develop the rest of the tools using their own free, reliable, extensible, portable compiler?
You: Non-free&a mp;quot; software pretty much had to be, and was, used to develop the first versions of Stallman's "free" software.
Of course. But only enough to develop the compiler.
You: I'd bet it was because working on the tools was more fun and more immediately rewarding than working on an OS.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Programming should be fun and rewarding.
You: Now, saying "Linux was OK, it got us to the point where we could work on the real OS" - that's nothing more than a huge steaming heap of "not invented here" attitude using free software as an excuse to shield a bunch of fragile egos.
Ok, so let's say that everyone in the GNU project have tiny fragile egos. Do you have an ego big enough to explain in exactly what way this should stop them from continuing to work on the Hurd?
You said: You do realize that there are BSD versions of ls and cd, don't you? If you were as familiar with my system as as you claim to be, you'd also realize that I use tcsh and not bash.
The everyday commands distributed with most Linux systems are GNU utilities (I don't know about those utilities on e.g. BSD systems and if that is what you run then you are most likely to be correct when you say that they're not GNU). Bash is the default shell on most GNU/Linux system, tcsh is not. I believe that I am correct when I say that most GNU/Linux users use bash (wasn't there a poll about this?).
You also say: Combined KDE and XFree take up more room than pretty much anything else on my system. So much for them being a "tiny part".
You simply can't have a running Linux environment without GNU! *That's* my point. I do not count megabytes, I count the number of components that are GPLd. Please note that KDE is *one* of those components.
You said: Me either, but what makes you think I use predominantly (or any) GNU utilities? Quite frankly GNU/KDE/XFree/Linux is a little
too bulky for me, so I'll just stick to calling it Linux.
You are using predominantly GNU utilities. That's a fact. Each time you type ls or cd you execute GNU code. The bash shell is GNU code.
KDE and XFree is just a tiny part of the whole system when compared to the GNU utilities and the amount of other GPLd applications. It might be the part that shows most, but they're not essential to the system.
First I wrote: Another thing: I don't see how the GNU project can "steal" glory from the success of Linux since the success of Linux is
dependent on the GNU project which provides the tools and the license. Calling the running Linux system (kernel and user
applications etc.) "GNU/Linux" is the least people could do
Then you wrote: So we should call all apps compiled with MS compilers "Microsoft/HelloWorld"?
Do we call all applications compiled with GCC 'GNU/MyApp'? We're talking about a whole operating system with applications and documentation, not just a single application.
When someone writes an operating system similar to Windows in architecture using Visual Basic and ports the Microsoft Office suite and all the "Visual" tools to it, that system (OS and tools) will certainly be called MS/Something (or maybe "MS-something").
You wrote: Remember RMS's reply to Jorrit, regarding an LGPLed "open source" 3D engine: "I don't support the Open Source Movement,so I can't have a discussion with you in the name of open source."
You wrote: HURD would have been a really cool system, if Richard Stalman had got his priorities right in the first place and written the GNU Kernel before he wrote all the system tools! No, GNU did it the other way around, and now they spend what, 5 years? righting a kernel?!
Writing the kernel with what? Using a non-free editor, a non-free compiler, a non-free libc and other non-free tools? Would that be regarded as "free" by anyone?
I don't know if RMS is involved personally at all in the Hurd effort today (I would be happy if he was). I don't see why people attack him... The GNU Hurd is a perfectly "legal" and quite interesting free Unix project. I find it hard to believe that it's supposed to be a form of "revenge" on the success of the Linux kernel. I think it's rather a separate effort to supply a highly modular and portable Unix kernel. I don't know if the Hurd is supposed to do the same kind of impact as the Linux kernel did (is doing).
Another thing: I don't see how the GNU project can "steal" glory from the success of Linux since the success of Linux is dependent on the GNU project which provides the tools and the license. Calling the running Linux system (kernel and user applications etc.) "GNU/Linux" is the least people could do.
It's Debian GNU/Hurd, in the same way as it's Debian GNU/Linux.
By the way, people on the Hurd mailing lists are talking about leaving the Mach kernel. L4 is being considered as an alternative. Nothing has been settled yet, as far as I understand, but it's quite interesting to follow the conversation.
The problem here, I think, is that the link to the download page says "Download Linux Source", not "Download Linux Jukebox Source". This might very well have been the case why the article was posted on/. in the first case...
HEY! Is this some marketing thing? Did Compaq post this to/. to get attention??!
Saying things like "wormholes makes it easy to travel between distant parts of the universe" is as dumb as saying "going into a black hole makes time go faster" (or if it was slower, or if that only applied to an outside observer, or whatever).
The thing is, if you go *near* a black hole you're DEAD. Then you don't care about if time stops or if the universe ends within seconds.
Wouldn't going through a wormhole be the same thing?
I mean, send an apple in at one end, get a slight increase in radiation in the other...
Interesting theoretical ideas, but I want to keep my molecules in the shape they're in.
