Unless you've personally security audited (and actually know how to do that correctly) every single line of code, there is NO WAY you can "trust" something just because you have code to it. Unless you are trained to security audit all the different code you use in your Operating System, you might as well just install binaries and have faith in the actual coders, because the ability to see something alone doesn't make it more secure. That's like saying you're safer in NYC because there are more people who can see you. Yet people still get killed there every day.
You created that home movie, therefore you own the copyright to that movie, therefore you have the "right" to "copy" that movie, distribute, whatever, because you own that movie. The only person that could sue you, is you, since you own that movie.
But if the hard drive is encrypted, then the laptop software must have the encryption algorithm on it in order to decrypt the data, otherwise what's the point of bringing a laptop with an encrypted disk if you have no way if decrypting it once you've reached your destination?
No, I'm saying they havn't put any code into their BSD kernel that was at one point in AT&T UNIX(r) or copyrighted by SCO/Novell or whoever owns the UNIX source.
SCO is not going after Open Source, they are going after Linux. BSD has already gone through this type of thing with AT&T in the early 90's, and they ended up changing a few suspect lines of code, and 4.4BSD is 100% free of AT&T code, since they changed it because of AT&T's suit. So no, they can't go after Apple or any BSD-based kernel.
Well if you have enough to spare one, I'm sure a developer could use a multiproc sun box, check their wanted hardware list about donating one to further smp for sun.
*BSD obviously not dead.
on
OpenBSD 3.6 Live
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There has been so much development in all the BSD's, and a new BSD system (DragonFlyBSD) coming out, how can anyone say *BSD is dead? The OpenBSD community has even pushed some vendors to release firmware for various hardware in a more open source way. If a "dead" community can convince hardware vendors to do that, then why isn't the Linux community doing more to make vendors release more firmware/docs in an open way.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you've personally security audited (and actually know how to do that correctly) every single line of code, there is NO WAY you can "trust" something just because you have code to it. Unless you are trained to security audit all the different code you use in your Operating System, you might as well just install binaries and have faith in the actual coders, because the ability to see something alone doesn't make it more secure. That's like saying you're safer in NYC because there are more people who can see you. Yet people still get killed there every day.
You created that home movie, therefore you own the copyright to that movie, therefore you have the "right" to "copy" that movie, distribute, whatever, because you own that movie. The only person that could sue you, is you, since you own that movie.
But if the hard drive is encrypted, then the laptop software must have the encryption algorithm on it in order to decrypt the data, otherwise what's the point of bringing a laptop with an encrypted disk if you have no way if decrypting it once you've reached your destination?
That's for linux, BSD does not fall under SCO's bullshit lawsuits
No, I'm saying they havn't put any code into their BSD kernel that was at one point in AT&T UNIX(r) or copyrighted by SCO/Novell or whoever owns the UNIX source.
SCO is not going after Open Source, they are going after Linux. BSD has already gone through this type of thing with AT&T in the early 90's, and they ended up changing a few suspect lines of code, and 4.4BSD is 100% free of AT&T code, since they changed it because of AT&T's suit. So no, they can't go after Apple or any BSD-based kernel.
Well if you have enough to spare one, I'm sure a developer could use a multiproc sun box, check their wanted hardware list about donating one to further smp for sun.
There has been so much development in all the BSD's, and a new BSD system (DragonFlyBSD) coming out, how can anyone say *BSD is dead? The OpenBSD community has even pushed some vendors to release firmware for various hardware in a more open source way. If a "dead" community can convince hardware vendors to do that, then why isn't the Linux community doing more to make vendors release more firmware/docs in an open way.
Even better, since this is what really happens: "WARNING: Google Desktop Search does exactly what we say it does!!!"