One complication is that redhat doesn't make hardware, so what happens if Evil HW Company makes HW that only accepts redhat binaries? Are redhat then obligated to release their keys, even though they have nothing to do with the HW?
No, because Red Hat isn't the one implementing the DRM in this case, Evil HW Company is. Red Hat binaries can continue to run on other hardware, no problem. And the source can be recompiled on other hardware and still run, no problem. Finally, the DRM in this case isn't intrinsic to the code, it's intrinsic to the hardware. Just because a binary is signed doesn't mean that it's using DRM -- the hardware that checks for the signed binary is where the DRM is, and as long as that's not part of the code of a GPLV3 application, Evil HW Co. is allowed to do whatever it wants, and so is Red Hat.
InPro's patent described the use of a proxy server which downloaded data from the Web in response to a request from a device, then transposed the data to match the specific size and resolution of the device, according to The Times. The patent in question was granted in 1996.
Imagine Acme Corp. files a 'limited patent' for Widget X and it's granted without examination. My widget, Widget Y does the same thing as Widget X, and it's actually got a real patent pending and has been on the market for 3 years.
However, Widget Y hasn't been selling very well due to my inability to market the product, and well, I can't afford good legal representation. So I can't sue Acme Corp. at all... worse, Acme Corp. notices my product and decides to sue me! Since Acme got their 'limited patent' first and mine is just pending, Acme wins!
Screw that. It sounds like a patent abusers' wet dream.
Your assumption seems to be that this GoogleOS would be targetted at business.
From the screenshotsI have seen I would say that Google is targetting mostly the home user.
As surprising as it may seem to you, not everyone needs compatibility with existing Windows apps. Furthermore, the addition of another OS to the marketplace probably won't, nor does it necessarily have to, spell the end of Windows.
It's not the like there needs to be just one OS for everyone. That line of thinking is reserved for Microsoft employees.
RAD tools are a great and easy way to write GUI apps without getting knee deep in the API (in this case, Win32).
Borland's Delphi, C++ Builder, and C# Builder are great tools, and all work similarly, but support different languages and tools... C++ Builder is my personal favorite, but I C# Builder is nice for developing.NET applications. Borland also has a similar tool for Java. And there's always Visual Basic.
The solution is even simpler. Stop the federal government from artificially lowering oil prices in the United States.
When gas prices rise to the $5+ a gallon the rest of the world already pays, just like the rest of the world, smaller cars will begin to make much more sense those same people driving their fat 200lb asses to the grocery store in their 5,000 lb. trucks.
Two words: Software validation. Database licenses are very, very expensive. You have an app that you've already developed against, say, Oracle or DB2, and you want to to run some test scenarios from a functionality standpoint. You could spend thousands on the software, or you could just keep your testing scenarios within the limits of the free beer version and not have to worry about software licenses. Later, you will probably need to prove out your software from a scalability perspetive and you'll need the real software then, but you don't need to be paying for the license during your year-long release cycle.
Re:Securing Open Source Code
on
Mitnick on OSS
·
· Score: 1
The difference is that people coding OSS are doing it because they want to, so hopefully have a little more motivation to look at the other code in their project. It's interesting to them, so they're a bit more likely IMO to look at it.
Well, not just interesting... Most of the people who work on OSS projects do so because they need the project to do something for them. Not surprisingly, most of the people who work on Apache are webmasters. The guy who started PHP did so because he needed some tools for making dynamic content for his homepage. Many of the Linux kernel developers needed the particular piece of code they wrote -- a driver for a NIC or a particular video card, etc.
So since they are using the code, they have a vested interest in keeping it as bug free and as secure as they can. It's not just about doing it because it's fun, it's about doing it because they have a particular itch to scratch.
Alternative energy won't always cut the monthly bill. What part of the world you are has a HUGE impact on what alternative energy supplies will actually cut costs.
