Do they have legal access to the BeOS source code?
on
Ars Technica on Zeta 1.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There has been some speculation in the past that yellowTab does not have legal access, if any access at all, to the BeOS source code. They apparently wouldn't confirm nor deny that when asked. Has the situation changed recently? Have they made a final statement about their possession of said source code?
Re:PHP's effect on Linux's reputation.
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, C code can often be quite vulnerable. But it isn't often touted publically (ie. to managers, the general public, etc.) as a main reason to migrate to Linux.
Linux advocates often suggest that Linux is a very secure server platform. Indeed, Linux itself often is. But such advocates often advocate the use of a language like PHP for web development. Each time a well-publicized PHP flaw or script is exploited, it tarnishes the reputation of Linux due to the close association between the two.
So what is in actuality a shitty PHP script being exploited is misunderstood by managers and other often non-technical users as being a flaw in Linux itself. That is where the problem lies. While PHP was once instrumental in bringing people to Linux, it is now also a leading cause of disrepute for the Linux community as a whole.
You might not want to migrate.
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If your existing PHP4 setup is working fine, or at least acceptably, you may not want to transition to PHP5. It has been suggested that PHP 5.0.4 suffers from very poor memory usage.
So at this point, it just doesn't sound like a transition may be a very good idea for a site that is already functional and running well.
PHP's effect on Linux's reputation.
on
Spring Into PHP 5
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There was some discussion here at Slashdot a few days ago in another topic regarding the effect PHP is having on the reputation of Linux. Considering that it is often grouped with Linux in the LAMP model, and is also one of the more well-known open source projects, there has become a close assocation between the two in the eyes of the general public.
Now it's no secret that PHP has suffered from some pretty serious security issues as of late, such as the XML-RPC flaw. Then there are the routine problems of poorly developed blog and CMS systems being defaced. Many of these problems are attributed to inexperienced users writing what amounts to completely horrible code.
While the developers of PHP itself are very talented and quite respected, the users of PHP are starting to cause problems for the Linux community as a whole. Each time a site is defaced due to some poorly written PHP script, it is often portrayed as a vulnerability with Linux itself. Of course that is more often than not a complete falsity, as the fault does not lie in any way with the Linux kernel or its developers.
So while Linux advocates often promote the use of PHP for developing webapps on Linux, PHP is starting to become more of a liability. Every site running Linux and PHP that gets defaced due to terribly written PHP scripts reflects very poorly on Linux's public image. Now I have to ask: what is the Linux community willing to do about this problem?
Would they even be willing to go so far as to demand that the PHP developers include functionality to severely limit the ability of faulty scripts to run? It's quite difficult to say at this point. But if changes aren't made fairly soon, then things could degrade very quickly.
There are still people using UnixWare in production environments. These are systems that have been running perfectly fine since the early to mid 1990s. Now, there may come a time when these systems must be updated. Moving to a newer, yet still backwards compatible, release of UnixWare would often be the ideal solution.
Personally, I'd prefer to use a community-developed release of UnixWare if possible. You get the benefits of the development process and source code capabilities of Linux and the BSDs, but with the added advantage of backwards compatibility with previous UnixWare releases.
SCO has two Unix products: OpenServer and UnixWare. It is important not to confuse them.
OpenServer is based on what was Xenix, and until the recently released OpenServer 6, it was considered to be an SVR3 system.
UnixWare was obtained in some form or another (under dispute at the moment) from Novell in the mid 1990s. It is an SVR4 system.
OpenServer 6 is being labelled as an SVR5 system now, and appears to be amongst the initial steps in merging/unifying the technologies found in UnixWare.
Indeed, at this point OpenServer is still a different product than UnixWare.
It would be fantastic if the source code to UnixWare was forced to be released due to this. Indeed, UnixWare was a great PC UNIX in the early to mid 1990s. But unfortunately it has stagnated since then.
A GPL'ed UnixWare would be amazing for what remains of the UnixWare community. It could be brought up to date and made useful again. It could provide some competition to Linux, the BSDs and Solaris on smaller servers.
It would be interesting, however, to see Novell's take on this.
Indeed, PHP is severely damaging the reputation of Linux. While the developers of PHP are well-intentioned, that is for sure, their creation has suffered from far too many security problems as of late. Of course, they cannot be blamed for the flaws of hastily written PHP scripts.
