Secondly, any time two people have access to the same area, be it a physical area or shared computing resource, there is the risk of covert communications. The only way to prevent it is to remove access to all but one person.
Multics was designed primarily to share expensive computing resources. Computing resources are much cheaper now, so it is more feasible to prevent covert communications by just plain not sharing. Each person in a hypersecure installation would have their own computer, without even a conventional LAN, with communications between the systems being tightly controlled and monitored.
A closed source video driver. So what? As long as the driver works, I don't care.
So a closed source driver will only work on supported platforms given the environment at the time of release. For example, if they don't support PPC, no PPC user can use their driver. If XFree86 4.1 has to break the modular driver API to fix some problems, you can't use XFree86 4.1.
An Open Source driver can be ported to unsupported systems. An Open Source driver can track bugfixes and API changes.
If it doesn't work, don't buy the damned card, buy another one from a different vendor that does work, or is open source, whatever your priorities are.
It looks like I will have to. On the flip side, if a company is not going to release open source drivers, they shouldn't be marketing their card as supported in Linux. A release of a binary-only driver on Linux generally means they have marginal support of Linux/i386, which is far from proper Linux support.
No manufacturer has an obligation to live up to the ideological dictates of the open source movement. Perhaps they may eventually be disadvantaged in the marketplace if they do not, but I'll let the market place sort that out.
True, but a manufacturer has a legal and ethical obligation to do what they say they are going to do. Otherwise it is fraud and false advertising. NVidia is on the edge here, if they start pretending they have Linux support without releasing Open Source drivers (or releasing binary drivers for every PCI or AGP Linux platform, which would be financial suicide for them to develop), they should be held accoutable.
Corporations should not be allowed to just do whatever they want with no fear of repercussions, either legal or social. So quit your whining.
Much of the problem here may be the the looseness and immaturity of the driver interface for XFree86. NVidia has a constantly shifting target, and I am sure Linux is not their highest priority. Thus the quality of their drivers is going to lag a bit.
One of many arguments for just releasing the source or proper technical specifications. Hardware manufacturers are on very tight margins, they can't afford to do justice to driver development.
Considering how long it took NVidia to get their Windows drivers to properly work with new motherboards, I would think they'd be happy to be relieved of the burden of having another platform to support binary drivers on. Open Source is just less work on the company. Hand a reference driver (a real one this time) to the XFree86 group, licensed under the XConsortium license, and I, for one, would be thrilled to buy their hardware.
Don't like it? Buy another card. Or sign an NDA, get the source code, and create and distribute (maybe even sell) your own binary only driver. (Has anyone ever done this, if not, why not? Aren't MetroX and OSS exampes?)
OSS? MetroLink (makers of MetroX) and XiG do this. Their drivers are expensive. MetroLink doesn't support many cards, and only supports i386 and Alpha. Xig supports more cards (and costs more), but only supports i386. Costs involved in NDA development (even if the NDA iself is free, which is rare) make it prohibitive for most individuals to do this. Your suggestion helps nobody.
Buy another card? Of course, that's what it looks like I will be forced to do because NVidia doesn't live up to its promises.
Such clauses are common in the business world, but having to sign such a clause just as a student is pretty harsh. Do you do work/study or some other actual work for the University?
When I was interviewing to change jobs, lack of such a clause was one of the requirements I gave. I wouldn't accept a job that forced me to give up rights to stuff I did on my own time and equipment.
ABC has a right to control what they broadcast. They can bleep out the offending part, they could even cut to commercials for the entire award that Blame Canada is up for. I doubt they have a right to tell the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences how they must conduct their awards ceremony. They certainly don't have a right to ask Trey & Marc to change their song.
No, it's the French, their testing grounds were in the Polynesian islands. All the crap from their nuclear testing is now spread pretty evenly around the southern Pacific Ocean. I certainly wouldn't want them to start up real testing again, let them have their computer:-)
In almost every library I have seen there is not special XXX or "adults only" room or any means to authenticate yourself as an adult.
True, but in almost every public library I've been in two things were true: * Any computer was in a position where it is clearly visible who is using it * There is a childrens section that is set apart in some way
If a library wants to remain in compliance with the laws of the land and of the State of Utah, all they have to do is have one or more separate computers in the childrens section with no access or restricted access to the internet, and a policy which states that minors have to use the childrens section computers.
