With the source available, this sort of thing should (hopefully!) no longer be problem. If an upgrade, such as to glibc, breaks the executable, it will hopefully be fixed by a simple rebuild of the application. Otherwise, it should be possible to fix the incompatibility in the source and rebuild. This is one of the advantages of source distribution over binary.
If sun were to start charging and everyone stayed with the old version, then sun changing the file format for the chargeable version would not cause compatibility problems as everyone would still be using the free version.
But it would still be useful leaving the term RedHat in the description as the user would then know that updates and packages designed for "RedHat" would be suitable. If you removed all reference to RedHat and called it (for example) Emca then users would not necessarily know to apply RPMs designated for RedHat 6.0.
To me RedHat, SuSe, Debian, etc indicates not the support but that the CD (or system upon which it is installed) contains a particular subset of applications at known versions and with known "patches" applied, with a particular filesystem layout etc. The usefulness is not in getting support from the vendor but in
Recognising which particular updates are appropriate.
Recognising that security etc reports apply to the particular version
So that someone with a CD containing what is claimed to be the "RedHat" distribution would apply updates intended for RedHat rather than SuSe etc.
Who decides what is "the best interests of the stockholders"? Frequently what seems, on the surface, to the best option can have side effects which make it sub-optimal.
Does the end user need to learn commands etc in order to use Linux (or other *nix)? At one time, in the days when end users had terminals not computers on their desk, when they switched/logged on they were either presented with the application which they used or a menu to select one of a small number of applications. Similarly when end users first got "personal" (not necessarily IBM PC) computers, they were configured by the system administrators and (where I worked) the end users were again given a simple menu to select which application (eg Wordstar, Supercalc or dBase) to run. Should not the same thing apply to end users using a *nix system now, that the system will be configured for them (ie they don't need to know the shell commands) and all they do is run the applications?
Similar things with OS/2. When OS/2 introduced a new feature, the press depreciated it. Later when Windows introduces the same feature (or an implentation which is not so good) the same columnists praised it as being the "best thing since sliced bread".
Why is this any worse than the practice of giving exact page references in print publications? This has been normal practice for centuries. The only difference is that it much quicker to resolve a web link than to search the library stacks for the cited publication.
But with IP6 there will be no need to use DHCP or other dynamic address schemes. Dial-in users could have static IP addresses, which would make life a lot easier for most people. It would make it easier for the dial-in user, and make it much easier to trace abuse etc as the IP address would identify the customer/user rather than an ISP port so there would be no need to correlate the IP address with logs to identify who was using the address at a particular time.
No matter what they claim, will the courts allow them to not take responsibility for any changes that they make to the poster's original material? It seems legitimate for the poster to have to take responsibility for material as posted, but it seem a bit OTT for the poster to still be held responsible for any changes which Yahoo may make.
Given any particular website, how are Yahoo going to know which parts the uploader has ownership of, and thus they can change, and which (s)he has permission to promulgate (eg GPL'd software) but not the right to transfer the rights to Yahoo which are being claimed?
How many web servers are going to serve up the Linux source? I doubt that it will be many. The article states that the new law will apply content served by web servers, or this yet another case of people assuming that "web" and "internet" are synonymous?
Why are *nix (or other non win) users likely to be troublemakers? Is there any evidence to support this view?
I would have thought that ISPs would welcome the more technically aware users (whatever OS they use) as they are likely to put a much smaller burden on support. I would imagine that providing support forms a major part of most ISP's budget. So reducing it must be a good thing.
If anything it shows the need for "self help" on the part of users, in that users would benefit from sharing experiences and problem resolutions etc so as to reduce the cost of, reliance on and the workload of vendor support.
I believe that European directives explicitly allow reverse engineering for the purpose of interfacing. It also states that these rights cannot be removed by licence conditions. So, even if reverse engineering is made illegal in the US, the open source movement elsewhere will still be able to determine the required protocols and hardware interfaces.
As long as it remains that access is barred to site which the film board declares offensive than it is at least semui-workable. However, if it was turned around and made that access is only allowed to sites which the film has passed as acceptable, then it would open a much larger can of worms.
I would suspect that maybe the law will not only affect "web" pages, but all internet access. To many people, including I am sure many politicians, the internet and the web are synonymous.
Or invert the test specification and specify the required performance and compare the hardware required for NT & Linux to give the required performance.
From my reading of the article, there is nothing to say that the tuning/patches/bugfixes have to come from the redhat or kernel sites. I can understand putting a cutoff time, but why limit the source of the tuning information?
