Getting sufficient rest is very useful to kick caffiene additction. Periodically, I try to detox myself from the stuff, and I need a period (vacation?) of sufficient sleep in order to really do it right.
During the headaches and shakes, keep hydrated, don't do strenuous things. Don't be afraid to take Ibuprofen if the headaches get too bad.
After you're off caffiene, you can also try to throw more gentle stimulants into the mix: Apples (kinds other than the "Delicious" breeds are best), Ginseng, Licorice (Stash makes an excellent Licorice tea).
Some people also use foods high in Tyrosine and/or Phenylalinine (whole grain foods are a good source of Phenylalinine), or take Tyrosine supplements. Talk to a doctor before really hitting the Tyrosine if you are taking MAO-Inhibiter medication (eg some Antidepresants), or lots of antihystamines; Tyrosine can turn into Tyramine, and Tyramine + MAOI or Antihystamines can be a lethal combiniation.
By my interpretation of their website, they're primarily competing in the mobile video chipset market. The desktop video card is kinda an afterthought/marketing stunt. In the laptop market (particularly the low end laptop market), S3 has been huge, and NVidia and ATI are the upstarts. The customer base is getting more demanding for 3D capabilties. This is S3's response to prevent the recent erosion of their main market.
I like S3, I've been happy with their equipment and staff. I wish them luck in moving forward into the 3D world;-). (PS: S3, please remember Free Drivers)
Thank you for a very informative post (and pointing out my errors and misunderstanding). As the other reply indicated, I got shorting a stock and buying a put option blurred together in my head. This is, of course, why I do neither.
I'd have to agree that Slashdot is about the worst place to get investment advice. You've not only have to wade through posts with ignorant advice, but astroturf campaigns, deliberate trolls, and people with self-serving agendas that won't help you at all. Granted, many brokers suffer from the same problems (your broker may vary).
Trust nobody. Get the description of various terms and procedures (eg. shorting a stock) from multiple licensed brokers, and do your own research on what is and what isn't a sound investment. The closer I look at the Stock Market, the more I want to buy enough real estate so that I can be completely self sufficient when the economy collapses entirely.
Lord Prox asks: Ya know, when I first read this artical I had a thought. SCO's stock price being "artificaly pumped" with all this Linux BS and it is going to correct itself. So hell why not short it.
Because:
Shorting is not something to play with if you aren't an experienced investor, you generally need a standing relationship with your brokerage firm
Shorting requires collateral
There are a limited number of shares of any companies stock that are available for short trading, you certainly can't have all of slashdot shorting SCO, there aren't enough shares for that
Shorting includes a set date when you promise to buy back the shorted shares. If you know SCO's going down, but guess wrong as to when, and their stock is still elevated when your date comes, you get mauled (hence the requirement for collateral).
I don't know how old it is, but Reader's Digest almost certainly got it from the press surrounding a recent study on jokes at the University of Hertfordshire. More info on (and jokes from) the study can be found here.
I've heard two definitions of solid state:
* No moving parts (eg Flash rather than drive platters)
* No vacuum tubes (eg Transistors/IC's rather than tubes)
The working definition I use is: "an electronic device with neither moving parts nor vacuum tubes". A liquid crystal would certainly qualify. A liquid crystal display that happened to be backlit by florescent tubes really wouldn't.
Regardless of whether or not I was perfectly accurate in my characterization, I don't hear the monitor whine with LCD or Gas Plasma monitors, and they were what I was refering to (along with inarguably solid-state Flash memory to replace hard drives).
Since Apache compiles and runs fine on UnixWare, I would not be surprised if the Caldera OpenLinux machine they were using before was brought down to put a UnixWare machine in its place.
It helps that the last "attack" in August was when they brought down the server to add the whole registration section for Linux kernel downloads.