If you work in Seattle, for instance, you're probably not going to save much using solar panels. Wind energy can prove non-effective depending on how many trees, buildings and other obstructions are in the area.
The fact that one may believe, given the overwhelming scientific evidence, that evolution is the best scientific theory doesn't mean that you necessarily believe that "shit happens," i.e., you are an atheist.
It isn't believe in God or believe in evolution. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, nor do most sects of the Jewish faith, nor do the hundreds of other religions that exist besides a handful that insist that this is the choice, the more popular ones being Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam.
It's perfectly acceptable to think: Hey, maybe whatever God or Gods I believe in either made the Universe or had some part in it's creation and setup the rules of the Universe to allow evolution to occur.
Now I don't believe tha Intelligent Design, as taught by the propogators of the theory (mostly Fundamentalist Christians) is different from the Christian Creationism, based upon the Bible's creation stories(which are, by and large, not even CLOSE to the only creation stories in existence). It's more than obvious to me that ID is a thinly-veiled attempt at pushing Christianity into the classroom.
So...anyway, my point is that choice between Evolution and God don't exist. It's a red herring.
Google's angle is that by giving the govt. a week's worth of searches and 1 million sites from its database, it is making trade secrets a matter of public record.
What I mean by that is that they make money from hardware sales, yes, but the major selling point of their hardware isn't the hardware itself, it's the software.
Why buy an Intel Mac? What's it got that a comparably-equipped Dell doesn't? A one-button mouse? Many Mac users replace the one-button model with a two-button+scroll wheel Microsoft USB mouse. A snazzy case? I doubt most Mac users, many of whom are actually quite sophisticated computer users these days, use a Mac because they like the case (although, I'm sure it's a bonus for some.)
Oh, right. OS X. Hey, wait -- isn't that software?
1. They haven't developed the eyes any further than otherwise reported some time ago. 2. The batteries don't exist yet, really. 3. The batteries that don't yet exist are being designed for artificial eyes that don't yet exist.
And here I thought Microsoft was bad when it came to vaorware!;-)
Ability to remove foil when asked by TSA means I don't lose my wallet the first time I try to board an airplane with it.
Not likely, actually. My wife is a former TSA employee (who couldn't stay on due to a health condition which precluded her from passing the now-required military medical examination), and from I've discussed with her, it actually isn't likely that you would lose the wallet. Metal objects can be taken on an airplane without too much difficulty as long as they can't be used as a stabbing weapon or a gun or something like that. For example, a wedding ring would definitely set off the metal detectors, but there's no reason you couldn't take it on the plane because it can't be used to kill anyone (well, it can for a specially-trained individual, but that's another story).
In fact, with the recent security changes made by DHS, it isn't likely that you would even get a small pocket knife taken from you anymore.
Those users will have to either upgrade their hardware, get Linux or get a Mac. Eventually Microsoft will have no choice but to cut support for the Win 9x/ME line, just as they had no choice but to cut support for Windows NT 3.x and later 4.x
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)
From what I can read in the first one, the person is using Firefox 1.0.7 on Ubuntu Linux. I can guess that the person is probably running Breezy (5.10), but I can't be sure. I can see that person has the browser configured for U.S. English, and that they are running on at least a Pentium II. That's it.
From the other string, I can see that the person is running Internet Exploder 6 on Windows 2000. I can guess by Windows 2000's requirements that they have a Pentium II or better, but I can't really tell that. I do know that they would have to be running Intel, and that's all I can see for sure. I don't know what Service Pack is installed, either.
But ISP names? None. CPU type? I can't tell for sure which CPU type other either of those have other than they are made by Intel or AMD or maybe Cyrix or Transmeta...some x86-compatible chip. I know for the Linux client, it must be either an Intel Pentium II, III or 4, or a comparable Celeron, or an AMD Athlon or Duron or better. That hardly narrows it down.
