So, you haven't actually read the CDDL, but you just like to bitch about it as if you know what the fuck you are talking about. As far as I know, it is written in English and is not hard to follow. If you just want to pile on the slashdot karma-whoring bandwagon, then this is the right place, but why don't you actually read a couple of the licenses and learn for yourself what the differences are rather than spreading bullshit FUD. You may as well work for Microsoft.
Why is there so much damn whining about CDDL just because its not GPL? There are some very legitimate business and legal reasons that Sun could not use GPL which have been explained, ad nauseum, in other forums. It's not as if they just arbitrarily chose it to piss of the Stallman's diciples.
Lets try another guess. I'm betting they want to go with Solaris 10 on either x86 or amd64 hardware - cheap (relatively) hardware and a very dependable (non-Microsoft) OS underneath it, plus a huge support infrastructure at their beck-and-call 24x7x365.
Shame on Dan Robbins. The unmitigated gall of the guy to go accept a job offer that pays him quite handsomely in terms of salary, benefits, stock, and bonuses. Man, what a dick! Anyone who actually chooses to make good living working for a "closed source company" is a traitor to the cause! I'm reporting him to the Stallman/ESR board of inquiry and having his cool-OSS-contributor credentials revoked immediately!
He should continue to contribute to the OSS community for free and make his wife and kids go out and get jobs!
Single sign on means that you enter your password ONCE - in a secure manner. From that point on, you have a set of secure credentials that are passed around and used for authentication, you do not have to enter your password ever again and noone on the other end actually knows your password. They validate your credentials, not a password.
Read up on secure third-party authentication - Kerberos, for example.
No. It will almost certainly not be adopted by Liberty alliance. LI already has a ton of standards and protocols (open) that they use, I seriously doubt they would change at this point.
Funny that you should call these ideas myopic, because they are anything but myopic.
How so? Explain. It is myopic to state that ANY closed source software is BAD. That is what the original posting said and which I was responding to. It is myopic and foolish to make such an asinine assertion.
It's not that they're not producing solutions that seem good now, because they are, however by relying on them you're effectively bending over and inviting the vendor to come and take you at some point in the future when they decide to drop support for your product / not produce product for your platform / completely change the pricing scheme, knowing that many of their customers have ten years worth of data sunk in your product's formats or that you've built large infrastructures around the product.
Who is making assumptions now? If your vendor of choice fucks you over. Switch to a new one, open source or otherwise. That is how the market works - get the best value for your money and take it elsewhere if you dont like the results. Believe it or not, there are "closed source" companies that don't go out of their way to fuck over their customers. That sort of thing tends to piss off investors and shareholders.
I agree that most MS products are crap.
However, I do seriously enjoy the MS Flight Simulator series. It is well done, and it has open interfaces for extension programs and add-ons.
I don't care if open source developers get paid or not. That's not the point. I have written code that is now part of Mozilla and other open source projects, so its not like I am anti-open source.
I am sick of hearing the Karma whoring around here bashing anything that is not of an open source origin. If these closed source companies were producing consistently bad products, they would not be in business very long. Period. That is not to say everything from Redmond or Silicon Valley is brilliant and great, but in a free market economy companies sink or swim based on how useful their products are. If the product sucks, the companies don't last for long.
Its the RMS-like religious zealotry that really ticks me off. I'd like to see the age of alot of the really radical posters around here. It's alot easier to be radically devoted to an unrealistic position when you don't have a family to feed or bills to pay. A bit more pragmatism would go a long way with some people.
Open Source solution = Can be a good solution. Closed Source Solution = Cannot be a good solution.
Brilliant reasoning.
All of these closed source companies making software out there are producing bad solutions? That is patently ridiculous.
Blind zealotry, as illustrated in myopic statements like that, are not helping promote your position in any way.
To assume that companies like Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Oracle, SAP (all "closed-source") are not producing ANY good solutions is retarded.