Done. There's a policy, so the State of Utah is happy. Adult access can be unrestricted so the constitutional issues are dealt with. If a librarian lets a high school student use the adult computer to do a research project, they're bending the policy, not breaking the law, so provided any repercussions are trivial, the librarians are happy.
I use RoadRunner for my home access. All I care about is the bandwidth and the IP addresses, everything else is just fluff that I am happier to get elsewhere. I want to be able to get a discount for not using ANY of their ISP services, and go elsewhere for mail, news, website space, etc.
American media producers just sent a clear message: No, they don't want to increase viewership; no, they don't want their advertisements to reach more people; no, they don't want exposure on new media. Is it just me, or does their animosity against iCrave sound like a really stupid long-term business move. I'm very glad I have no investments tied up in these dinosaurs.
On the Developer Site, there is a link labeled USB Device Class Specifications. Immediately underneath, it says: (USB-IF member username and password required). If you click on the link, it asks for a username and password. Therefore, it is locked on the developer side.
If you know of an official link to the Device Class Specifications on the USB site that is not locked, please post it here and to the Linux-USB mailing list.
What restrictions were placed on redistribution by people who have already gotten their hands on the specs?
As far as I know, as long as you aren't a member, no restrictions were added or waived. That means it's covered under normal copyright law. You can't redistribute the spec, but you can read it, write a book about it, and distribute the book anyway you want. Check the computer section of your book store, at least 10% of those books are just rehashing copyrighted specifications or documentation.
The company I work for is already paying for NDS. NDS for Linux will make it easier to incorporate Linux boxes into our existing NDS infrastructure.
As far as whether or not it's worth it, basically you can do everything NDS does with Free LDAP servers. What you're paying for is easy management tools, integration with NetWare, easier deployment, support, and the Novell brand name. I can see how it's worth it to some companies, it certainly runs rings around ActiveDirectory.
If someone wants a good idea for an Open Source company, take LDAP, make sure you've got good ports on dozens of platforms, good login and management frontends on dozens of platforms, put a snazzy label on it, and sell CD's, Books, Directory Consulting and Support for it. Your goal would be something cheaper than NDS and better than ActiveDirectory, and freeer than both. There's a good niche there.
[snip] 7) Upgrade. 4.7x is much nicer than previous 4.x releases on all platforms, IME.
I've found 4.61 much more stable on both Linux and Windows than 4.7, and it's not as if you really need that "Shop@Netscape" button. I haven't had 4.72 long enough to have an opinion about it.
Running 1600x1200 on a 15" LCD screen would be unbearable. It's almost too small for my 21" CRT.
You are confusing screen resolution with screen object size. Having a screen that's 1024x768 and then moving to one that's 4096x3072 would be no problem if your new desktop had objects which were four times larger in each dimension, plus you'd have the advantage of sharper, higher resolution screen objects.
Most current desktops have too many things that are hardcoded to a set number of pixels, but fixing this is a simple matter of programming. As screen resolutions outpace physical desk size, I think people will make sure it's less of an issue.
The article mentions the publisher of The Onion is a Mr. Peter K. Haise. Everyone knows the publisher really is T. Herman Zweibel, son of the paper's founder, Herman Ulysses Zweibel.
The fundamental goal of E-Toys, like any corporation, is to make money for its shareholders. Have you seen what this action did to its stock price? See that peak at the left, that's when they filed suit. By Xmas, they were less than half that value, during a very busy and very profitable shopping season. By now, their share price is below their initial IPO value of $19.
There was no legal precident set, but hopefully we have set the meme in corporate minds that if you take frivolous action against people on the internet, you risk a Public Relations and Financial disaster. If the cause is just, we don't need the courts anymore.
Legal backing would have been nice, but the US Courts have an iffy record of upholding peoples rights in the face of high paid corporate lawyers, so unless the courts change I wouldn't count on their help.
K&R is short for Brian W. Kernighan & Dennis M. Ritchie, and generally refers to their landmark work The C Programming Language, which was the definitive definition of C until ANSI got their hands on it, and is still a must read for C programmers.
Keep in mind we're talking about percentage of sales during the year, it says nothing about whether these are new servers or replacing the OS on existing servers. Also keep in mind that all the Linux copies that didn't involve sales are ignored by this study.