The noise level and power usage are also key for this machine. Of course, there are other fanless machines, many of them much cheaper than this one. (Note: Not all of the machines at that site are fanless, but many are, check out the Tranquil PC and the Hush). (Also Note: Fanless doesn't equal silent, you still get drive noise and monitor whine, unless you replace those with solid state components)
I think that comment should be directed at SCO, instead of "guys". Their description of the attack is flawed, their upstream ISP was contacted, and says there's no attack, and their ftp server right next to their web server on the network is having no problems. It's a fake.
Henry Stern asks: Why don't copyleft owners ever sue for money?
Copyleft owners generally settle out of court for real compliance instead. There are a few reasons for this:
If you want to sue for damages, you need to be able to show the damage, this is harder to do if you are giving away copies of software, like most Free Software developers
If you go in waving all sorts of damages, and try to get money out of the company, they're more likely to fight in court. Most people don't like going to court, it's time consuming and expensive.
If one of these does actually end up hitting court, I would assume that, at minimum, legal fees would be among the remedies sought in the lawsuit.
I think this hinges on the definition of "bad guy". To my mind, "bad guy" means "guy who knows how to gain root from an unpriviledged account".
To my mind, in this context, a "bad guy" is anyone who wants to do something unauthorized on my machine. Once they've broken into someone's account, they're a bad guy whether or not they know how to get root.
I think the lesson they are trying to convey is: assume people know how to gain root.
Yes I would agree this is the lesson Microsoft wants to teach, and this is part of why I consider it "Windows Centric", since this is an assumption made by many in Microsoft and the Windows community. Most of the rest of the OS world considers privilege escalation a separate issue, that requires its own mechanisms and procedures to protect against.
Strangely enough, it's no longer even an assumption in the people who actually write the Windows operating system. Once they dumped the completely flawed (security-wise) 95/98/ME codebase, they were left with a version of Windows that actually cares whether you are a user or Administrator, and makes significant efforts to keep an unprivileged user from privilege escalation.
The trouble is, the rest of the Windows community hasn't followed suit, so you have application software that forces sysadmins to give users administrator privileges, and all sorts of other holes in the security model, all because Microsoft encourages security where you "assume people know how to gain root".
Anonymous Coward trolled: Even though you must feel very superior saying this, the microsoft version of that law is true. Running un-audited code on your computer will compromise your computer.
No, I maintain that thinking about things in this matter leads to bad understanding of the layout of risk, and therefore to bad security. Compromise of a user account and privilege escalation are two separate issues, and lumping them together leads to mistakes.
Case example: Lab setup for a computer programming course, one central computer, a dozen terminals. Each student has a user account where they develop programs and then email them to an instructor account on a different machine. Three security concerns: deny unauthorized access in general, allow students to keep their work private, prevent students from assuming each others identities to read work, submit flawed assignements, etc. These are programmings students, they are running unadudited software all day. By your measure, and Microsoft's measure, such a setup is impossible to secure. By my measure, such security goals can be handled by appropriate choices of tools and procedures.
The simple fact that root-kits exist makes this law extremely valid.
This sentence is a non-sequitor. You force me to assume you have no idea what a root kit is. A root kit is a set of programs, usually designed to masquerade as system software, to maximize the chance that once you have obtained root access once, you can keep it.
A root kit is only relevant after root access has already been reached. If you install a root kit in a user account, you have a johndoe kit, not a root kit. Hence, privilege escalation is the important bit here, not "unaudited code". This, again, supports my point that the law is faulty as written.
By saying that this law is "windows centric", you are commiting the foolish mistake of thinking Linux/*Nix is bug free... a criticism often attributed to Windows.
No, by saying the laws are "Windows Centric" I am pointing out that they make assumptions that, while true on Windows, are not universally true. One of these assumptions is that once a user account is compromized, the machine is compromized. Most other operating systems, including Linux, don't make this assumption, and attempt to protect against privilege escalation.
Even Windows, as an operating system, no longer makes this assumption, once you leave the 95/98/ME codebase. Now if they can get their applications programmers to stop circumventing Windows security system, they might stop being a joke.
Why would anyone assume I was claiming that Linux is bug free, in a comment about a Linux security flaw?!?
I think you've basically contradicted yourself in a single post.