And what personally-identifiable information is in here? None. There are millions of people running Windows 2000. Thousands run Ubuntu Linux. Millions run Firefox and millions more run IE.
Plus, I think if we were talking about Microsoft's music store, you wouldn't be defending them so vehemently.
Microsoft may not be reacting perfectly, but I think they are trying to balance corporate stability with the realities of exploitation. It sounds like they do need to throw some more resources to the departments involved to shorten the critical path, but with a system this complex, test cycles are going to be long and involved
It's not just corporate stability. A lot of it is the architecture of their systems. While Dave Cutler designed a nice, highly-modular system in Windows NT, the newest versions of that OS are a far cry from Cutler's original design. Everything is tightly integrated and various system components do many many different things these days. So when changing one component, Microsoft programmers have to way that change against the rest of the system and all of the software that relies on that component.
The UNIX philosophy has always been and remains: "Do one thing and do it well." Combined with truly standards-based interfaces between components, this means that patching a particular component is far less likely to break lots and lots of other things. And if someone who wrote an application wrote it in such a way that it depends on the buggy behaviour -- well, shame on them.
That's just one reason why the Linux and *BSD communities are generally much, much faster at reacting to bugs than Microsoft. It's not just about corporate stability -- It's about the realities of a very, very poor operating system design.
Not much. But 1) BB's motivations are commercial (which pisses a lot of people off), and 2) getting your name on the front page is much much more effective in Google bombing than having your name in your sig.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the White House is a joke these days.
Finally! Someone who actually gets my joke.
Took long enough.
One complication is that redhat doesn't make hardware, so what happens if Evil HW Company makes HW that only accepts redhat binaries? Are redhat then obligated to release their keys, even though they have nothing to do with the HW?
No, because Red Hat isn't the one implementing the DRM in this case, Evil HW Company is. Red Hat binaries can continue to run on other hardware, no problem. And the source can be recompiled on other hardware and still run, no problem. Finally, the DRM in this case isn't intrinsic to the code, it's intrinsic to the hardware. Just because a binary is signed doesn't mean that it's using DRM -- the hardware that checks for the signed binary is where the DRM is, and as long as that's not part of the code of a GPLV3 application, Evil HW Co. is allowed to do whatever it wants, and so is Red Hat.
Gaim 2.0 (currently in beta) actually has support for SIP/SIMPLE thanks to the Google Summer of Code.
So we've actually had VoIP capabilities in open source projects since last summer.
InPro's patent described the use of a proxy server which downloaded data from the Web in response to a request from a device, then transposed the data to match the specific size and resolution of the device, according to The Times. The patent in question was granted in 1996.
Isn't this precisely what Opera Mini does?
And I wonder if the timing between the ending of this case and the release of Opera Mini is any sort of coincidence?
Exactly.
Imagine Acme Corp. files a 'limited patent' for Widget X and it's granted without examination. My widget, Widget Y does the same thing as Widget X, and it's actually got a real patent pending and has been on the market for 3 years.
However, Widget Y hasn't been selling very well due to my inability to market the product, and well, I can't afford good legal representation. So I can't sue Acme Corp. at all... worse, Acme Corp. notices my product and decides to sue me! Since Acme got their 'limited patent' first and mine is just pending, Acme wins!
Screw that. It sounds like a patent abusers' wet dream.
Last I checked, citing a few lines from a newspaper article had a term: 'fair use'.
Why wait this long? Google News has been running for YEARS, albeit with the 'beta' moniker.
Your assumption seems to be that this GoogleOS would be targetted at business.
From the screenshots I have seen I would say that Google is targetting mostly the home user.
As surprising as it may seem to you, not everyone needs compatibility with existing Windows apps. Furthermore, the addition of another OS to the marketplace probably won't, nor does it necessarily have to, spell the end of Windows.
It's not the like there needs to be just one OS for everyone. That line of thinking is reserved for Microsoft employees.