Nevertheless, the numerous insecurities found in PHP and scripts written in PHP are tarnishing the image of Linux. Hopefully the PHP developers put more effort into creating a web development platform that isn't as susceptible to scripts written by non-professionals. Just as Intel and AMD have moved to prevent stack overflow exploits via hardware improvements, it is time for PHP to do the same. They must make it so that insecure scripts do not run at all.
Has anyone here actually used OpenServer 6? How does it compare with the more recent releases of UnixWare? Indeed, I recall when those two products were supposed to be merged. It does sound like that is happening somewhat these days.
Also, OpenServer was (before 6) traditionally referred to as an SVR3 system, while UnixWare was an SVR4 system. Now they're referring to OpenServer 6 as being "SVR5". Did they incorporate all of the SVR4 features into OpenServer 6, and then add to them? Or did they just build on the SVR3 features, without bothering to add much of the SVR4 capabilities?
Do they still use CDE? I recall doing some work on a UnixWare 7.something system, and the version of CDE they used was from a company named TriTeal. However, TriTeal went bankrupt around 1999, if I remember correctly. Does SCO still build their desktop upon the TriTeal CDE?
Perhaps it's because 3 black dudes doing an asian chick at the same time and dropping their loads in her eye might give the wrong impression of what it's all about. I can't speak for you, but I don't partake in interracial gangbangs, facials, or S&M. If you consider that "normal" maybe you should see a therapist.
I'd rather my 14-year-old granson look to those fine gentleman as role models, as opposed to the politicians running countries such as Britain and America. You know, the politicians who have instigated wars that have lead to the maiming and brutal murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
At least the Asian woman in your example was partaking in the act with consent; unlike the thousands upon thousands of children who have had their limbs blown off without their consent, in the wars directly started by those politicians who you seem to think are extremely moral.
Be careful with the collaborative activities. Remember, the various developers of the open source community do not always agree. The disagreements themselves can often consume huge amounts of time and effort. While you may want to show that that is part of any group effort, don't let it get too out of hand.
What language would you put it in? The bios seems like the perfect application for assembly code. The problem is that the bios needs to be kept simple.
Forth, with the Forth virtual machine/interpreter written in assembly. This is the sort of application that Forth excels at.
Most PC BIOSes work fine. But that said, improvements are still possible. The SGI Indy boot PROMs of nearly a decade ago contained a shell that could be used to manipulate various system parameters. That was quite a useful tool missing from even the most modern of PC BIOSes. They also had numerous built-in diagnostic tests that far exceed the basic tests offered by many PC BIOSes.
While I haven't used very recent SGI workstations (ie. Tezro, Fuel), I can only assume that they have added to the functionality.
I've always wanted something similar to the old SGI Indy boot PROM monitor, but on PCs. While similar technology is widespread on Sun and Apple machines, amonst others, it is far superior to the simple option-toggling capabilities of most PC BIOSes. The shell was quite handy, and the built-in diagnostic tests were even better.
You do realize that the portion of the Constitution covering such matters as freedom of speech is called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
The "Fundamental Freedoms" portion you quoted in your earlier post comes from Section 2 of the Charter (which, recall, is a portion of the Constitution). Remember, the purpose of the Charter is to protect Canadian citizens from the various governments.
Indeed, see Section 32 of the Charter:
32. (1)This Charter applies
a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
The Charter applies to the governments: federally, provincially and territorially. The government cannot come along and restrict or eliminiate your fundamental freedoms. But remember, Telus is not part of the government. Therefore they are not bound by the Charter, as you mistakenly think.
Even as a Brit I know that the Canadian Charter applies only to interactions between the government and the citizens of Canada. Telus is not part of the government, and is hence not held to the standards contained within the Charter.
It is much like how sites like GameFAQs.com can get away with what would be considered by most intellectuals to be a complete absence of free speech. They are not held to the terms of the American Constitution, nor the Canadian Charter.
It's too bad that WindRiver basically killed BSD/OS. It was a fantastic PC server OS. Indeed, after SCO OpenServer started lacking in the early to mid 1990s, BSD/OS really took off the provided the quality that we needed. Massive uptimes were the norm, in PC server terms. Not to mention amazing performance. It really squeezed every last bit out of the system.
It's a real shame that WindRiver chose not to (or was unable to) release the source code to BSD/OS. While FreeBSD can often be used as a comparable substitude for BSD/OS, nothing really makes older PC servers go like true BSD/OS does.