What it looks like it means to me is that: * Microsoft failed in its goal to sell substantially more copies of NT * Linux increased in distribution at the expense of Netware and the Commercial Unixes
I think the real test of linux vs. NT marketshare will be this year. Linux has the backing of most companies now, and Windows2000 is soposed to be NT done right.
I think you're right as far as 2000 being a critical year for these numbers. From what little I've seen about Windows 2000 it's the same crap with a different number (and much larger), but it certainly will be marketed as the best thing since sliced bread.
In fact, the marketting campaign is already in full swing, and it hasn't even been released yet. When I was down in NYC this past weekend, posters declaring "Windows 2000 is coming" were all over the mass transit system. I kept wishing I had a can of red spray paint so I could add the word "REPENT" to the posters;-).
What do you think QT & GTK are missing to be a true replacement for Motif?
When you phrase the question that way, the answer is simple, inclusion in an updated OpenGroup Unix Workstation Standard. In order for either to be a replacement for Motif, they'd have to be included standard as part of all the commercial Unixes workstations, which will only happen if they're part of the standard for the Unix Workstation trademark. Motif may be comatose, but it's not dead as long as it's specified.
In other words, the decision will not be made on code quality, license terms, or feature set; both GTK+ and Qt have beat Motif soundly on all three counts. As long as there are commercial Unixes seeking the Unix trademark, the decision will be made on politics within the Open Group, nothing more, nothing less.
The laws regarding patents haven't changed much, and when something obvious gets patented it is a failure of the clerk, and the patent system that refuses to properly support the clerk, but not the patent laws per se. I do realize this, but the patents involved in this article aren't the obvious ones, but they are non-obvious technology patents.
A tool is something tangible, something by it's very existance limited. A patent on a tool requires that you be able to offer a model to the PTO, or at least really detailed designs. In order to violate a tool patent, you have to have developed a tool that operates in substantially the same way. A tool has physical form, requiring financial investment and presumably created with the hope of reaping financial rewards; patent law is seldom enforced on non-commercial tools since they are few and by their very nature limited. A patent on a tool merely restricts other tools.
Technology is something completely intangible, an idea. No effort need be made to implement the technology to get the patent. To violate a technology patent, you need merely to have the same idea. Technology is often explored for the joy of it, with no commercial or financial involvement; patent law does get enforced against non-commercial technology, because the ideas can spread without limit. Regardless, the bottom line is that while patents on tools restrict tools, patents on technology restrict thoughts.
Restricting thought is a very dangerous thing. In particular, patenting thought is forcing technological creativity in this country to be mired in tons of legal bullshit from laws being misapplied somewhere they were never intended to go. The USPTO needs to stop patenting discoveries and focus on patenting inventions like they're supposed to.
Where do you draw the line? Where would you draw the line? Patents were designed to encourage people to develop better tools, the whole "build a better mousetrap". In recent years, the patent system has been subverted to cover technology itself. Under the old rules, you could patent a better flashlight. Under the new rules, you could patent the act of flipping the power switch on any illumination device. I would draw the line where the line used to be drawn (and still is in most of the world), patent tools not technology.
If someone wants to patent something that *THEY* developed, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? So where would you draw the line? Should someone be able to patent a melody? How about a particularly striking visual texture? Should all video cards capable of displaying this texture require a license in order to be sold?
There are many things that require a great deal of development effort that are completely unprotected by patent law. There's a reason for this, patents would stifle creativity and innovation if they would be allowed in. Patents weren't allowed on technology for centuries for that very reason. They should return to their former state.
Gartner groups usually gets their facts straight, but often there are insufficient facts available to get a full answer to their question, so they guess. When they guess about Linux, they usually lean towards Linux being stable & useful, but away from Linux being successful, widely accepted and profitable.
Here there was nothing to guess at, their report is just a rehash of literature that's been around for a while now. No guessing, no leaning. I certainly wouldn't use this one article as an indicator that they are suddenly "at least mildly pro-linux".
Despite what many in the US think, the East coast does not mark the edge of the world, and people who sail beyond the horizon don't fall off. RSA encryption has been used, freely, throughout Europe, for a considerable period of time. International versions of PGP, for example, can be found in many University FTP archives, and are widely used. Yes, it does mean RSA can be used "freely" in the US, but that's about the limits of the benefit. One small continent, amongst many.