This sort of inane "spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is so unrealistic it is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?
I like making money. It helps feed my family, among other useful things. I have no problems at all taking money in exchange for writing software.
We live in a capitalistic society. Money is exchanged for goods and services. That is how life works. If I have a kick ass idea, do you think my first thought is "hmmm, I should give this away and get good Karma!" or "Hey, cool, I could sell this and make a million bucks!".
Hmmm, lets see.... Karma.. or.. A Million Dollars? I'll take the $$ every time. Screw Karma, I need to live in the real world.
"converting" people to your pet OS religion does not translate into faster results for Open Source projects. The sad fact is that the majority of OS projects don't ever make it to version 1.0 because they are not well supported by a competent (key word: "competent") group of engineers who have the time and interest to keep pushing it forward.
Mozilla/Firefox is successful because they actually had some financial backing to PAY a staff to keep things running (in addition to a really smart group of core developers). Many other OS projects are not so lucky, which leads to far too many incomplete, half-ass projects.
Actually, he knows alot about the subject, he just presents it in a very opinionated manner.
The points he makes about raw photo processing are quite valid - they take up quite a bit of space, and are very tedious and time consuming to process properly. Quite often, the resulting image is nearly indistinguishable from a high-quality JPEG image, especially for on-screen or small-print (5x7 or less) viewing.
If you are an ameteur or "advanced" ameteur (i.e. anyone not making a living from their photography), it is unlikely that you are getting a ton of benefit from shooting raw format.
It is just opinion, but is backed up by quite a bit of hard data that he provides.
Uh, OK. I think detect a hint of sarcasm, but Im just not sure. Can you be a little clearer? Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across well in online posts.
Why can't you get over the licensing differences and evaluate a product on its merits instead of your OS licensing religious preference?
Why should Sun (or anyone else) allow their best features to be hijacked and put into Linux when Sun has paid millions and millions of dollars in R&D costs to develop their OS to the point that it is today?
Solaris 10 was (will be) open sourced to please the customers (and there are still ALOT of them) who wanted to be able to improve on Solaris, fix bugs, and contribute useful features back to the product. It was not released to appease Linux and GPL Zealots who want to raid the good bits and leave the rotting corpse by the side of the road.
Solaris 10 has some seriously strong security features that Linux cannot touch, performance is at least as good and in many cases better than Linux, and it's scalability features are beyond the reach of Linux today. DTrace, SMF, FMA, ZFS (coming real-soon-now!), and the encryption framework are major improvements and are major differentiating features.
Photoshop CS runs just fine on my Windows XP SP2 box, I'm not sure exactly which features they are claiming are broken with SP2, but I haven't found any.
All of the negative noise about SP2 is alot of FUD (howz that for irony). I recommend it to all of my neighbors who are inundated with viruses and [mal|ad]-ware (no way they are switchng to Linux, so don't even go there).
You are confused. The $99 DVR is not for doing HDTV and will not be obsolete when they switch HD signals. You are talking about the standard DirecTV DVR as opposed to the HDTV one.
Go ahead and get your $99 DVR, it will be fine for non-HD content. If you want an HDTV DVR, then you will have to spend about $999 and your box will likely need to be replaced in a couple of years.
There is some discussion that DirecTV will upgrade existing HDTV customers for free at that time, but Im not so sure if that is true or not.
Windows needs to be in control for other Windows clients to work in a domain. For non-Windows clients, you can use AD or not use AD, you are not locked in. You can even point your windows box at a Unix KDC and most things will still work.
It is very commmon for AD to be used as the KDC for large enterprises because it is actually pretty well designed. It consolidates the naming service and the authentication service in an easy-to-manage package. Most Unix packages must have separate naming services and authentication services, which means alot of duplicate information being stored and duplication of admin work.
There is little or no security benefit from adding addresses to Kerberos tickets. I have not seen this particular warning, but it seems like they are totally misrepresenting the threat.