RAD tools are a great and easy way to write GUI apps without getting knee deep in the API (in this case, Win32). Borland's Delphi, C++ Builder, and C# Builder are great tools, and all work similarly, but support different languages and tools... C++ Builder is my personal favorite, but I C# Builder is nice for developing .NET applications. Borland also has a similar tool for Java. And there's always Visual Basic.
The solution is even simpler. Stop the federal government from artificially lowering oil prices in the United States.
When gas prices rise to the $5+ a gallon the rest of the world already pays, just like the rest of the world, smaller cars will begin to make much more sense those same people driving their fat 200lb asses to the grocery store in their 5,000 lb. trucks.
Two words: Software validation. Database licenses are very, very expensive. You have an app that you've already developed against, say, Oracle or DB2, and you want to to run some test scenarios from a functionality standpoint. You could spend thousands on the software, or you could just keep your testing scenarios within the limits of the free beer version and not have to worry about software licenses. Later, you will probably need to prove out your software from a scalability perspetive and you'll need the real software then, but you don't need to be paying for the license during your year-long release cycle.
The difference is that people coding OSS are doing it because they want to, so hopefully have a little more motivation to look at the other code in their project. It's interesting to them, so they're a bit more likely IMO to look at it.
Well, not just interesting... Most of the people who work on OSS projects do so because they need the project to do something for them. Not surprisingly, most of the people who work on Apache are webmasters. The guy who started PHP did so because he needed some tools for making dynamic content for his homepage. Many of the Linux kernel developers needed the particular piece of code they wrote -- a driver for a NIC or a particular video card, etc.
So since they are using the code, they have a vested interest in keeping it as bug free and as secure as they can. It's not just about doing it because it's fun, it's about doing it because they have a particular itch to scratch.
Alternative energy won't always cut the monthly bill. What part of the world you are has a HUGE impact on what alternative energy supplies will actually cut costs. If you work in Seattle, for instance, you're probably not going to save much using solar panels. Wind energy can prove non-effective depending on how many trees, buildings and other obstructions are in the area.
You forgot: LinuX ActiveX X.org AJAX XM XSLT XML Superbowl XL (not actually a technology, but hey, I live in Detroit)
The fact that one may believe, given the overwhelming scientific evidence, that evolution is the best scientific theory doesn't mean that you necessarily believe that "shit happens," i.e., you are an atheist.
It isn't believe in God or believe in evolution. The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, nor do most sects of the Jewish faith, nor do the hundreds of other religions that exist besides a handful that insist that this is the choice, the more popular ones being Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam.
It's perfectly acceptable to think: Hey, maybe whatever God or Gods I believe in either made the Universe or had some part in it's creation and setup the rules of the Universe to allow evolution to occur.
Now I don't believe tha Intelligent Design, as taught by the propogators of the theory (mostly Fundamentalist Christians) is different from the Christian Creationism, based upon the Bible's creation stories(which are, by and large, not even CLOSE to the only creation stories in existence). It's more than obvious to me that ID is a thinly-veiled attempt at pushing Christianity into the classroom.
So...anyway, my point is that choice between Evolution and God don't exist. It's a red herring.
Google's angle is that by giving the govt. a week's worth of searches and 1 million sites from its database, it is making trade secrets a matter of public record.
Have you ever considered that Google didn't comply because it is in Google's best monetary and marketing interests not to?
This is the internet I try to hold onto. People coming together for a common good. I'd love to see more of that. You're new here, aren't you?
I disagree. Apple is a software company in drag.
What I mean by that is that they make money from hardware sales, yes, but the major selling point of their hardware isn't the hardware itself, it's the software.
Why buy an Intel Mac? What's it got that a comparably-equipped Dell doesn't? A one-button mouse? Many Mac users replace the one-button model with a two-button+scroll wheel Microsoft USB mouse. A snazzy case? I doubt most Mac users, many of whom are actually quite sophisticated computer users these days, use a Mac because they like the case (although, I'm sure it's a bonus for some.)
