...I will never put an "... or later" clause. Maybe eventually FSF will prevent me from using my own code in commercial products or something.
I think you have two misunderstandings:
1. As the copyright holder, you can always decide to release your code under another license.
2. The "or later" clause is at your option, "you" being the licensee. This means that that clause can only grant new rights, not remove rights, since anybody can always decide to chose to see the software as licensed under GPL v2. This is similar to dual licensing.
You are both PARTIALLY right. His fears are well-founded because, in practice, the Free Software Foundation request copyright assignments in order to enforce the GPL "more effectively" , as stated by Prof. Eben Moglen himself:
"In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment"Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
Since most people use GPL'ed software while using Linux, and since the average Linux distro borrows heavily from the GNU Project, most of the code copyrighted under the GPL do not belong to their authors.
My personal advice for him/her is to copyright his code under a specific GPL version while keeping the copyright under his/her name. The rest of what you said is true.
What a waste of time. What are they trying to accomplish by still working on the HURD? Linux has already far surpassed it in every catagory (hardware support, software support, usability, performance, etc.) and is just as Free as the HURD, so what gives?
On the other hand, I guess I'm not the only one of this mind, as it obviously wouldn't have taken 20 years to get to the point where a program can finally run on it if everybody else with development skills didn't also believe it a total waste of their time.
From the interview:
Security and stability are tightly related issues, and they are major motivations for any microkernel based system. However, we feel that security does not need to translate to loss of freedom. With a bit of extra trouble, you can be secure and even increase the freedom of the user. This is what we want to do.
In the Hurd, the operating system is implemented as a set of servers, and each runs in its own address space. Of course there are some essential system services which better not crash, or the system will reboot immediately as a last attempt to salvage the situation. But for many other services, a crash is not fatal. If a filesystem server crashes (except for the root filesystem), you can just restart it (or it is restarted automatically by the system). Dead-locks require manual interaction, and you will have to kill the hanging server to remove it from the system and release associated resources.
The Hurd achieves its stability and security by protocols between components that require no mutual trust. So, although a user can add their own filesystem to the filesystem hierarchy, and the parent filesystem will redirect accesses through such a mount point to the user's filesystem, there is nothing the user's filesystem can do that can affect the rest of the system in a bad way. The Hurd servers are written in a way to assume the worst from a communication partner, namely that it is malicious, as an implication you get fault-tolerance for free.
I am so very tired of NASA. They may have accomplished some amazing feats, but they screw up so many things (sensors upside down, feet not meters, bad insulation, etc), and every time someone there miscalculates, BAM! there goes $10 billion of misappropriated taxpayer money.
I rather spend 10 billion in the space program than 120 billion in a stupid war in the Middle East.
I'm sure a Mac virus for OS X has at the very least been attempted. Why hasn't it succeeded at spreading all around? OS X really is more secure.
Well, this somehow contradicts an article I just read yesterday in Ziff Davis Mac and Linux Not Immune to Viruses, and to be honest with you, I tend to agree with the article:
"If I wrote a mail worm for Linux and seeded it well enough (I could even use infected Windows systems for the initial seeding with a special Windows virus just for the purpose), I suspect it still wouldn't get very far, because very, very few typical consumers run Linux systems. Linux users are on average, simply by virtue of their running Linux, more sophisticated than typical consumers.
The Mac is different. I suspect a typical mail worm for the Mac could get some traction if it spread enough copies and had a good social engineering scheme".
2. Alternatively, call 1-866-MYVOTE1 to find your polling place.
3. Check the hours the polls are open with your city or county clerk.
4. Print the League of Women Voters' card in English or Spanish and put it in your wallet or purse.
5. Bring a government-issued picture ID like a driver's license or passport when you vote. Some states require it but if there are problems, you will certainly need it. If you have a cell phone, take it to call for help if need be.
6. As you enter the polls, note if there is an Election Protection person outside the polling place.
7. If you are not listed as a registered voter, try to register on the spot. Some states allow that. Otherwise, talk to the Election Protection person if there is one or call 1-866-OUR-VOTE for instructions. If neither of these helps, ask for a provisional ballot, but you will need a picture ID to get one.