The facts here are certainly true, but that's not the whole story. A LOT of software development takes place in the US; all surveys I've seen have ranked the US as the largest software producer in the world (most of them rank India second). Key commercial products are developed in the US, and many key Free software projects (including the entire GNU project) are hosted in the US. All this software needs to care about the RSA patent, or risk lawsuits.
After the patent expires, none of this software need worry. European users will no longer have to use patches and alternate versions of American software, RSA code can be in the main code tree. RSA software developed outside the US will no longer feel like they need to offer an American version, since the rules will be closer together. This will make development easier across the board.
Besides, RSA isn't cutting-edge, by a long way. Yes, it's proved very resistant to attacks, and it's one of the best public-key encryption algorithms out there, but there's a lot of much newer stuff that looks like it could be more attractive in the long-term.
It may not be cutting edge, but it is the defacto standard protocol for encrypted internet communications. I wish more software would support DH/DSS, but they just don't. So-called "cutting edge" solutions generally have not been around long enough to be trusted, much less standard.
(IMHO, it's a mistake to rely on a "proven solution" in preference to looking ahead. If anyone cracks the primes problem, RSA is dead in the water. Instantly. No matter how "robust" it's been.)
Both needs to happen, you always need to be looking ahead to find new technologies. On the other hand, when implementing a real world system, you need proven, robust technology to rely upon. RSA is currently the tool used by most organizations to implement their PKI for this very reason.
In the future RSA may die, then they need to move to something else, but can you point them at a PKI technology: available right now, with a reliable track record spanning many years, with open cryptographic review spanning at least as long, that isn't succeptable to the "if anyone cracks the primes problem" vulnerability? Regardless, it's not a major vulerability, since that problem has been attacked from many different angles for centuries with no better solutions than the slow ones we have now.
Well I doubt there was much flaming in 1972, but it probably started soon after. I've been on the internet since 1987, and I can assure you, flaming and flamewars were an old problem already by then.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I for one found it very interesting.
Secondly, any time two people have access to the same area, be it a physical area or shared computing resource, there is the risk of covert communications. The only way to prevent it is to remove access to all but one person.
Multics was designed primarily to share expensive computing resources. Computing resources are much cheaper now, so it is more feasible to prevent covert communications by just plain not sharing. Each person in a hypersecure installation would have their own computer, without even a conventional LAN, with communications between the systems being tightly controlled and monitored.
----
joshv wrote:
A closed source video driver. So what? As long as the driver works, I don't care.
So a closed source driver will only work on supported platforms given the environment at the time of release. For example, if they don't support PPC, no PPC user can use their driver. If XFree86 4.1 has to break the modular driver API to fix some problems, you can't use XFree86 4.1.
An Open Source driver can be ported to unsupported systems. An Open Source driver can track bugfixes and API changes.
If it doesn't work, don't buy the damned card, buy another one from a different vendor that does work, or is open source, whatever your priorities are.
It looks like I will have to. On the flip side, if a company is not going to release open source drivers, they shouldn't be marketing their card as supported in Linux. A release of a binary-only driver on Linux generally means they have marginal support of Linux/i386, which is far from proper Linux support.
No manufacturer has an obligation to live up to the ideological dictates of the open source movement. Perhaps they may eventually be disadvantaged in the marketplace if they do not, but I'll let the market place sort that out.
True, but a manufacturer has a legal and ethical obligation to do what they say they are going to do. Otherwise it is fraud and false advertising. NVidia is on the edge here, if they start pretending they have Linux support without releasing Open Source drivers (or releasing binary drivers for every PCI or AGP Linux platform, which would be financial suicide for them to develop), they should be held accoutable.
Corporations should not be allowed to just do whatever they want with no fear of repercussions, either legal or social. So quit your whining.
Much of the problem here may be the the looseness and immaturity of the driver interface for XFree86. NVidia has a constantly shifting target, and I am sure Linux is not their highest priority. Thus the quality of their drivers is going to lag a bit.
One of many arguments for just releasing the source or proper technical specifications. Hardware manufacturers are on very tight margins, they can't afford to do justice to driver development.
Considering how long it took NVidia to get their Windows drivers to properly work with new motherboards, I would think they'd be happy to be relieved of the burden of having another platform to support binary drivers on. Open Source is just less work on the company. Hand a reference driver (a real one this time) to the XFree86 group, licensed under the XConsortium license, and I, for one, would be thrilled to buy their hardware.