Mach is the "guts" of Mac OS X.
on
Why FreeBSD
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Mach, not FreeBSD, is the "guts" of Mac OS X. The code borrowed from FreeBSD is mostly userspace code.
Re:CNN is quoting Think Secret??
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 2, Informative
CNN's main goal is financial profit. Providing news, let alone news that is has any basis to it, is completely secondary. Of course they'll use an Internet rumor mill, such as Think Secret, as a reliable source of news. It gives them something to stick all of their ads around. And it's very cheap, too! No expensive reporters or investigators to pay.
But it is not just the argument that is false. It is the entire debating style based around ad hominem attacks that I point out as flawed. Hence I used the term "faulty debatery". "Debatery" is the act of debating, and to attempt to do so mainly by using ad hominem attacks leads to such a style being intellectually "faulty".
"Republicans have perfected the strategy that if you don't like the message, seek to discredit the messenger."
Professional debatists and philosophers have a term for that: ad hominem attacks.
Indeed, due to the declining education standards in most of the Western world, many younger people are not aware of such a concept. That is why those politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, who resort to the use of such logical fallacies are not held responsible for their faulty debatery.
Internet Explorer was not derived from NCSA Mosaic. It was derived from Spyglass Mosaic. Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA. But they did not use any of the NCSA Mosaic source code[1]. Microsoft then licensed Spyglass Mosaic from Spyglass.
It is interesting to note that parts of AmigaOS were written in BCPL, due to its derivation from TRIPOS. BCPL was the predecessor for C, for those who weren't aware.
AmigaDOS was later rewritten in C for Kickstart/Workbench 2.0. Indeed, it is quite interesting to see that they could create such a fantastic workstation OS (often unmatched feature-wise until the late 1990s by Windows and Mac OS) in a high level language, and running on lower-end hardware.
The most "advanced" computer at that time depends on what your criteria are. The systems from Cray and Amiga are very different, yet still both very advanced.
While the Cray-2 may have been the most efficient number crunching computer in 1985, the Amiga was the top of the line when it came to multimedia and workstation applications. So while the Cray-2 didn't offer the amazing multimedia capabilities of the Amiga, and the Amiga didn't offer the pure crunching power of the Cray-2, it isn't correct to say that either is more "advanced" than the other in all ways.
Slashdot Mirror
There has been some speculation in the past that yellowTab does not have legal access, if any access at all, to the BeOS source code. They apparently wouldn't confirm nor deny that when asked. Has the situation changed recently? Have they made a final statement about their possession of said source code?
Indeed, C code can often be quite vulnerable. But it isn't often touted publically (ie. to managers, the general public, etc.) as a main reason to migrate to Linux.
Linux advocates often suggest that Linux is a very secure server platform. Indeed, Linux itself often is. But such advocates often advocate the use of a language like PHP for web development. Each time a well-publicized PHP flaw or script is exploited, it tarnishes the reputation of Linux due to the close association between the two.
So what is in actuality a shitty PHP script being exploited is misunderstood by managers and other often non-technical users as being a flaw in Linux itself. That is where the problem lies. While PHP was once instrumental in bringing people to Linux, it is now also a leading cause of disrepute for the Linux community as a whole.
If your existing PHP4 setup is working fine, or at least acceptably, you may not want to transition to PHP5. It has been suggested that PHP 5.0.4 suffers from very poor memory usage.
c id=13297391
http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158685&
So at this point, it just doesn't sound like a transition may be a very good idea for a site that is already functional and running well.
There was some discussion here at Slashdot a few days ago in another topic regarding the effect PHP is having on the reputation of Linux. Considering that it is often grouped with Linux in the LAMP model, and is also one of the more well-known open source projects, there has become a close assocation between the two in the eyes of the general public.
Now it's no secret that PHP has suffered from some pretty serious security issues as of late, such as the XML-RPC flaw. Then there are the routine problems of poorly developed blog and CMS systems being defaced. Many of these problems are attributed to inexperienced users writing what amounts to completely horrible code.
While the developers of PHP itself are very talented and quite respected, the users of PHP are starting to cause problems for the Linux community as a whole. Each time a site is defaced due to some poorly written PHP script, it is often portrayed as a vulnerability with Linux itself. Of course that is more often than not a complete falsity, as the fault does not lie in any way with the Linux kernel or its developers.