I usually put the interesting links that I find onto my home page so that I know where I have them. One page for each subject (Science stuff, GNU/Linux, document preparation systems, spam, misc etc.).
I only use the built in Netscape bookmarks feature for links to web based email sites and my own non-public pages.
They don't need to ask for your email address. If you fill out the identity preferences in Netscape and check "Send email address as FTP password" it's easy to get it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
If I or my partner installed loggers and other kinds of baby-sitter software on the computers at home and my kids didn't detect and disable them, I wouldn't let them use the computers at all.
Why would "birth control information sites" be inappropriate?
Have you ever been at http://www.durex.com/? What exactly is inappropriate with that site?
Here in New Zealand, they're currently debating the shortage of people that may sterilise women (because there's currently a lot of low-income women getting a lot of kids). I haven't heard the word "condom" being mentioned once in the debate. Condoms even protect against AIDS; it's the only thing that does (apart from not having sex).
Wait! I'm from Sweden and I'm in an old British colony, why should I be surprised?!
Never mind, some people never learn.
I'm currently looking for "old" computers to play with at home, and I came accross the following link when searching for "surplus computer new zealand" (for some reason I currently live in NZ) using the Google (http://www.google.com/):
It's maybe not directly relevant to the article, but it's definitley relevant to many of the threads I've read here so far.
You can probably find something similar in your community.
The concept of frequency hopping was invented by Hedy Lamarr in the 1930's. It is currently being used in several countries as a secure way of sending military orders.
The advantage of frequency hopping to IP hopping seems to be that it's (probably) harder to predict frequencies than it is to predict IP addresses. No doubt they will/have figure/d out how to allocate a large anough IP space to make a fairly secure transmission and how to sync the sender and receiver.
(...and what to do about the unused IP's... hmmm... You only really need one big pool of IP addresses for a set of computers, don't you? Then it's just a matter of juggling the IP's around and make sure every computer in the set of computers know what IP they themselves and their respective communication partner at any moment have... The more computer that are communicationg over the pool of IP's, the more secure the channel is.)
And now, let's all repeat the mantra of the day: Computers do what we tell them to do. Thus no computer system will ever be completely secure.
A thing that is being teared apart by three or four more or less extremist religious movements and that explodes as soon as you prod it? A thing that people go to for the clensing of their souls, only to return unchanged, only a bit more tanned? A thing that people/fractions will fight over for millennia just to get to say "we saw it first"? Nah.
You: Let's face it, you were trying to be a know-it-all and you made a few assumptions that you shouldn't have.
Sorry but you're wrong. Mastodon Linux (whatever that is) would not be at allif it wasn't for GNU. And yet again, I did not say that every GPLd thing was a part of the GNU project.
You: Again, despite it's use on most Linux systems, I see no reason to start calling Linux GNU/Linux. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that point.
I see no reason to stop calling it GNU/Linux.
You: While GPL was originally designed for the GNU project, that doesn't mean that every project under the GPL is a GNU project.
I don't believe I made that claim. What I did say was "You simply can't have a running Linux environment without GNU!" and I still think that this is a valid claim.
If you are a Linux user (and therefore also a GNU utility user and user of a vast amount of GPLd software), you should think more than once before saying the GNU project is nonsense.
You: Pardon me... how did they write that editor? The compiler? The tools? They wrote them using "non-free" (for Stallman's definition of "free") versions of the same tools.
Maybe they did it so that they immediately could start to develop the rest of the tools using their own free, reliable, extensible, portable compiler?
You: Non-free&a mp;quot; software pretty much had to be, and was, used to develop the first versions of Stallman's "free" software.
Of course. But only enough to develop the compiler.
You: I'd bet it was because working on the tools was more fun and more immediately rewarding than working on an OS.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Programming should be fun and rewarding.
You: Now, saying "Linux was OK, it got us to the point where we could work on the real OS" - that's nothing more than a huge steaming heap of "not invented here" attitude using free software as an excuse to shield a bunch of fragile egos.
Ok, so let's say that everyone in the GNU project have tiny fragile egos. Do you have an ego big enough to explain in exactly what way this should stop them from continuing to work on the Hurd?
You said: You do realize that there are BSD versions of ls and cd, don't you? If you were as familiar with my system as as you claim to be, you'd also realize that I use tcsh and not bash.
The everyday commands distributed with most Linux systems are GNU utilities (I don't know about those utilities on e.g. BSD systems and if that is what you run then you are most likely to be correct when you say that they're not GNU). Bash is the default shell on most GNU/Linux system, tcsh is not. I believe that I am correct when I say that most GNU/Linux users use bash (wasn't there a poll about this?).
You also say: Combined KDE and XFree take up more room than pretty much anything else on my system. So much for them being a "tiny part".
You simply can't have a running Linux environment without GNU! *That's* my point. I do not count megabytes, I count the number of components that are GPLd. Please note that KDE is *one* of those components.