Don't like it? Buy another card. Or sign an NDA, get the source code, and create and distribute (maybe even sell) your own binary only driver. (Has anyone ever done this, if not, why not? Aren't MetroX and OSS exampes?)
OSS? MetroLink (makers of MetroX) and XiG do this. Their drivers are expensive. MetroLink doesn't support many cards, and only supports i386 and Alpha. Xig supports more cards (and costs more), but only supports i386. Costs involved in NDA development (even if the NDA iself is free, which is rare) make it prohibitive for most individuals to do this. Your suggestion helps nobody.
Buy another card? Of course, that's what it looks like I will be forced to do because NVidia doesn't live up to its promises.
----
Such clauses are common in the business world, but having to sign such a clause just as a student is pretty harsh. Do you do work/study or some other actual work for the University?
When I was interviewing to change jobs, lack of such a clause was one of the requirements I gave. I wouldn't accept a job that forced me to give up rights to stuff I did on my own time and equipment.
----
ABC has a right to control what they broadcast. They can bleep out the offending part, they could even cut to commercials for the entire award that Blame Canada is up for. I doubt they have a right to tell the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences how they must conduct their awards ceremony. They certainly don't have a right to ask Trey & Marc to change their song.
----
No, it's the French, their testing grounds were in the Polynesian islands. All the crap from their nuclear testing is now spread pretty evenly around the southern Pacific Ocean. I certainly wouldn't want them to start up real testing again, let them have their computer :-)
----
slashdot-terminal wrote:
In almost every library I have seen there is not special XXX or "adults only" room or any means to authenticate yourself as an adult.
True, but in almost every public library I've been in two things were true:
* Any computer was in a position where it is clearly visible who is using it
* There is a childrens section that is set apart in some way
If a library wants to remain in compliance with the laws of the land and of the State of Utah, all they have to do is have one or more separate computers in the childrens section with no access or restricted access to the internet, and a policy which states that minors have to use the childrens section computers.
Done. There's a policy, so the State of Utah is happy. Adult access can be unrestricted so the constitutional issues are dealt with. If a librarian lets a high school student use the adult computer to do a research project, they're bending the policy, not breaking the law, so provided any repercussions are trivial, the librarians are happy.
----
I use RoadRunner for my home access. All I care about is the bandwidth and the IP addresses, everything else is just fluff that I am happier to get elsewhere. I want to be able to get a discount for not using ANY of their ISP services, and go elsewhere for mail, news, website space, etc.
----
American media producers just sent a clear message: No, they don't want to increase viewership; no, they don't want their advertisements to reach more people; no, they don't want exposure on new media. Is it just me, or does their animosity against iCrave sound like a really stupid long-term business move. I'm very glad I have no investments tied up in these dinosaurs.
----
On the Developer Site, there is a link labeled USB Device Class Specifications. Immediately underneath, it says: (USB-IF member username and password required). If you click on the link, it asks for a username and password. Therefore, it is locked on the developer side.
If you know of an official link to the Device Class Specifications on the USB site that is not locked, please post it here and to the Linux-USB mailing list.
----
treke asks:
What restrictions were placed on redistribution by people who have already gotten their hands on the specs?
As far as I know, as long as you aren't a member, no restrictions were added or waived. That means it's covered under normal copyright law. You can't redistribute the spec, but you can read it, write a book about it, and distribute the book anyway you want. Check the computer section of your book store, at least 10% of those books are just rehashing copyrighted specifications or documentation.
----
The company I work for is already paying for NDS. NDS for Linux will make it easier to incorporate Linux boxes into our existing NDS infrastructure.
As far as whether or not it's worth it, basically you can do everything NDS does with Free LDAP servers. What you're paying for is easy management tools, integration with NetWare, easier deployment, support, and the Novell brand name. I can see how it's worth it to some companies, it certainly runs rings around ActiveDirectory.
If someone wants a good idea for an Open Source company, take LDAP, make sure you've got good ports on dozens of platforms, good login and management frontends on dozens of platforms, put a snazzy label on it, and sell CD's, Books, Directory Consulting and Support for it. Your goal would be something cheaper than NDS and better than ActiveDirectory, and freeer than both. There's a good niche there.
----
Jikes wrote:
[snip]
7) Upgrade. 4.7x is much nicer than previous 4.x releases on all platforms, IME.