You're not alone. I've been trying to find Linux logos without the penguin for a while. I don't like it.
Re:"Linux" IS secure by default
on
OpenBSD 3.6 Live
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
that statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how openbsd, or any bsd, are developed, or even who is developing them.
Well, am I missing something? Let's find out where the hype is. At this moment, behemoths like IBM, Sun and Novell are actively developing Linux systems. Not only contributing with millions of dollars in cash and code but actually creating Linux solutions. Others like NEC, Intel, HP and Oracle are also deeply involved. Even countries like Brasil and China are developing Linux systems intensively because Linux systems, not BSDs, are now part of a their national security agenda.
Now, let's take a look at the BSDs. Let's put'em ALL TOGETHER. If I combine the core teams, even the security teams of all the flavors COMBINED, we'll have a hard time finding programmers with stable jobs, let alone an advanced degree in the area or an industrial lab support. I know I sound quite rude, but I am trying to illustrate my point. Just check out the bios.
I am aware that Yahoo and at some extent Apple are helping out a bit. Nothing significant, as you don't even get to see what Yahoo is using and, just to make it worse, Apple took some FreeBSD and NetBSD bits (because they were more mature at that time and their license actually allowed it), combined them together, and released the result under the APSL as a "thank you" note, putting it totally out of their reach. Compare that to Novell or Red Hat, where you actually get to use the same distro that companies like Merrill Lynch (the top financial manager in the US) are using.
"Linux" IS secure by default
on
OpenBSD 3.6 Live
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Why would anyone select an OS (expecially for network infrastructure) that is not secure by default?
Linux can be secure by default! Keep in mind that there many Linux distros and you can't put'em in a single bag and benchmark'em with a single flavor of BSD. What about Trustix, Adamantis or EnGarde? There are "hardened" versions of Debian and Gentoo, etc.
Oracle is not cooperating with Debian or Red Hat, is cooperating with whoever makes up a linux distro (and that includes companies like IBM or Sun). There's way more freedom and more room for innovation in the Linux camp than working under the orders of Theo or the $18,000/year software programmer in the core team of the average BSD distro.
If a "dead" community can convince hardware vendors to [release firmware for various hardware in a more open source way], then why isn't the Linux community doing more to make vendors release more firmware/docs in an open way.
You're assuming vendors are releasing firmware because they care about the *BSD community, but most BSDs were stable (and by far more complete) systems back when Linus was asking for help in the mailing lists, yet in all these years most vendors couldn't cared less about them. Only after IBM, HP, Sun and those giants joined Linux vendors took the movement seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Debian or Ubuntu developers, but I don't understand why you decided to build a team of software "enthusiasts" when thats the common denominator in 99% of the Linux or BSD projects out there?
I mean, don't you think that you had a great opportunity to mix some blood and inject new ideas to the free software movement? Why among a tremendous pool of talented CS engineers, designers & architects worldwide, some of them making great innovations already, you had to choose the same type of people for the same type of distro following the same type of ideas and a 30 year old design philosophy and yet expect to achieve something different?
why not create a freebsd-based distribution, or maybe even an OS designed from scratch for the desktop
Because, except for the kernel, Linux is pretty much an OS designed from scratch. Using a *BSD will force you to keep adapting an arcane design forever just top keep up with today's ideas. Li
Excuse me while I put on my tin-foil hat, but I have this weird feeling about it. True, everything seems so sloppy (just think about it, he sent the e-mail to advocacy@openbsd, that's how I got it). However, Fedore Core 3 is about to be released in two weeks or less and lots of FC2 users will be pointing at the Red Hat servers in a few days. I think Red Hat should be quite careful w/this one.
The government should, in general, exit the free market and should stop funding technology projects.
This sounds like a recipe for success. Where did you get the idea, Libya?
