Nothing is stopping you from not installing KDE when you install Red Hat and then downloading and installing the official KDE tarballs. Really, you make it sound like Red Hat is twisting your arm. Get over yourself already.
I can just see it now. You don't hear the skier/boarder behind you and you cut him off. You both wipe out hard. You're lying in the snow with headphones 15 feet behind you (entangled with your goggles) -- the cable still around your neck, the MiniDisc player crunched, and your $1000 jacket's keypad mysteriously non-functional.
WOW! That'd be EXTREME!!! Just like in those Mountain Dew ads!
Ok, that makes sense. I see your point. It's just from my perspective that using an algorithm that is potentially covered by a patent is a bad idea. If the algorithm eventually becomes something that is used a lot, then it would require that a lot of people have to purchase a license just to be able to perform what will probably be normal functions. Which could have been avoided in the first place by using non-patent encumbered algorithms.
A perfect example to back this up is the issue with RSA before the patent expired. There were other perfectly acceptable, patent-free algorithms such as Blowfish and 3DES. Yet by adopting RSA for SSL it held back the adoption of SSL enabled web servers by those that couldn't afford the license fees.
If something happens that makes these hash algorithms widely used and accepted to the degree that it's in someone's best interest to use it, the patents could become a sticking point for many people that lack the funds to purchase a licence but still need to interoperate with others that are using the hash. And, as you originally pointed out, it's only the implementations that may be patented and not the algorithm itself. But I ask, what is the difference? If I decided to implement the algorithm, how can I be sure that my implementation and the way that I think and solve problems such as this aren't infringing on someone else's patented implementation of this algorithm? It would be hard for me to do so without spending a lot of money on lawyers.
I think it is wiser to encourage people to avoid patent-encumbered or even possibly patent-encumbered algorithms in lieu of other solutions that involve less overall risk. This is just my opinion, though.
KCacheGrind is KDE *frontend* to Valgrind memory debugger not another debugger!
If you had bothered to read the KCachegrind page you'd see that it's a "KDE Profiling Visualisation Tool" that uses Cachegrind, a profiler that is part of Valgrind.
And as far as that goes, I have no problem at all licensing algorithms for things like this. In many cases-- not all, but many-- your choices are (1) license-free or (2) secure, and the two are mutually exclusive.
By your logic, it's the licensing that makes the algorithm secure. They are not mutually exclusive. There are algorithms such as Blowfish that are secure and patent and license free. I'm sure there are many others.
A little off-topic, but did anyone else notice this item on the PSI page?
We recently learned that a commercial entity has taken Psi's source code and made a closed source product from it. They have chosen not to release the source to their derivative work, thus violating the terms of the Psi licence, the GPL.
We are currently in talks with both the FSF and this commercial entity, and we'll be sure to let you all know if and when it's resolved. To protect the aforementioned company from hordes of angry Psi users and GPL advocates, we choose not to disclose their name. Don't even ask us, we won't tell... unless, of course, they decide to continue using the Psi code without releasing the source to their product, then you can have them.
Fear of change is what keeps these governments coming back to Microsoft.
As opposed to the change people went through from DOS to win31? Or from win31 to win95? And so on. I don't think changing to a Unix system running KDE or GNOME with Evolution and OpenOffice will be much bigger of a change as what they have been going through in the past.
I can see it now -- I spend a bunch of time and money learning the ins and outs of audio encoding, compression and all that good stuff... Then I get my branding: Certified LAME Engineer
It's certainly better than being a Certified GIMP Artist.
Just Betamax. They said that Betacam would still be produced and supported. I couldn't imagine them killing it off now as there are still too many places (independent producers, TV stations, cable head-ends, etc.) using analogue Betacam SP.
I think you are confusing Betamax (consumer format) with Betacam (broadcast format). Betacam is very much alive while I don't think Betamax was ever used for broadcast work. The quality is too low.
Yes, indeed. The best way to do this right now is to support the FreeS/WAN project. Install and test. Enable opportunistic encryption and make sure it works.
Regarding the "Feds wanna take a look" question and answer, I wonder if they have thought of installing a gateway running FreeS/WAN to do opportunistic encryption to other sites that use FreeS/WAN. I realize that there probably are not many networks with this capability, but as more people add them, the incentive other people have to install this. That and it'll help make it harder to sniff your traffic.
I think we're better off improving the features... than to try to squeak out another.01seconds to render the pictures on a screen.
If you had bothered to read the article you would have seen that getting the browser to be faster was a by-product of rewriting the engine. A quote to enlighten you:
"There were some things that were difficult to do with the old engine, particularly with changing elements in pages," said Opera Software co-founder and CEO Jon S. von Tetzchner. "We felt we needed a rewritten engine to have something that works with all the DOM that is coming out."
It's not like this is rocket science. Plug sound output of machine with stream from windows media player into input of machine with Shoutcast encoder (or whatever). Distribute your stream to the masses in MP3 from new server. So you'll lose a little quality from the re-encoding. Big deal, few people will probably notice.
Jesus Michael. Why don't you post a comment and participate in the discussion like the rest of us rather than abusing your privilege of story posting as a vehicle for personal rants. This is a perfect example of why I'm still not a subscriber to Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing is stopping you from not installing KDE when you install Red Hat and then downloading and installing the official KDE tarballs. Really, you make it sound like Red Hat is twisting your arm. Get over yourself already.
Here's a site about a guy's struggles to lose weight. It looks like it worked for him. He talks a bit about what he did.
That isn't what begging the question means. Read up: http://skepdic.com/begging.html
A perfect example to back this up is the issue with RSA before the patent expired. There were other perfectly acceptable, patent-free algorithms such as Blowfish and 3DES. Yet by adopting RSA for SSL it held back the adoption of SSL enabled web servers by those that couldn't afford the license fees.
If something happens that makes these hash algorithms widely used and accepted to the degree that it's in someone's best interest to use it, the patents could become a sticking point for many people that lack the funds to purchase a licence but still need to interoperate with others that are using the hash. And, as you originally pointed out, it's only the implementations that may be patented and not the algorithm itself. But I ask, what is the difference? If I decided to implement the algorithm, how can I be sure that my implementation and the way that I think and solve problems such as this aren't infringing on someone else's patented implementation of this algorithm? It would be hard for me to do so without spending a lot of money on lawyers.
I think it is wiser to encourage people to avoid patent-encumbered or even possibly patent-encumbered algorithms in lieu of other solutions that involve less overall risk. This is just my opinion, though.
How does this compare the KCacheGrind and Valgrind?
It's certainly better than being a Certified GIMP Artist.
Just Betamax. They said that Betacam would still be produced and supported. I couldn't imagine them killing it off now as there are still too many places (independent producers, TV stations, cable head-ends, etc.) using analogue Betacam SP.
Regarding the "Feds wanna take a look" question and answer, I wonder if they have thought of installing a gateway running FreeS/WAN to do opportunistic encryption to other sites that use FreeS/WAN. I realize that there probably are not many networks with this capability, but as more people add them, the incentive other people have to install this. That and it'll help make it harder to sniff your traffic.
It's not like this is rocket science. Plug sound output of machine with stream from windows media player into input of machine with Shoutcast encoder (or whatever). Distribute your stream to the masses in MP3 from new server. So you'll lose a little quality from the re-encoding. Big deal, few people will probably notice.
Pardon my ignorance, but what reason do these historic buildings need to be networked together for? Are they historic office buildings?
Jesus Michael. Why don't you post a comment and participate in the discussion like the rest of us rather than abusing your privilege of story posting as a vehicle for personal rants. This is a perfect example of why I'm still not a subscriber to Slashdot.