Basically, there is no security risk in using addressless tickets and it certainly does not open the system up to the KRB4 weaknesses, which are completely different.
There is no PKINIT standard for them to be compliant with - yet. The current draft spec is at revision 23 and still being debated in the kerberos working group.
I think you are confused with the difference between PKINIT and Kerberos V5. They are 2 different things.
Yes, getting MIT KRB5 to interop with Win2K is easy. But there is no PKINIT available from MIT yet, though, which leads me to think you are confusing 2 different protocols.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you haven't actually read the CDDL, but you just like to bitch about it as if you know what the fuck you are talking about. As far as I know, it is written in English and is not hard to follow. If you just want to pile on the slashdot karma-whoring bandwagon, then this is the right place, but why don't you actually read a couple of the licenses and learn for yourself what the differences are rather than spreading bullshit FUD. You may as well work for Microsoft.
Why is there so much damn whining about CDDL just because its not GPL? There are some very legitimate business and legal reasons that Sun could not use GPL which have been explained, ad nauseum, in other forums. It's not as if they just arbitrarily chose it to piss of the Stallman's diciples.
Lets try another guess. I'm betting they want to go with Solaris 10 on either x86 or amd64 hardware - cheap (relatively) hardware and a very dependable (non-Microsoft) OS underneath it, plus a huge support infrastructure at their beck-and-call 24x7x365.
If this were "Windows" or "Solaris" in the title, it would result in an all out bashing session by the Linux faithful.
Shame on Dan Robbins. The unmitigated gall of the guy to go accept a job offer that pays him quite handsomely in terms of salary, benefits, stock, and bonuses. Man, what a dick! Anyone who actually chooses to make good living working for a "closed source company" is a traitor to the cause! I'm reporting him to the Stallman/ESR board of inquiry and having his cool-OSS-contributor credentials revoked immediately!
He should continue to contribute to the OSS community for free and make his wife and kids go out and get jobs!
Read up on secure third-party authentication - Kerberos, for example.
No. It will almost certainly not be adopted by Liberty alliance. LI already has a ton of standards and protocols (open) that they use, I seriously doubt they would change at this point.
If your social life if so great, what the hell are you doing posting follow-ups around here?
How so? Explain. It is myopic to state that ANY closed source software is BAD. That is what the original posting said and which I was responding to. It is myopic and foolish to make such an asinine assertion.
It's not that they're not producing solutions that seem good now, because they are, however by relying on them you're effectively bending over and inviting the vendor to come and take you at some point in the future when they decide to drop support for your product / not produce product for your platform / completely change the pricing scheme, knowing that many of their customers have ten years worth of data sunk in your product's formats or that you've built large infrastructures around the product.
Who is making assumptions now? If your vendor of choice fucks you over. Switch to a new one, open source or otherwise. That is how the market works - get the best value for your money and take it elsewhere if you dont like the results. Believe it or not, there are "closed source" companies that don't go out of their way to fuck over their customers. That sort of thing tends to piss off investors and shareholders.
Oink Oink.
I agree that most MS products are crap. However, I do seriously enjoy the MS Flight Simulator series. It is well done, and it has open interfaces for extension programs and add-ons.
I am sick of hearing the Karma whoring around here bashing anything that is not of an open source origin. If these closed source companies were producing consistently bad products, they would not be in business very long. Period. That is not to say everything from Redmond or Silicon Valley is brilliant and great, but in a free market economy companies sink or swim based on how useful their products are. If the product sucks, the companies don't last for long.
Its the RMS-like religious zealotry that really ticks me off. I'd like to see the age of alot of the really radical posters around here. It's alot easier to be radically devoted to an unrealistic position when you don't have a family to feed or bills to pay. A bit more pragmatism would go a long way with some people.
Brilliant reasoning.
All of these closed source companies making software out there are producing bad solutions? That is patently ridiculous. Blind zealotry, as illustrated in myopic statements like that, are not helping promote your position in any way.