So while Linux advocates often promote the use of PHP for developing webapps on Linux, PHP is starting to become more of a liability. Every site running Linux and PHP that gets defaced due to terribly written PHP scripts reflects very poorly on Linux's public image. Now I have to ask: what is the Linux community willing to do about this problem?
Would they even be willing to go so far as to demand that the PHP developers include functionality to severely limit the ability of faulty scripts to run? It's quite difficult to say at this point. But if changes aren't made fairly soon, then things could degrade very quickly.
There are still people using UnixWare in production environments. These are systems that have been running perfectly fine since the early to mid 1990s. Now, there may come a time when these systems must be updated. Moving to a newer, yet still backwards compatible, release of UnixWare would often be the ideal solution.
Personally, I'd prefer to use a community-developed release of UnixWare if possible. You get the benefits of the development process and source code capabilities of Linux and the BSDs, but with the added advantage of backwards compatibility with previous UnixWare releases.
SCO has two Unix products: OpenServer and UnixWare. It is important not to confuse them.
OpenServer is based on what was Xenix, and until the recently released OpenServer 6, it was considered to be an SVR3 system.
UnixWare was obtained in some form or another (under dispute at the moment) from Novell in the mid 1990s. It is an SVR4 system.
OpenServer 6 is being labelled as an SVR5 system now, and appears to be amongst the initial steps in merging/unifying the technologies found in UnixWare.
Indeed, at this point OpenServer is still a different product than UnixWare.
It would be fantastic if the source code to UnixWare was forced to be released due to this. Indeed, UnixWare was a great PC UNIX in the early to mid 1990s. But unfortunately it has stagnated since then.
A GPL'ed UnixWare would be amazing for what remains of the UnixWare community. It could be brought up to date and made useful again. It could provide some competition to Linux, the BSDs and Solaris on smaller servers.
It would be interesting, however, to see Novell's take on this.
Indeed, PHP is severely damaging the reputation of Linux. While the developers of PHP are well-intentioned, that is for sure, their creation has suffered from far too many security problems as of late. Of course, they cannot be blamed for the flaws of hastily written PHP scripts.
Nevertheless, the numerous insecurities found in PHP and scripts written in PHP are tarnishing the image of Linux. Hopefully the PHP developers put more effort into creating a web development platform that isn't as susceptible to scripts written by non-professionals. Just as Intel and AMD have moved to prevent stack overflow exploits via hardware improvements, it is time for PHP to do the same. They must make it so that insecure scripts do not run at all.
Has anyone here actually used OpenServer 6? How does it compare with the more recent releases of UnixWare? Indeed, I recall when those two products were supposed to be merged. It does sound like that is happening somewhat these days.
Also, OpenServer was (before 6) traditionally referred to as an SVR3 system, while UnixWare was an SVR4 system. Now they're referring to OpenServer 6 as being "SVR5". Did they incorporate all of the SVR4 features into OpenServer 6, and then add to them? Or did they just build on the SVR3 features, without bothering to add much of the SVR4 capabilities?
Do they still use CDE? I recall doing some work on a UnixWare 7.something system, and the version of CDE they used was from a company named TriTeal. However, TriTeal went bankrupt around 1999, if I remember correctly. Does SCO still build their desktop upon the TriTeal CDE?
Perhaps it's because 3 black dudes doing an asian chick at the same time and dropping their loads in her eye might give the wrong impression of what it's all about. I can't speak for you, but I don't partake in interracial gangbangs, facials, or S&M. If you consider that "normal" maybe you should see a therapist.
I'd rather my 14-year-old granson look to those fine gentleman as role models, as opposed to the politicians running countries such as Britain and America. You know, the politicians who have instigated wars that have lead to the maiming and brutal murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
At least the Asian woman in your example was partaking in the act with consent; unlike the thousands upon thousands of children who have had their limbs blown off without their consent, in the wars directly started by those politicians who you seem to think are extremely moral.
Be careful with the collaborative activities. Remember, the various developers of the open source community do not always agree. The disagreements themselves can often consume huge amounts of time and effort. While you may want to show that that is part of any group effort, don't let it get too out of hand.
What language would you put it in? The bios seems like the perfect application for assembly code. The problem is that the bios needs to be kept simple.
Forth, with the Forth virtual machine/interpreter written in assembly. This is the sort of application that Forth excels at.