"the American government should force the Mexican government, the Chinese government, and the Indian government out of the free market and should force them to enforce Western standards of human rights, workers' rights, and environmental and consumer protection...
See, the problem is that some Americans would preffer to enforce Western standards of human rights in the United States first. Having one of the worst records on capital punishment over the face of the Earth, abusing prisioners in Guantanamo or brutalizing illegal immigrants are not exactly along the lines of Western human right standards because, apparently, prisioners and illegal immigrants are still human.
Now forcing China and India out of the free market economy is rather easy. Drop a line to your congressman so we can push 1/3 of the world population away from the forces of capitalism.
If they do not comply, then we kick the Mexicans, the Chinese, and the Indians out of the American market. Free trade means that that we trade only with other nations who support free trade."
Actually, I heard that ten years ago George Bush, Sr. had the same idea and, in order to enforce free trade policies in Mexico, promoted a Free Trade Agreement that was approved by the Congress. Things went bad down there so now Mexico has 32 free trade agreements (more than any other country in the world). On the other hand, India and China should be kicked out of the American market and be forced not to kick out American companies out of their markets because that would be stupid.
FreeBSD is worth advocating, but I bet the avergage BSD connoisseur can come up with better arguments. The article is full of stereotypes and garbage. I really wonder if the author really took an hour to visit the WEBSITES, let alone experimenting with the systems by himself:
The new FreeBSD 5 branch offers some exciting technology, generally regarded as comparable with or superior to what is offered in Linux...while plans for FreeBSD 4.12 are on the backburner should FreeBSD 5 not achieve -STABLE status by the fourth quarter of 2005.
What a fair comparison, let's benchmark STABLE technology available in Linux by the end of 2004 with technology that might be stable in FreeBSD by the end of 2005!
[NetBSD] it's currently at version 2.6.1, with aggressive testing on the new NetBSD 2.0 promising fruition by the first half of 2005...Those familiar with NetBSD swear by it, though its use in serious environments is limited.
OK, first of all, NetBSD is at version 1.6.2, not 2.6.1, and if you are looking for "serious environments", what if I tell you that the world's fastest computer is running NetBSD? Maybe NASA's Lewis Research Center, NEC Europe and Sony Japan do not count as "serious environments". http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/research.html.
Forking from NetBSD in 1995 after a very heated -- and embarrassing -- personal argument, OpenBSD's one and only focus is to offer security. Every line of code is hand-audited and, as the site claims, there hasn't been a hole in the default install in over seven years. Striking a balance in hardware support somewhere between FreeBSD and NetBSD, OpenBSD runs on very few platforms and even then only in single-processor mode.
I don't know who got embarrassed w/ that argument, but certainly not Theo since he keeps a record of it in his own personal website for visitors to see:http://zeus.theos.com/deraadt/coremail.html. There hasn't been a hole in the default install in over EIGHT years, not seven.
OpenBSD runs on very few platforms and even then only in single-processor mode
OpenBSD isn't acceptable as a desktop system or 3D workstation, however...One factor that mars OpenBSD's fair weather is its primary developer, Theo de Raadt...developers may wish to remain wary of this platform and its creator.
What a bunch of nonsense! I've been using OpenBSD in my desktop for years, and had developers listened to you, OpenSSH wouldn't exist, nor have over 88 percent of the SSH server market!http://www.openssh.com/press.html
I could go on and on, but I got tired already. I wonder why you guys promote these articles.
Is not about building them, is about SELLING THEM
on
Hip-e All-In-One PC
·
· Score: 1
take a look at the specs. at $1699, this is a ripoff. you're paying for eye candy basically.
i can make a MUCH better computer for that price.
True, but would you be able to SELL IT to a segment that couldn't care less about what MHz stands for?
I think lots of you totally missed the point. This guy saw a good opportunity to sell a WinBox to people who wants a WinBox but don't like the way they look. Lots of people are buying iMacs without caring 2 cents for the specs, they just need to know a few things: it works, it's going to be useful for a while, it can connect to the net, it can read/write docs from school/work, it prints and it looks really cool. Period. They get bored or fightened with your specs list and they think all x86's look the same, too corporate and too boring.