I think I've seen twelve year olds with better reading comprehension than you. Even in your own post, you have not attempted to identify any contradiction.
Not that I even like Microsoft's security list, since it's very Windows-centric, I'll bite.
Law #1 doesn't apply here. The intruder sniffed a password, and ran his own software. As far as I know, nobody was tricked into running malicious software. Law #1 should read, for real OS's "Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your account, its not your account anymore."
The first failure, as per this list was Law #5 "Weak passwords trump strong security." Someone didn't properly protect their password, this gave the attacker their foot in the door.
The second failure was the unidentified privilege escalation. This doesn't appear to fit any of the laws (they appear to be written assuming privilege escallation is trivial, I guess that says something about Windows). Except perhaps, Law #10: "Technology is not a panacaea". Just because we run well designed software that has few security holes doesn't mean that we run perfectly designed software that has no security holes.
Occasionally something slips through the cracks, like here, and it's good to know that real people are paying real attention, and that there are effective ways of bringing necessary systems back up in a trusted fashion. Eventually, this escallation will be found, fixed, and machines patched.
Considering Linus's employer (Open Source Development Laboratories) has at least two people getting subpoenaed (Linus Torvalds and Stewart Cohen), it probably would make sense for them to get a lawyer. Even more so when you realize that amongst the members of the OSDL are many companies that are none too happy with SCO: IBM, Red Hat, SuSE (ie Novell now), there should be a way for some money to be made available for a lawyer to make sure the subpoenas are appropriate.
on production servers, security is a high priority while new features can take a back seat. if a new hole or exploit is found in some service, will the 'STABLE' package be upgraded for protection?
Yes, in fact security updates are where 99% of the updates come from in Debian-Stable. Here's how it generally works (slightly oversimplified):
Someone finds a security hole in program foo version 1.3, it gets announced to all and sundry
The developer of foo fixes the security hole, and releases version 1.3.1, and announces that 1.3.1 is fixed and everyone should upgrade to it.
The Debian maintainer of the foo package, which is at version 1.2.4 in Stable, verifies that the Debian version also has the security hole, backports the patch to 1.2.4, verifies that the hole is fixed, and uploads the new foo-1.2.4-2 package to the security server.
The Debian-Stable release manager makes sure that the update is legit, and that nothing stupid happened (eg. the PPC port broke), and then releases the updated package to the security apt-source.
Any users of Debian-Stable can read the security report, run "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade", and get all the security holes fixed, without having to worry about the fact that version 1.3 of foo changes the data file format, the API and configuration file.
All this happens in a time comparible to (or often faster than) the security updates from the big commercial distros.
This is how Debian-Stable maintains security and stability. For more info, check out the Debian Policy Manual. A strict and careful policy is how Debian makes sure that things just work, and makes the distro a joy to administer in an enterprise setting.
I use stable because I have production servers that I want to make sure stay as reliable and as secure as possible, with as little effort required from me. Debian-stable gives me that. Usually I don't require new features, stability is far more important.
On the rare occasions when new features are required, I either manually compile things, or include select packages from testing.
Debian-stable exists because absolutely rock solid is an overriding priority for many admins, particularly in Enterprise setups, and I just don't see that stability in RedHat, even their Enterprise version.
For a home user with some Linux knowledge, Debian-stable can be just the installer for the "real" Debian (testing or unstable), but for a production server, it is the real Debian.
While Bruce Perens seems to be talking more about development, not distribution (you can't really develop assuming Live CD's, or else your stuff might not work well on full systems), your point that Live CD's are incredibly important for evangilism is a good one.
Also, note that the most popular Live CD's either are Knoppix or are based on Knoppix. Knoppix itself is based on Debian, so supporting Debian is supporting Live CDs.
DABANSHEE wrote: The Nigerian scam is pure karma. It only hurts those who are so selfish that they put their greed before commonsense.
Yes, but the scam discussed by the post you are replying to is not. The "mark" is just someone trying to sell their old car. The only thing the mark is offered here is their asking price for the car. It's not a case of greed or selfishness here.