To assume that companies like Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, Oracle, SAP (all "closed-source") are not producing ANY good solutions is retarded.
This sort of inane "spread the love, give away your work for free, and make the world a better place" is so unrealistic it is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?
I like making money. It helps feed my family, among other useful things. I have no problems at all taking money in exchange for writing software. We live in a capitalistic society. Money is exchanged for goods and services. That is how life works. If I have a kick ass idea, do you think my first thought is "hmmm, I should give this away and get good Karma!" or "Hey, cool, I could sell this and make a million bucks!". Hmmm, lets see.... Karma.. or .. A Million Dollars? I'll take the $$ every time. Screw Karma, I need to live in the real world.
Mozilla/Firefox is successful because they actually had some financial backing to PAY a staff to keep things running (in addition to a really smart group of core developers). Many other OS projects are not so lucky, which leads to far too many incomplete, half-ass projects.
The points he makes about raw photo processing are quite valid - they take up quite a bit of space, and are very tedious and time consuming to process properly. Quite often, the resulting image is nearly indistinguishable from a high-quality JPEG image, especially for on-screen or small-print (5x7 or less) viewing.
If you are an ameteur or "advanced" ameteur (i.e. anyone not making a living from their photography), it is unlikely that you are getting a ton of benefit from shooting raw format.
It is just opinion, but is backed up by quite a bit of hard data that he provides.
Uh, OK. I think detect a hint of sarcasm, but Im just not sure. Can you be a little clearer? Sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across well in online posts.
Good article here on why RAW is really unnecessary for almost all photographers, no matter how "advanced" you think you are.
Why can't you get over the licensing differences and evaluate a product on its merits instead of your OS licensing religious preference?
Why should Sun (or anyone else) allow their best features to be hijacked and put into Linux when Sun has paid millions and millions of dollars in R&D costs to develop their OS to the point that it is today?
Solaris 10 was (will be) open sourced to please the customers (and there are still ALOT of them) who wanted to be able to improve on Solaris, fix bugs, and contribute useful features back to the product. It was not released to appease Linux and GPL Zealots who want to raid the good bits and leave the rotting corpse by the side of the road.
Solaris 10 has some seriously strong security features that Linux cannot touch, performance is at least as good and in many cases better than Linux, and it's scalability features are beyond the reach of Linux today. DTrace, SMF, FMA, ZFS (coming real-soon-now!), and the encryption framework are major improvements and are major differentiating features.
All of the negative noise about SP2 is alot of FUD (howz that for irony). I recommend it to all of my neighbors who are inundated with viruses and [mal|ad]-ware (no way they are switchng to Linux, so don't even go there).
Go ahead and get your $99 DVR, it will be fine for non-HD content. If you want an HDTV DVR, then you will have to spend about $999 and your box will likely need to be replaced in a couple of years.
There is some discussion that DirecTV will upgrade existing HDTV customers for free at that time, but Im not so sure if that is true or not.
I guarantee if this had been released for Linux or had originated from an OSS project, the messages on this board would be decidedly more favorable.
It is very commmon for AD to be used as the KDC for large enterprises because it is actually pretty well designed. It consolidates the naming service and the authentication service in an easy-to-manage package. Most Unix packages must have separate naming services and authentication services, which means alot of duplicate information being stored and duplication of admin work.
This is a much different problem from the parent post which said (basically) "I can't get my unix KRB5 to work with Active Directory."
There is little or no security benefit from adding addresses to Kerberos tickets. I have not seen this particular warning, but it seems like they are totally misrepresenting the threat.
Basically, there is no security risk in using addressless tickets and it certainly does not open the system up to the KRB4 weaknesses, which are completely different.
I think you are confused with the difference between PKINIT and Kerberos V5. They are 2 different things.
Yes, getting MIT KRB5 to interop with Win2K is easy. But there is no PKINIT available from MIT yet, though, which leads me to think you are confusing 2 different protocols.