Most PC BIOSes work fine. But that said, improvements are still possible. The SGI Indy boot PROMs of nearly a decade ago contained a shell that could be used to manipulate various system parameters. That was quite a useful tool missing from even the most modern of PC BIOSes. They also had numerous built-in diagnostic tests that far exceed the basic tests offered by many PC BIOSes.
While I haven't used very recent SGI workstations (ie. Tezro, Fuel), I can only assume that they have added to the functionality.
I've always wanted something similar to the old SGI Indy boot PROM monitor, but on PCs. While similar technology is widespread on Sun and Apple machines, amonst others, it is far superior to the simple option-toggling capabilities of most PC BIOSes. The shell was quite handy, and the built-in diagnostic tests were even better.
Unless they've already got something in place, and do not need to "bolt on their Apple-specific goop" later on.
The "Fundamental Freedoms" portion you quoted in your earlier post comes from Section 2 of the Charter (which, recall, is a portion of the Constitution). Remember, the purpose of the Charter is to protect Canadian citizens from the various governments.
Indeed, see Section 32 of the Charter:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
The Charter applies to the governments: federally, provincially and territorially. The government cannot come along and restrict or eliminiate your fundamental freedoms. But remember, Telus is not part of the government. Therefore they are not bound by the Charter, as you mistakenly think.
Even as a Brit I know that the Canadian Charter applies only to interactions between the government and the citizens of Canada. Telus is not part of the government, and is hence not held to the standards contained within the Charter.
It is much like how sites like GameFAQs.com can get away with what would be considered by most intellectuals to be a complete absence of free speech. They are not held to the terms of the American Constitution, nor the Canadian Charter.
It's too bad that WindRiver basically killed BSD/OS. It was a fantastic PC server OS. Indeed, after SCO OpenServer started lacking in the early to mid 1990s, BSD/OS really took off the provided the quality that we needed. Massive uptimes were the norm, in PC server terms. Not to mention amazing performance. It really squeezed every last bit out of the system.
It's a real shame that WindRiver chose not to (or was unable to) release the source code to BSD/OS. While FreeBSD can often be used as a comparable substitude for BSD/OS, nothing really makes older PC servers go like true BSD/OS does.
Mach, not FreeBSD, is the "guts" of Mac OS X. The code borrowed from FreeBSD is mostly userspace code.
CNN's main goal is financial profit. Providing news, let alone news that is has any basis to it, is completely secondary. Of course they'll use an Internet rumor mill, such as Think Secret, as a reliable source of news. It gives them something to stick all of their ads around. And it's very cheap, too! No expensive reporters or investigators to pay.
But it is not just the argument that is false. It is the entire debating style based around ad hominem attacks that I point out as flawed. Hence I used the term "faulty debatery". "Debatery" is the act of debating, and to attempt to do so mainly by using ad hominem attacks leads to such a style being intellectually "faulty".
"Republicans have perfected the strategy that if you don't like the message, seek to discredit the messenger."
Professional debatists and philosophers have a term for that: ad hominem attacks.
Indeed, due to the declining education standards in most of the Western world, many younger people are not aware of such a concept. That is why those politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, who resort to the use of such logical fallacies are not held responsible for their faulty debatery.
Internet Explorer was not derived from NCSA Mosaic. It was derived from Spyglass Mosaic. Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA. But they did not use any of the NCSA Mosaic source code[1]. Microsoft then licensed Spyglass Mosaic from Spyglass.
References:
[1] http://biztech.ericsink.com/Browser_Wars.html
It is interesting to note that parts of AmigaOS were written in BCPL, due to its derivation from TRIPOS. BCPL was the predecessor for C, for those who weren't aware.
AmigaDOS was later rewritten in C for Kickstart/Workbench 2.0. Indeed, it is quite interesting to see that they could create such a fantastic workstation OS (often unmatched feature-wise until the late 1990s by Windows and Mac OS) in a high level language, and running on lower-end hardware.
The most "advanced" computer at that time depends on what your criteria are. The systems from Cray and Amiga are very different, yet still both very advanced.
While the Cray-2 may have been the most efficient number crunching computer in 1985, the Amiga was the top of the line when it came to multimedia and workstation applications. So while the Cray-2 didn't offer the amazing multimedia capabilities of the Amiga, and the Amiga didn't offer the pure crunching power of the Cray-2, it isn't correct to say that either is more "advanced" than the other in all ways.