Think about ipods. Are they being sold because they are tech breakthroughs?? I can name you ten products with more features and better engineered, but they don't LOOK cool.
Isn't it amazing how the U.S. Government is so eager to adopt whatever technology is available to track back printed documents while defeating initiative after initiative that would require all handgun ammunition to carry microscopic markings, allowing police depts. to trace bullets back to the buyer?
What about the national ballistic fingerprint system that would enable law enforcement officials to trace bullets recovered from shootings, like those fired by the Washington-area sniper, back to the weapon used? http://www.wmsa.net/news/NYTimes/nyt-021007_hci_mo uthpiece.htm
Just in case you haven't noticed, fingerprinting texts, not bullets or guns, is how a country wins a war on terror or a war on crime.
1. Indymedia is "independent" as "not-owned-by-a-corporation", not as "politically neutral".
2. Indymedia does not lean to the left. The Guardian (UK), Le Monde (FR) or maybe even the New York Times (US) are leftist. Indymedia is just anarchist globaliphobia.
Now, even if we don't like it, we cannot accept what the FBI just did. There are plenty of legal alternatives to remove information that (apparently) may jeopardize the privacy or the undercover activities of police officers (who, by the way, are not inflitrating a cartel, just taking pictures at a protest). Taking away servers and shutting down an entire network of local activists is, in my opinion, an exaggerated measure.
---
Slashdot Mirror
...I will never put an "... or later" clause. Maybe eventually FSF will prevent me from using my own code in commercial products or something.
I think you have two misunderstandings:
1. As the copyright holder, you can always decide to release your code under another license.
2. The "or later" clause is at your option, "you" being the licensee. This means that that clause can only grant new rights, not remove rights, since anybody can always decide to chose to see the software as licensed under GPL v2. This is similar to dual licensing.
You are both PARTIALLY right. His fears are well-founded because, in practice, the Free Software Foundation request copyright assignments in order to enforce the GPL "more effectively" , as stated by Prof. Eben Moglen himself:
"In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment" Source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
Since most people use GPL'ed software while using Linux, and since the average Linux distro borrows heavily from the GNU Project, most of the code copyrighted under the GPL do not belong to their authors.
My personal advice for him/her is to copyright his code under a specific GPL version while keeping the copyright under his/her name. The rest of what you said is true.
Finally! It was about time someone addresses the need for a porn directory with no credit card involved in this country!
What a waste of time. What are they trying to accomplish by still working on the HURD? Linux has already far surpassed it in every catagory (hardware support, software support, usability, performance, etc.) and is just as Free as the HURD, so what gives?
On the other hand, I guess I'm not the only one of this mind, as it obviously wouldn't have taken 20 years to get to the point where a program can finally run on it if everybody else with development skills didn't also believe it a total waste of their time.
From the interview:
Security and stability are tightly related issues, and they are major motivations for any microkernel based system. However, we feel that security does not need to translate to loss of freedom. With a bit of extra trouble, you can be secure and even increase the freedom of the user. This is what we want to do.
In the Hurd, the operating system is implemented as a set of servers, and each runs in its own address space. Of course there are some essential system services which better not crash, or the system will reboot immediately as a last attempt to salvage the situation. But for many other services, a crash is not fatal. If a filesystem server crashes (except for the root filesystem), you can just restart it (or it is restarted automatically by the system). Dead-locks require manual interaction, and you will have to kill the hanging server to remove it from the system and release associated resources.
The Hurd achieves its stability and security by protocols between components that require no mutual trust. So, although a user can add their own filesystem to the filesystem hierarchy, and the parent filesystem will redirect accesses through such a mount point to the user's filesystem, there is nothing the user's filesystem can do that can affect the rest of the system in a bad way. The Hurd servers are written in a way to assume the worst from a communication partner, namely that it is malicious, as an implication you get fault-tolerance for free.