As such anyone conned by the Nigerian scam deserves to be ripped off & the govt should turn a blind eye to then being scammed.
With the Nigerian scam, even with as little sympathy as I have for the "victims", the scammers are both criminal and very annoying, and I want to see them locked up.
We'd feel sorry for Cisco if they had paid for software and found out it was compiled against an unlicensed library by ARM,
Actually, one thing I've heard claimed is that the software in question was compiled using an unavailable patched version of GCC by Broadcom.
or something else that put them in this position with "Traditional" software licensing, but it wouldn't excuse them from the responsibility of making it right. Why would that change with it being GPLed software?
The only reason this frightens PHBs is that they're devious little fucks by nature. It's the point of business school. They're always looking to exploit something and here they're finding that while the GPL looks like a soft and easy target because the open source community isn't doing businessy things (You know, screwing employees out of their retirement, stock manipulation scams, etc) that there are consequences to using the software and ignoring the license.
Yes, I suspect that's a big part of it. There have always been two kinds of businessmen in my view:
A) Those who strive to produce (or obtain, if they're retailers) as good a product as possible, as efficiently as possible, and sell it for a fair price to as many people as possible, so they can employ people well and make a fistful of money for themselves.
B) Those who have some products which they sell, which they don't fully care about; muddle through the process of business hoping nobody realizes they really don't know what they're doing, and jumping on any opportunity they find to exploit something and make a quick buck before they move on somewhere else (they often keep moving, if they spend too long in one place people might realize they didn't really offer much).
Sadly, I see B vastly outnumbering A, particularly in big business. B people would be very threatened by FLOSS, partially because it removes opportunities for exploitation, partially because the meritocracy behind FLOSS can point them out for the frauds they are. Only an unimaginative A person is seriously threatened by FLOSS.
Ohreally_factor suggests: didn't anyone outside of Linksys think to compile the code and load it onto a router before March/April 2003?
Cisco should have thought to (hence responsibility, but not blame). However, most people look at embedded systems like this router and either:
A) Forget that software is involved; or
B) Realize that they don't have the hardware (or time) to spare for such experiments; and
C) Have little to no reason to bother.
Cisco:
A) Knows better; and
B) Did have the hardware and time to spare; and
C) I feel had fiscal and legal obligations to do things like this as part of the Due Dilligence process.
Slashdot Mirror
Cute, but Darl McBride is a Mormon, not a Catholic.
Getting sufficient rest is very useful to kick caffiene additction. Periodically, I try to detox myself from the stuff, and I need a period (vacation?) of sufficient sleep in order to really do it right.
During the headaches and shakes, keep hydrated, don't do strenuous things. Don't be afraid to take Ibuprofen if the headaches get too bad.
After you're off caffiene, you can also try to throw more gentle stimulants into the mix: Apples (kinds other than the "Delicious" breeds are best), Ginseng, Licorice (Stash makes an excellent Licorice tea).
Some people also use foods high in Tyrosine and/or Phenylalinine (whole grain foods are a good source of Phenylalinine), or take Tyrosine supplements. Talk to a doctor before really hitting the Tyrosine if you are taking MAO-Inhibiter medication (eg some Antidepresants), or lots of antihystamines; Tyrosine can turn into Tyramine, and Tyramine + MAOI or Antihystamines can be a lethal combiniation.
By my interpretation of their website, they're primarily competing in the mobile video chipset market. The desktop video card is kinda an afterthought/marketing stunt. In the laptop market (particularly the low end laptop market), S3 has been huge, and NVidia and ATI are the upstarts. The customer base is getting more demanding for 3D capabilties. This is S3's response to prevent the recent erosion of their main market.
;-). (PS: S3, please remember Free Drivers)
I like S3, I've been happy with their equipment and staff. I wish them luck in moving forward into the 3D world
Thank you for a very informative post (and pointing out my errors and misunderstanding). As the other reply indicated, I got shorting a stock and buying a put option blurred together in my head. This is, of course, why I do neither.