Slashdot Mirror
With the source available, this sort of thing should (hopefully!) no longer be problem. If an upgrade, such as to glibc, breaks the executable, it will hopefully be fixed by a simple rebuild of the application. Otherwise, it should be possible to fix the incompatibility in the source and rebuild.
This is one of the advantages of source distribution over binary.
If sun were to start charging and everyone stayed with the old version, then sun changing the file format for the chargeable version would not cause compatibility problems as everyone would still be using the free version.
But it would still be useful leaving the term RedHat in the description as the user would then know that updates and packages designed for "RedHat" would be suitable. If you removed all reference to RedHat and called it (for example) Emca then users would not necessarily know to apply RPMs designated for RedHat 6.0.
- Recognising which particular updates are appropriate.
- Recognising that security etc reports apply to the particular version
So that someone with a CD containing what is claimed to be the "RedHat" distribution would apply updates intended for RedHat rather than SuSe etc.Where in the (quoted) story does it state that it is US only?
Who decides what is "the best interests of the stockholders"? Frequently what seems, on the surface, to the best option can have side effects which make it sub-optimal.
Does the end user need to learn commands etc in order to use Linux (or other *nix)? At one time, in the days when end users had terminals not computers on their desk, when they switched/logged on they were either presented with the application which they used or a menu to select one of a small number of applications. Similarly when end users first got "personal" (not necessarily IBM PC) computers, they were configured by the system administrators and (where I worked) the end users were again given a simple menu to select which application (eg Wordstar, Supercalc or dBase) to run. Should not the same thing apply to end users using a *nix system now, that the system will be configured for them (ie they don't need to know the shell commands) and all they do is run the applications?
Similar things with OS/2. When OS/2 introduced a new feature, the press depreciated it. Later when Windows introduces the same feature (or an implentation which is not so good) the same columnists praised it as being the "best thing since sliced bread".
Why is this any worse than the practice of giving exact page references in print publications? This has been normal practice for centuries.
The only difference is that it much quicker to resolve a web link than to search the library stacks for the cited publication.
Not unless you wish to transmit. The radio receiver licence was abolished many years ago.
But with IP6 there will be no need to use DHCP or other dynamic address schemes. Dial-in users could have static IP addresses, which would make life a lot easier for most people. It would make it easier for the dial-in user, and make it much easier to trace abuse etc as the IP address would identify the customer/user rather than an ISP port so there would be no need to correlate the IP address with logs to identify who was using the address at a particular time.
IP in this context is Intellectual Property, not Internet Protocol
No matter what they claim, will the courts allow them to not take responsibility for any changes that they make to the poster's original material? It seems legitimate for the poster to have to take responsibility for material as posted, but it seem a bit OTT for the poster to still be held responsible for any changes which Yahoo may make.
Given any particular website, how are Yahoo going to know which parts the uploader has ownership of, and thus they can change, and which (s)he has permission to promulgate (eg GPL'd software) but not the right to transfer the rights to Yahoo which are being claimed?
How many web servers are going to serve up the Linux source? I doubt that it will be many.
The article states that the new law will apply content served by web servers, or this yet another case of people assuming that "web" and "internet" are synonymous?
Why are *nix (or other non win) users likely to be troublemakers? Is there any evidence to support this view?
I would have thought that ISPs would welcome the more technically aware users (whatever OS they use) as they are likely to put a much smaller burden on support. I would imagine that providing support forms a major part of most ISP's budget. So reducing it must be a good thing.
There is also Tcl/Tk available for Windows. I am using it in a project at the moment.
If anything it shows the need for "self help" on the part of users, in that users would benefit from sharing experiences and problem resolutions etc so as to reduce the cost of, reliance on and the workload of vendor support.
I believe that European directives explicitly allow reverse engineering for the purpose of interfacing. It also states that these rights cannot be removed by licence conditions. So, even if reverse engineering is made illegal in the US, the open source movement elsewhere will still be able to determine the required protocols and hardware interfaces.
As long as it remains that access is barred to site which the film board declares offensive than it is at least semui-workable. However, if it was turned around and made that access is only allowed to sites which the film has passed as acceptable, then it would open a much larger can of worms.
I would suspect that maybe the law will not only affect "web" pages, but all internet access. To many people, including I am sure many politicians, the internet and the web are synonymous.
So does this mean that all .au ISPs will have to implement either a mandatory proxy server or packet filters?
Or invert the test specification and specify the required performance and compare the hardware required for NT & Linux to give the required performance.
Not necessarily. If one OS requires less hardware than the other to provide the same performance, then this could be a considerable cost saving.
From my reading of the article, there is nothing to say that the tuning/patches/bugfixes have to come from the redhat or kernel sites. I can understand putting a cutoff time, but why limit the source of the tuning information?