They also added HelixPlayer (Real), Synaptics and now you can use Java *almost* out-of-the-box.
and can suggest and solve their own problems
Uninstall Linux and install FreeBSD.
Oops, wait, that's only 5 words. Need another 1,195 to pad it out. Any suggestions?
Well, seems like you chose option b: "suggest your own problem". Unfortunately that one needs more than 1,195 words to solve it.
Brazilian??? Ximian is from Massachusetts!!! Nat is American and Miguel de Icaza is Mexican, I don't know where you got the Brazilian connection.
And just for the record, the are tons of German companies owned by American ones.
Everyone is invited to a triple funeral for the BSDs. Netcraft confirms it.
I guess only in Slashdot this kind of stuff can be considered "funny".
I am so very tired of NASA. They may have accomplished some amazing feats, but they screw up so many things (sensors upside down, feet not meters, bad insulation, etc), and every time someone there miscalculates, BAM! there goes $10 billion of misappropriated taxpayer money.
I rather spend 10 billion in the space program than 120 billion in a stupid war in the Middle East.
I'm sure a Mac virus for OS X has at the very least been attempted. Why hasn't it succeeded at spreading all around? OS X really is more secure.
Well, this somehow contradicts an article I just read yesterday in Ziff Davis Mac and Linux Not Immune to Viruses, and to be honest with you, I tend to agree with the article:
"If I wrote a mail worm for Linux and seeded it well enough (I could even use infected Windows systems for the initial seeding with a special Windows virus just for the purpose), I suspect it still wouldn't get very far, because very, very few typical consumers run Linux systems. Linux users are on average, simply by virtue of their running Linux, more sophisticated than typical consumers.
The Mac is different. I suspect a typical mail worm for the Mac could get some traction if it spread enough copies and had a good social engineering scheme".
Here are some things to remember about voting:
1. Find out today where your polling place is by calling your county clerk or checking http://www.mypollingplace.com/
2. Alternatively, call 1-866-MYVOTE1 to find your polling place.
3. Check the hours the polls are open with your city or county clerk.
4. Print the League of Women Voters' card in English or Spanish and put it in your wallet or purse.
5. Bring a government-issued picture ID like a driver's license or passport when you vote. Some states require it but if there are problems, you will certainly need it. If you have a cell phone, take it to call for help if need be.
6. As you enter the polls, note if there is an Election Protection person outside the polling place.
7. If you are not listed as a registered voter, try to register on the spot. Some states allow that. Otherwise, talk to the Election Protection person if there is one or call 1-866-OUR-VOTE for instructions. If neither of these helps, ask for a provisional ballot, but you will need a picture ID to get one.
Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/
You're not alone. I've been trying to find Linux logos without the penguin for a while. I don't like it.
that statement demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how openbsd, or any bsd, are developed, or even who is developing them.
Well, am I missing something? Let's find out where the hype is. At this moment, behemoths like IBM, Sun and Novell are actively developing Linux systems. Not only contributing with millions of dollars in cash and code but actually creating Linux solutions. Others like NEC, Intel, HP and Oracle are also deeply involved. Even countries like Brasil and China are developing Linux systems intensively because Linux systems, not BSDs, are now part of a their national security agenda.
Now, let's take a look at the BSDs. Let's put'em ALL TOGETHER. If I combine the core teams, even the security teams of all the flavors COMBINED, we'll have a hard time finding programmers with stable jobs, let alone an advanced degree in the area or an industrial lab support. I know I sound quite rude, but I am trying to illustrate my point. Just check out the bios.
I am aware that Yahoo and at some extent Apple are helping out a bit. Nothing significant, as you don't even get to see what Yahoo is using and, just to make it worse, Apple took some FreeBSD and NetBSD bits (because they were more mature at that time and their license actually allowed it), combined them together, and released the result under the APSL as a "thank you" note, putting it totally out of their reach. Compare that to Novell or Red Hat, where you actually get to use the same distro that companies like Merrill Lynch (the top financial manager in the US) are using.