I'd have to agree that Slashdot is about the worst place to get investment advice. You've not only have to wade through posts with ignorant advice, but astroturf campaigns, deliberate trolls, and people with self-serving agendas that won't help you at all. Granted, many brokers suffer from the same problems (your broker may vary).
Trust nobody. Get the description of various terms and procedures (eg. shorting a stock) from multiple licensed brokers, and do your own research on what is and what isn't a sound investment. The closer I look at the Stock Market, the more I want to buy enough real estate so that I can be completely self sufficient when the economy collapses entirely.
Ya know, when I first read this artical I had a thought. SCO's stock price being "artificaly pumped" with all this Linux BS and it is going to correct itself. So hell why not short it.
Because:
I don't know how old it is, but Reader's Digest almost certainly got it from the press surrounding a recent study on jokes at the University of Hertfordshire. More info on (and jokes from) the study can be found here.
I've heard two definitions of solid state:
* No moving parts (eg Flash rather than drive platters)
* No vacuum tubes (eg Transistors/IC's rather than tubes)
The working definition I use is: "an electronic device with neither moving parts nor vacuum tubes". A liquid crystal would certainly qualify. A liquid crystal display that happened to be backlit by florescent tubes really wouldn't.
Regardless of whether or not I was perfectly accurate in my characterization, I don't hear the monitor whine with LCD or Gas Plasma monitors, and they were what I was refering to (along with inarguably solid-state Flash memory to replace hard drives).
Since Apache compiles and runs fine on UnixWare, I would not be surprised if the Caldera OpenLinux machine they were using before was brought down to put a UnixWare machine in its place.
It helps that the last "attack" in August was when they brought down the server to add the whole registration section for Linux kernel downloads.
Some really nifty quiet machines at nOrhTec. Their MicroServers are smaller than any cable modems I've seen.
Lots of small (but bigger than the MicroServer), low power machines at Mini-ITX
The noise level and power usage are also key for this machine. Of course, there are other fanless machines, many of them much cheaper than this one. (Note: Not all of the machines at that site are fanless, but many are, check out the Tranquil PC and the Hush). (Also Note: Fanless doesn't equal silent, you still get drive noise and monitor whine, unless you replace those with solid state components)
Disclaimer: I haven't used any of these tools, I don't know which (if any) are actually good.
http://www.openswf.org/links.html
micantos wrote:
Grow up. Settle it by the law.
I think that comment should be directed at SCO, instead of "guys". Their description of the attack is flawed, their upstream ISP was contacted, and says there's no attack, and their ftp server right next to their web server on the network is having no problems. It's a fake.
Who cares about SMIL? Flash has Free tools, is widely supported and just fine for animation.
I want SVG support for scalable logos and other static graphics. Flash is a bloated horror for that.
Why don't copyleft owners ever sue for money?
Copyleft owners generally settle out of court for real compliance instead. There are a few reasons for this:
Saint Stephen wrote:
I think this hinges on the definition of "bad guy". To my mind, "bad guy" means "guy who knows how to gain root from an unpriviledged account".
To my mind, in this context, a "bad guy" is anyone who wants to do something unauthorized on my machine. Once they've broken into someone's account, they're a bad guy whether or not they know how to get root.
I think the lesson they are trying to convey is: assume people know how to gain root.
Yes I would agree this is the lesson Microsoft wants to teach, and this is part of why I consider it "Windows Centric", since this is an assumption made by many in Microsoft and the Windows community. Most of the rest of the OS world considers privilege escalation a separate issue, that requires its own mechanisms and procedures to protect against.
Strangely enough, it's no longer even an assumption in the people who actually write the Windows operating system. Once they dumped the completely flawed (security-wise) 95/98/ME codebase, they were left with a version of Windows that actually cares whether you are a user or Administrator, and makes significant efforts to keep an unprivileged user from privilege escalation.
The trouble is, the rest of the Windows community hasn't followed suit, so you have application software that forces sysadmins to give users administrator privileges, and all sorts of other holes in the security model, all because Microsoft encourages security where you "assume people know how to gain root".