I've found 4.61 much more stable on both Linux and Windows than 4.7, and it's not as if you really need that "Shop@Netscape" button. I haven't had 4.72 long enough to have an opinion about it.
----
Floogle wrote:
Running 1600x1200 on a 15" LCD screen would be unbearable. It's almost too small for my 21" CRT.
You are confusing screen resolution with screen object size. Having a screen that's 1024x768 and then moving to one that's 4096x3072 would be no problem if your new desktop had objects which were four times larger in each dimension, plus you'd have the advantage of sharper, higher resolution screen objects.
Most current desktops have too many things that are hardcoded to a set number of pixels, but fixing this is a simple matter of programming. As screen resolutions outpace physical desk size, I think people will make sure it's less of an issue.
----
The article mentions the publisher of The Onion is a Mr. Peter K. Haise. Everyone knows the publisher really is T. Herman Zweibel, son of the paper's founder, Herman Ulysses Zweibel.
----
Friends of mine had subscriptions to the dead-tree edition of The Onion back before they discovered the internet. Great newspaper :-)
You can still get print subscriptions here. Definately worth the $50/year.
----
The fundamental goal of E-Toys, like any corporation, is to make money for its shareholders. Have you seen what this action did to its stock price? See that peak at the left, that's when they filed suit. By Xmas, they were less than half that value, during a very busy and very profitable shopping season. By now, their share price is below their initial IPO value of $19.
There was no legal precident set, but hopefully we have set the meme in corporate minds that if you take frivolous action against people on the internet, you risk a Public Relations and Financial disaster. If the cause is just, we don't need the courts anymore.
Legal backing would have been nice, but the US Courts have an iffy record of upholding peoples rights in the face of high paid corporate lawyers, so unless the courts change I wouldn't count on their help.
----
K&R is short for Brian W. Kernighan & Dennis M. Ritchie, and generally refers to their landmark work The C Programming Language, which was the definitive definition of C until ANSI got their hands on it, and is still a must read for C programmers.
----
HomerJ asks:
;-).
What does this mean though?
Keep in mind we're talking about percentage of sales during the year, it says nothing about whether these are new servers or replacing the OS on existing servers. Also keep in mind that all the Linux copies that didn't involve sales are ignored by this study.
What it looks like it means to me is that:
* Microsoft failed in its goal to sell substantially more copies of NT
* Linux increased in distribution at the expense of Netware and the Commercial Unixes
I think the real test of linux vs. NT marketshare will be this year. Linux has the backing of most companies now, and Windows2000 is soposed to be NT done right.
I think you're right as far as 2000 being a critical year for these numbers. From what little I've seen about Windows 2000 it's the same crap with a different number (and much larger), but it certainly will be marketed as the best thing since sliced bread.
In fact, the marketting campaign is already in full swing, and it hasn't even been released yet. When I was down in NYC this past weekend, posters declaring "Windows 2000 is coming" were all over the mass transit system. I kept wishing I had a can of red spray paint so I could add the word "REPENT" to the posters
----
HeUnique asks:
What do you think QT & GTK are missing to be a true replacement for Motif?
When you phrase the question that way, the answer is simple, inclusion in an updated OpenGroup Unix Workstation Standard. In order for either to be a replacement for Motif, they'd have to be included standard as part of all the commercial Unixes workstations, which will only happen if they're part of the standard for the Unix Workstation trademark. Motif may be comatose, but it's not dead as long as it's specified.
In other words, the decision will not be made on code quality, license terms, or feature set; both GTK+ and Qt have beat Motif soundly on all three counts. As long as there are commercial Unixes seeking the Unix trademark, the decision will be made on politics within the Open Group, nothing more, nothing less.
----
Sorry about the typo with your name :-(
The laws regarding patents haven't changed much, and when something obvious gets patented it is a failure of the clerk, and the patent system that refuses to properly support the clerk, but not the patent laws per se. I do realize this, but the patents involved in this article aren't the obvious ones, but they are non-obvious technology patents.
A tool is something tangible, something by it's very existance limited. A patent on a tool requires that you be able to offer a model to the PTO, or at least really detailed designs. In order to violate a tool patent, you have to have developed a tool that operates in substantially the same way. A tool has physical form, requiring financial investment and presumably created with the hope of reaping financial rewards; patent law is seldom enforced on non-commercial tools since they are few and by their very nature limited. A patent on a tool merely restricts other tools.