Oh, right. OS X. Hey, wait -- isn't that software?
Right.
Hence, Apple is a software company in drag.
1. They haven't developed the eyes any further than otherwise reported some time ago.
2. The batteries don't exist yet, really.
3. The batteries that don't yet exist are being designed for artificial eyes that don't yet exist.
And here I thought Microsoft was bad when it came to vaorware!
Ability to remove foil when asked by TSA means I don't lose my wallet the first time I try to board an airplane with it.
Not likely, actually. My wife is a former TSA employee (who couldn't stay on due to a health condition which precluded her from passing the now-required military medical examination), and from I've discussed with her, it actually isn't likely that you would lose the wallet. Metal objects can be taken on an airplane without too much difficulty as long as they can't be used as a stabbing weapon or a gun or something like that. For example, a wedding ring would definitely set off the metal detectors, but there's no reason you couldn't take it on the plane because it can't be used to kill anyone (well, it can for a specially-trained individual, but that's another story).
In fact, with the recent security changes made by DHS, it isn't likely that you would even get a small pocket knife taken from you anymore.
Those users will have to either upgrade their hardware, get Linux or get a Mac. Eventually Microsoft will have no choice but to cut support for the Win 9x/ME line, just as they had no choice but to cut support for Windows NT 3.x and later 4.x
ISP, no.
Browser and browser version, yes
Operating System and version? Not always.
A couple from one of my websites:
From what I can read in the first one, the person is using Firefox 1.0.7 on Ubuntu Linux. I can guess that the person is probably running Breezy (5.10), but I can't be sure. I can see that person has the browser configured for U.S. English, and that they are running on at least a Pentium II. That's it.
From the other string, I can see that the person is running Internet Exploder 6 on Windows 2000. I can guess by Windows 2000's requirements that they have a Pentium II or better, but I can't really tell that. I do know that they would have to be running Intel, and that's all I can see for sure. I don't know what Service Pack is installed, either.
But ISP names? None. CPU type? I can't tell for sure which CPU type other either of those have other than they are made by Intel or AMD or maybe Cyrix or Transmeta...some x86-compatible chip. I know for the Linux client, it must be either an Intel Pentium II, III or 4, or a comparable Celeron, or an AMD Athlon or Duron or better. That hardly narrows it down.
And what personally-identifiable information is in here? None. There are millions of people running Windows 2000. Thousands run Ubuntu Linux. Millions run Firefox and millions more run IE.
Plus, I think if we were talking about Microsoft's music store, you wouldn't be defending them so vehemently.
Microsoft may not be reacting perfectly, but I think they are trying to balance corporate stability with the realities of exploitation. It sounds like they do need to throw some more resources to the departments involved to shorten the critical path, but with a system this complex, test cycles are going to be long and involved
It's not just corporate stability. A lot of it is the architecture of their systems. While Dave Cutler designed a nice, highly-modular system in Windows NT, the newest versions of that OS are a far cry from Cutler's original design. Everything is tightly integrated and various system components do many many different things these days. So when changing one component, Microsoft programmers have to way that change against the rest of the system and all of the software that relies on that component.
The UNIX philosophy has always been and remains: "Do one thing and do it well." Combined with truly standards-based interfaces between components, this means that patching a particular component is far less likely to break lots and lots of other things. And if someone who wrote an application wrote it in such a way that it depends on the buggy behaviour -- well, shame on them.
That's just one reason why the Linux and *BSD communities are generally much, much faster at reacting to bugs than Microsoft. It's not just about corporate stability -- It's about the realities of a very, very poor operating system design.
Not much. But 1) BB's motivations are commercial (which pisses a lot of people off), and 2) getting your name on the front page is much much more effective in Google bombing than having your name in your sig.
were cd burners available back in 1995/6?
There have been CD burners available since the late 1980s