Anonymous Coward trolled:
Even though you must feel very superior saying this, the microsoft version of that law is true. Running un-audited code on your computer will compromise your computer.
No, I maintain that thinking about things in this matter leads to bad understanding of the layout of risk, and therefore to bad security. Compromise of a user account and privilege escalation are two separate issues, and lumping them together leads to mistakes.
Case example: Lab setup for a computer programming course, one central computer, a dozen terminals. Each student has a user account where they develop programs and then email them to an instructor account on a different machine. Three security concerns: deny unauthorized access in general, allow students to keep their work private, prevent students from assuming each others identities to read work, submit flawed assignements, etc. These are programmings students, they are running unadudited software all day. By your measure, and Microsoft's measure, such a setup is impossible to secure. By my measure, such security goals can be handled by appropriate choices of tools and procedures.
The simple fact that root-kits exist makes this law extremely valid.
This sentence is a non-sequitor. You force me to assume you have no idea what a root kit is. A root kit is a set of programs, usually designed to masquerade as system software, to maximize the chance that once you have obtained root access once, you can keep it.
A root kit is only relevant after root access has already been reached. If you install a root kit in a user account, you have a johndoe kit, not a root kit. Hence, privilege escalation is the important bit here, not "unaudited code". This, again, supports my point that the law is faulty as written.
By saying that this law is "windows centric", you are commiting the foolish mistake of thinking Linux/*Nix is bug free... a criticism often attributed to Windows.
No, by saying the laws are "Windows Centric" I am pointing out that they make assumptions that, while true on Windows, are not universally true. One of these assumptions is that once a user account is compromized, the machine is compromized. Most other operating systems, including Linux, don't make this assumption, and attempt to protect against privilege escalation.
Even Windows, as an operating system, no longer makes this assumption, once you leave the 95/98/ME codebase. Now if they can get their applications programmers to stop circumventing Windows security system, they might stop being a joke.
Why would anyone assume I was claiming that Linux is bug free, in a comment about a Linux security flaw?!?
I think you've basically contradicted yourself in a single post.
I think I've seen twelve year olds with better reading comprehension than you. Even in your own post, you have not attempted to identify any contradiction.
Not that I even like Microsoft's security list, since it's very Windows-centric, I'll bite.
Law #1 doesn't apply here. The intruder sniffed a password, and ran his own software. As far as I know, nobody was tricked into running malicious software. Law #1 should read, for real OS's
"Law #1: If a bad guy can persuade you to run his program on your account, its not your account anymore."
The first failure, as per this list was Law #5 "Weak passwords trump strong security." Someone didn't properly protect their password, this gave the attacker their foot in the door.
The second failure was the unidentified privilege escalation. This doesn't appear to fit any of the laws (they appear to be written assuming privilege escallation is trivial, I guess that says something about Windows). Except perhaps, Law #10: "Technology is not a panacaea". Just because we run well designed software that has few security holes doesn't mean that we run perfectly designed software that has no security holes.
Occasionally something slips through the cracks, like here, and it's good to know that real people are paying real attention, and that there are effective ways of bringing necessary systems back up in a trusted fashion. Eventually, this escallation will be found, fixed, and machines patched.
Considering Linus's employer (Open Source Development Laboratories) has at least two people getting subpoenaed (Linus Torvalds and Stewart Cohen), it probably would make sense for them to get a lawyer. Even more so when you realize that amongst the members of the OSDL are many companies that are none too happy with SCO: IBM, Red Hat, SuSE (ie Novell now), there should be a way for some money to be made available for a lawyer to make sure the subpoenas are appropriate.
on production servers, security is a high priority while new features can take a back seat. if a new hole or exploit is found in some service, will the 'STABLE' package be upgraded for protection?
Yes, in fact security updates are where 99% of the updates come from in Debian-Stable. Here's how it generally works (slightly oversimplified):
All this happens in a time comparible to (or often faster than) the security updates from the big commercial distros.
This is how Debian-Stable maintains security and stability. For more info, check out the Debian Policy Manual. A strict and careful policy is how Debian makes sure that things just work, and makes the distro a joy to administer in an enterprise setting.
dabadab wrote:
Why do you use stable? I mean, really?