Why would anyone select an OS (expecially for network infrastructure) that is not secure by default?
Linux can be secure by default! Keep in mind that there many Linux distros and you can't put'em in a single bag and benchmark'em with a single flavor of BSD. What about Trustix, Adamantis or EnGarde? There are "hardened" versions of Debian and Gentoo, etc.
Oracle is not cooperating with Debian or Red Hat, is cooperating with whoever makes up a linux distro (and that includes companies like IBM or Sun). There's way more freedom and more room for innovation in the Linux camp than working under the orders of Theo or the $18,000/year software programmer in the core team of the average BSD distro.
If a "dead" community can convince hardware vendors to [release firmware for various hardware in a more open source way], then why isn't the Linux community doing more to make vendors release more firmware/docs in an open way.
You're assuming vendors are releasing firmware because they care about the *BSD community, but most BSDs were stable (and by far more complete) systems back when Linus was asking for help in the mailing lists, yet in all these years most vendors couldn't cared less about them. Only after IBM, HP, Sun and those giants joined Linux vendors took the movement seriously.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Debian or Ubuntu developers, but I don't understand why you decided to build a team of software "enthusiasts" when thats the common denominator in 99% of the Linux or BSD projects out there?
I mean, don't you think that you had a great opportunity to mix some blood and inject new ideas to the free software movement? Why among a tremendous pool of talented CS engineers, designers & architects worldwide, some of them making great innovations already, you had to choose the same type of people for the same type of distro following the same type of ideas and a 30 year old design philosophy and yet expect to achieve something different?
why not create a freebsd-based distribution, or maybe even an OS designed from scratch for the desktop
Because, except for the kernel, Linux is pretty much an OS designed from scratch. Using a *BSD will force you to keep adapting an arcane design forever just top keep up with today's ideas. Li
Excuse me while I put on my tin-foil hat, but I have this weird feeling about it. True, everything seems so sloppy (just think about it, he sent the e-mail to advocacy@openbsd, that's how I got it). However, Fedore Core 3 is about to be released in two weeks or less and lots of FC2 users will be pointing at the Red Hat servers in a few days. I think Red Hat should be quite careful w/this one.
The government should, in general, exit the free market and should stop funding technology projects.
This sounds like a recipe for success. Where did you get the idea, Libya?
"the American government should force the Mexican government, the Chinese government, and the Indian government out of the free market and should force them to enforce Western standards of human rights, workers' rights, and environmental and consumer protection...
See, the problem is that some Americans would preffer to enforce Western standards of human rights in the United States first. Having one of the worst records on capital punishment over the face of the Earth, abusing prisioners in Guantanamo or brutalizing illegal immigrants are not exactly along the lines of Western human right standards because, apparently, prisioners and illegal immigrants are still human.
Now forcing China and India out of the free market economy is rather easy. Drop a line to your congressman so we can push 1/3 of the world population away from the forces of capitalism.
If they do not comply, then we kick the Mexicans, the Chinese, and the Indians out of the American market. Free trade means that that we trade only with other nations who support free trade."
Actually, I heard that ten years ago George Bush, Sr. had the same idea and, in order to enforce free trade policies in Mexico, promoted a Free Trade Agreement that was approved by the Congress. Things went bad down there so now Mexico has 32 free trade agreements (more than any other country in the world). On the other hand, India and China should be kicked out of the American market and be forced not to kick out American companies out of their markets because that would be stupid.
Do you preffer a real one: http://www.linux-community.de/pics/22/3.jpg
or a fake one: http://www.anonimohp.hpg.ig.com.br/fotos/blog/lin
FreeBSD is worth advocating, but I bet the avergage BSD connoisseur can come up with better arguments. The article is full of stereotypes and garbage. I really wonder if the author really took an hour to visit the WEBSITES, let alone experimenting with the systems by himself:
The new FreeBSD 5 branch offers some exciting technology, generally regarded as comparable with or superior to what is offered in Linux...while plans for FreeBSD 4.12 are on the backburner should FreeBSD 5 not achieve -STABLE status by the fourth quarter of 2005.