You said: Me either, but what makes you think I use predominantly (or any) GNU utilities? Quite frankly GNU/KDE/XFree/Linux is a little too bulky for me, so I'll just stick to calling it Linux.
You are using predominantly GNU utilities. That's a fact. Each time you type ls or cd you execute GNU code. The bash shell is GNU code.
KDE and XFree is just a tiny part of the whole system when compared to the GNU utilities and the amount of other GPLd applications. It might be the part that shows most, but they're not essential to the system.
First I wrote: Another thing: I don't see how the GNU project can "steal" glory from the success of Linux since the success of Linux is dependent on the GNU project which provides the tools and the license. Calling the running Linux system (kernel and user applications etc.) "GNU/Linux" is the least people could do
Then you wrote: So we should call all apps compiled with MS compilers "Microsoft/HelloWorld"?
Do we call all applications compiled with GCC 'GNU/MyApp'? We're talking about a whole operating system with applications and documentation, not just a single application.
When someone writes an operating system similar to Windows in architecture using Visual Basic and ports the Microsoft Office suite and all the "Visual" tools to it, that system (OS and tools) will certainly be called MS/Something (or maybe "MS-something").
You wrote: Remember RMS's reply to Jorrit, regarding an LGPLed "open source" 3D engine: "I don't support the Open Source Movement,so I can't have a discussion with you in the name of open source."
r eedom.html.
I say: Here's the text on "Open Source" at the GNU site:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
You wrote: HURD would have been a really cool system, if Richard Stalman had got his priorities right in the first place and written the GNU Kernel before he wrote all the system tools! No, GNU did it the other way around, and now they spend what, 5 years? righting a kernel?!
Writing the kernel with what? Using a non-free editor, a non-free compiler, a non-free libc and other non-free tools? Would that be regarded as "free" by anyone?
I don't know if RMS is involved personally at all in the Hurd effort today (I would be happy if he was). I don't see why people attack him... The GNU Hurd is a perfectly "legal" and quite interesting free Unix project. I find it hard to believe that it's supposed to be a form of "revenge" on the success of the Linux kernel. I think it's rather a separate effort to supply a highly modular and portable Unix kernel. I don't know if the Hurd is supposed to do the same kind of impact as the Linux kernel did (is doing).
Another thing: I don't see how the GNU project can "steal" glory from the success of Linux since the success of Linux is dependent on the GNU project which provides the tools and the license. Calling the running Linux system (kernel and user applications etc.) "GNU/Linux" is the least people could do.
It's Debian GNU/Hurd, in the same way as it's Debian GNU/Linux.
By the way, people on the Hurd mailing lists are talking about leaving the Mach kernel. L4 is being considered as an alternative. Nothing has been settled yet, as far as I understand, but it's quite interesting to follow the conversation.
There's no little piece of trojan code that's going to record my password and send it off to somewhere else, is there? No, probably not...
So, how do we know CmdrTaco wrote this article himself if some cracker/hacker gained god access? Well, it probably was the real CmdrTaco.
Probably.
:-)
The problem here, I think, is that the link to the download page says "Download Linux Source", not "Download Linux Jukebox Source". This might very well have been the case why the article was posted on /. in the first case...
HEY! Is this some marketing thing? Did Compaq post this to /. to get attention??!
'' We're the Sun in ".sun". ''
'' The Sun IS the computer! ''
At the Linux Metapage (http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/linux-meta.html) there's pointers to a lot of different types of software for Linux.
In particular, there's a pointers to to SAL (http://SAL.KachinaTech.COM/index.shtml) and LinuxApps (http://www.linuxapps.com/) and other software lists that might interest scientific Linux users.
I see a slight problem here.
Saying things like "wormholes makes it easy to travel between distant parts of the universe" is as dumb as saying "going into a black hole makes time go faster" (or if it was slower, or if that only applied to an outside observer, or whatever).
The thing is, if you go *near* a black hole you're DEAD. Then you don't care about if time stops or if the universe ends within seconds.
Wouldn't going through a wormhole be the same thing?
I mean, send an apple in at one end, get a slight increase in radiation in the other...
Interesting theoretical ideas, but I want to keep my molecules in the shape they're in.
(sorry for not knowing more about wormholes)
No, not odd at all, just incomplete.
You have to delete a lot more than one single file to get all the bugs out...
They should have added "using non-free server software" after that...
I usually put the interesting links that I find onto my home page so that I know where I have them. One page for each subject (Science stuff, GNU/Linux, document preparation systems, spam, misc etc.).
I only use the built in Netscape bookmarks feature for links to web based email sites and my own non-public pages.
They don't need to ask for your email address. If you fill out the identity preferences in Netscape and check "Send email address as FTP password" it's easy to get it anyway.
See http://www.privacy.net/analyze/
The real (live) Tux was adopted 1997-01-27 (http://penguin.uk.linux.org/).