I use stable because I have production servers that I want to make sure stay as reliable and as secure as possible, with as little effort required from me. Debian-stable gives me that. Usually I don't require new features, stability is far more important.
On the rare occasions when new features are required, I either manually compile things, or include select packages from testing.
Debian-stable exists because absolutely rock solid is an overriding priority for many admins, particularly in Enterprise setups, and I just don't see that stability in RedHat, even their Enterprise version.
For a home user with some Linux knowledge, Debian-stable can be just the installer for the "real" Debian (testing or unstable), but for a production server, it is the real Debian.
While Bruce Perens seems to be talking more about development, not distribution (you can't really develop assuming Live CD's, or else your stuff might not work well on full systems), your point that Live CD's are incredibly important for evangilism is a good one.
Also, note that the most popular Live CD's either are Knoppix or are based on Knoppix. Knoppix itself is based on Debian, so supporting Debian is supporting Live CDs.
DABANSHEE wrote:
The Nigerian scam is pure karma. It only hurts those who are so selfish that they put their greed before commonsense.
Yes, but the scam discussed by the post you are replying to is not. The "mark" is just someone trying to sell their old car. The only thing the mark is offered here is their asking price for the car. It's not a case of greed or selfishness here.
As such anyone conned by the Nigerian scam deserves to be ripped off & the govt should turn a blind eye to then being scammed.
With the Nigerian scam, even with as little sympathy as I have for the "victims", the scammers are both criminal and very annoying, and I want to see them locked up.
SunPin wrote:
Without voice dictation, I can't move to Linux so if you planned to tell me just that, try offering a suggestion instead.
Yeah, dictation on Linux is in a pretty sorry state, and I don't see it getting out of that state without still yet more academic development.
However the latest version of ViaVoice is now available for Mac OS X. That's a serious step up from Windows in stability and system quality.
WNight wrote:
We'd feel sorry for Cisco if they had paid for software and found out it was compiled against an unlicensed library by ARM,
Actually, one thing I've heard claimed is that the software in question was compiled using an unavailable patched version of GCC by Broadcom.
or something else that put them in this position with "Traditional" software licensing, but it wouldn't excuse them from the responsibility of making it right. Why would that change with it being GPLed software?
The only reason this frightens PHBs is that they're devious little fucks by nature. It's the point of business school. They're always looking to exploit something and here they're finding that while the GPL looks like a soft and easy target because the open source community isn't doing businessy things (You know, screwing employees out of their retirement, stock manipulation scams, etc) that there are consequences to using the software and ignoring the license.
Yes, I suspect that's a big part of it. There have always been two kinds of businessmen in my view:
A) Those who strive to produce (or obtain, if they're retailers) as good a product as possible, as efficiently as possible, and sell it for a fair price to as many people as possible, so they can employ people well and make a fistful of money for themselves.
B) Those who have some products which they sell, which they don't fully care about; muddle through the process of business hoping nobody realizes they really don't know what they're doing, and jumping on any opportunity they find to exploit something and make a quick buck before they move on somewhere else (they often keep moving, if they spend too long in one place people might realize they didn't really offer much).
Sadly, I see B vastly outnumbering A, particularly in big business. B people would be very threatened by FLOSS, partially because it removes opportunities for exploitation, partially because the meritocracy behind FLOSS can point them out for the frauds they are. Only an unimaginative A person is seriously threatened by FLOSS.
Ohreally_factor suggests:
didn't anyone outside of Linksys think to compile the code and load it onto a router before March/April 2003?
Cisco should have thought to (hence responsibility, but not blame). However, most people look at embedded systems like this router and either:
A) Forget that software is involved; or
B) Realize that they don't have the hardware (or time) to spare for such experiments; and
C) Have little to no reason to bother.
Cisco:
A) Knows better; and
B) Did have the hardware and time to spare; and
C) I feel had fiscal and legal obligations to do things like this as part of the Due Dilligence process.