What a fair comparison, let's benchmark STABLE technology available in Linux by the end of 2004 with technology that might be stable in FreeBSD by the end of 2005!
[NetBSD] it's currently at version 2.6.1, with aggressive testing on the new NetBSD 2.0 promising fruition by the first half of 2005...Those familiar with NetBSD swear by it, though its use in serious environments is limited.
OK, first of all, NetBSD is at version 1.6.2, not 2.6.1, and if you are looking for "serious environments", what if I tell you that the world's fastest computer is running NetBSD? Maybe NASA's Lewis Research Center, NEC Europe and Sony Japan do not count as "serious environments". http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/research.html.
Forking from NetBSD in 1995 after a very heated -- and embarrassing -- personal argument, OpenBSD's one and only focus is to offer security. Every line of code is hand-audited and, as the site claims, there hasn't been a hole in the default install in over seven years. Striking a balance in hardware support somewhere between FreeBSD and NetBSD, OpenBSD runs on very few platforms and even then only in single-processor mode.
I don't know who got embarrassed w/ that argument, but certainly not Theo since he keeps a record of it in his own personal website for visitors to see:http://zeus.theos.com/deraadt/coremail.html. There hasn't been a hole in the default install in over EIGHT years, not seven.
OpenBSD runs on very few platforms and even then only in single-processor mode
OpenBSD runs in more platforms than FreeBSD!!! http://www.openbsd.org/plat.html
OpenBSD isn't acceptable as a desktop system or 3D workstation, however...One factor that mars OpenBSD's fair weather is its primary developer, Theo de Raadt...developers may wish to remain wary of this platform and its creator.
What a bunch of nonsense! I've been using OpenBSD in my desktop for years, and had developers listened to you, OpenSSH wouldn't exist, nor have over 88 percent of the SSH server market!http://www.openssh.com/press.html
I could go on and on, but I got tired already. I wonder why you guys promote these articles.
take a look at the specs. at $1699, this is a ripoff. you're paying for eye candy basically.
i can make a MUCH better computer for that price.
True, but would you be able to SELL IT to a segment that couldn't care less about what MHz stands for?
I think lots of you totally missed the point. This guy saw a good opportunity to sell a WinBox to people who wants a WinBox but don't like the way they look. Lots of people are buying iMacs without caring 2 cents for the specs, they just need to know a few things: it works, it's going to be useful for a while, it can connect to the net, it can read/write docs from school/work, it prints and it looks really cool. Period. They get bored or fightened with your specs list and they think all x86's look the same, too corporate and too boring.
Think about ipods. Are they being sold because they are tech breakthroughs?? I can name you ten products with more features and better engineered, but they don't LOOK cool.
Isn't it amazing how the U.S. Government is so eager to adopt whatever technology is available to track back printed documents while defeating initiative after initiative that would require all handgun ammunition to carry microscopic markings, allowing police depts. to trace bullets back to the buyer?
o uthpiece.htm
What about the national ballistic fingerprint system that would enable law enforcement officials to trace bullets recovered from shootings, like those fired by the Washington-area sniper, back to the weapon used? http://www.wmsa.net/news/NYTimes/nyt-021007_hci_m
Just in case you haven't noticed, fingerprinting texts, not bullets or guns, is how a country wins a war on terror or a war on crime.
First of all:
1. Indymedia is "independent" as "not-owned-by-a-corporation", not as "politically neutral".
2. Indymedia does not lean to the left. The Guardian (UK), Le Monde (FR) or maybe even the New York Times (US) are leftist. Indymedia is just anarchist globaliphobia.
Now, even if we don't like it, we cannot accept what the FBI just did. There are plenty of legal alternatives to remove information that (apparently) may jeopardize the privacy or the undercover activities of police officers (who, by the way, are not inflitrating a cartel, just taking pictures at a protest). Taking away servers and shutting down an entire network of local activists is, in my opinion, an exaggerated measure.
---