Technology is something completely intangible, an idea. No effort need be made to implement the technology to get the patent. To violate a technology patent, you need merely to have the same idea. Technology is often explored for the joy of it, with no commercial or financial involvement; patent law does get enforced against non-commercial technology, because the ideas can spread without limit. Regardless, the bottom line is that while patents on tools restrict tools, patents on technology restrict thoughts.
Restricting thought is a very dangerous thing. In particular, patenting thought is forcing technological creativity in this country to be mired in tons of legal bullshit from laws being misapplied somewhere they were never intended to go. The USPTO needs to stop patenting discoveries and focus on patenting inventions like they're supposed to.
----
Foofle asks:
Where do you draw the line?
Where would you draw the line? Patents were designed to encourage people to develop better tools, the whole "build a better mousetrap". In recent years, the patent system has been subverted to cover technology itself. Under the old rules, you could patent a better flashlight. Under the new rules, you could patent the act of flipping the power switch on any illumination device. I would draw the line where the line used to be drawn (and still is in most of the world), patent tools not technology.
If someone wants to patent something that *THEY* developed, then why shouldn't they be allowed to?
So where would you draw the line? Should someone be able to patent a melody? How about a particularly striking visual texture? Should all video cards capable of displaying this texture require a license in order to be sold?
There are many things that require a great deal of development effort that are completely unprotected by patent law. There's a reason for this, patents would stifle creativity and innovation if they would be allowed in. Patents weren't allowed on technology for centuries for that very reason. They should return to their former state.
----
Gartner groups usually gets their facts straight, but often there are insufficient facts available to get a full answer to their question, so they guess. When they guess about Linux, they usually lean towards Linux being stable & useful, but away from Linux being successful, widely accepted and profitable.
Here there was nothing to guess at, their report is just a rehash of literature that's been around for a while now. No guessing, no leaning. I certainly wouldn't use this one article as an indicator that they are suddenly "at least mildly pro-linux".
----
The article has a reader feedback poll. Could someone make a stab at translating it, I want to know which way to vote.
----
jd wrote:
Despite what many in the US think, the East coast does not mark the edge of the world, and people who sail beyond the horizon don't fall off.
RSA encryption has been used, freely, throughout Europe, for a considerable period of time. International versions of PGP, for example, can be found in many University FTP archives, and are widely used.
Yes, it does mean RSA can be used "freely" in the US, but that's about the limits of the benefit. One small continent, amongst many.
The facts here are certainly true, but that's not the whole story. A LOT of software development takes place in the US; all surveys I've seen have ranked the US as the largest software producer in the world (most of them rank India second). Key commercial products are developed in the US, and many key Free software projects (including the entire GNU project) are hosted in the US. All this software needs to care about the RSA patent, or risk lawsuits.
After the patent expires, none of this software need worry. European users will no longer have to use patches and alternate versions of American software, RSA code can be in the main code tree. RSA software developed outside the US will no longer feel like they need to offer an American version, since the rules will be closer together. This will make development easier across the board.
Besides, RSA isn't cutting-edge, by a long way. Yes, it's proved very resistant to attacks, and it's one of the best public-key encryption algorithms out there, but there's a lot of much newer stuff that looks like it could be more attractive in the long-term.
It may not be cutting edge, but it is the defacto standard protocol for encrypted internet communications. I wish more software would support DH/DSS, but they just don't. So-called "cutting edge" solutions generally have not been around long enough to be trusted, much less standard.
(IMHO, it's a mistake to rely on a "proven solution" in preference to looking ahead. If anyone cracks the primes problem, RSA is dead in the water. Instantly. No matter how "robust" it's been.)
Both needs to happen, you always need to be looking ahead to find new technologies. On the other hand, when implementing a real world system, you need proven, robust technology to rely upon. RSA is currently the tool used by most organizations to implement their PKI for this very reason.
In the future RSA may die, then they need to move to something else, but can you point them at a PKI technology: available right now, with a reliable track record spanning many years, with open cryptographic review spanning at least as long, that isn't succeptable to the "if anyone cracks the primes problem" vulnerability? Regardless, it's not a major vulerability, since that problem has been attacked from many different angles for centuries with no better solutions than the slow ones we have now.
----
Well I doubt there was much flaming in 1972, but it probably started soon after. I've been on the internet since 1987, and I can assure you, flaming and flamewars were an old problem already by then.
----