2x cheaper? Either you read a really bad, cheap magazine, or you paid *well* over the odds for your router.
I bought my router from a firm notorious for overpriced products (sounds like pissy werld), and paid about half what an anual subscription would be, for one by linksys.
Not automatically, no, but as it has a commandline switch to create a new config file from scratch/backups/safe settings, it should be a small change in the code, from if (crash) {showLog()} to if (crash) {openSax()}.
SuSE has been using something similar for at least 4 years, it's tied into YaST a bit heavily, but surely it would have been easier to port SaX then to write a new application from scratch.
A little bit of NIH syndrome, maybe?
Not just SCO who lose...
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
What about the SCO Unix fee troll on Slashdot? He's out of a job now. We should have a whip round for him or something.
Despite being "broken", in this case, sha1 would be acceptable.
All SHA1 being broken means is that it is easy to find a collision, or 2 values that match. If you are using it to verify the integrity of a file, then even if a collision is found, it's going to be plainly evident.
Though it's easy to find a collision, it is *impossible* to choose the content of that collision.
The importance of SHA1 being broken is when it is used for say, obfuscating passwords. If a system is compromised, and the cracker gets a list of password hashes, they can then generate from that list of password hashes, a list of valid plaintext sequences that would generate that hash.
So in the former case, the cracker would find a matching set of plaintext to the logfile, but due to the contents of the alternative plaintext probably being a psuedo-random jumble of data, anyone who looks in any detail at the fake log file will instantly see that it is falsified. The cracker may as well create a false logfile, and lie about the hash.
In the latter, it would allow the cracker to get a list of passwords that could be used to compromise his target systems much more quickly than he could have without them.
If KHTML is relicensed under LGPL3, then all Apple will do is fork at the final LGPL2 version.
It's not as if they lack the resources to maintain their own fork themselves, but what will happen is that KHTML will lose a major supporter. The v2 and v3 are incompatible, so any additions apple releases to their fork won't be able to be included, unless Apple allows the "version 2 or later" clause.
I imagine the same will go for TiVo; they're building an embedded device, so there is no need for them to use the latest and greatest tool. They'll just fork their own, and fix any problems they come across.
But surely the clauses applying to the MS-Novell deal (though they don't specifically refer to it, but that's what they are aimed at) are completely unenforceable in a court of law?
How can it be that a license that 1) MS has and never will agree to 2) that didn't exist when the deal was made be valid?
If I write a program and license it under the condition that you pay me £10 for it, can I then change the license a week later and say you have to pay 10 people £10 instead?
If a law banning something is instated by the Government, they are very rarely retrospective (how can you comply with something that does not exist yet?).
Either I'm missing something, or the GPL 3 is going to be totally unenforceable.
The light-emitting spots on the fibers measure less than 250 nm in diameter which makes this light source smaller than the wavelength of light that they emit - 600nm
What is new about this? Electrons emit light too; they're 1.0 × 10^-6 nm in diameter, over a million times smaller?
Anyone have a link to something a little more in depth than the blog post that is TFA that explains this a little better?
The opensource have reimplemented SMB, Flash (mostly), Java (almost). Hell they reimplemented unix in about a hundred different ways, so tell me again why this is a step back for linux?
The only way it could be a step back is if linux had a hard time keeping up with new technologies, is this really the case?
It's not like the OS market has a high lock-in potential. If Linux wants to compete with Microsoft, JUST FUCKING DO IT already.
Go out, talk to some websites, pay them money, get people to advertise there.
Oh you mean, Linux can't make them as good a deal as Microsoft? Microsoft is more efficient and does its job well? Well, then what are they bitching about? An efficient company doing what customers want is hardly a bad thing to have.
^--- Just for the irony value
I don't know about MS here, but some commenters should be tagged potkettleblack. Should murderers be fair game too be murdered themselves? Should we point and laugh when rapists get raped themselves? Slightly extreme examples, but there you go.
Just because MS is a convicted monopolist, doesn't mean that they don't have a valid complaint.
Take a look at the apple discussion board for bootcamp; there are stories of about 1% of iMacs being unable to run bootcamp at all, the British keyboard layout has no double quote key, resizing paritions in several cases has hosed systems, just to choose a few.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an ellipsis, and bracketing is optional.
You know, there is a whole world outside your quaint little country.
Believe it or not, we also have our own TV stations, and are not restricted to the ad-fuelled American media machine
And what about broadcasters who don't advertise?
Turn up the volume.
It's quite quiet.
I bought my router from a firm notorious for overpriced products (sounds like pissy werld), and paid about half what an anual subscription would be, for one by linksys.
In which case, you would just fork the last free version put out by Sun.
Whilst they can relicense, they cannot apply it retroactively.
Not automatically, no, but as it has a commandline switch to create a new config file from scratch/backups/safe settings, it should be a small change in the code, from if (crash) {showLog()} to if (crash) {openSax()}.
SuSE has been using something similar for at least 4 years, it's tied into YaST a bit heavily, but surely it would have been easier to port SaX then to write a new application from scratch. A little bit of NIH syndrome, maybe?
What about the SCO Unix fee troll on Slashdot? He's out of a job now. We should have a whip round for him or something.
So, what you're saying is, 512k is enough for anyone?
Despite being "broken", in this case, sha1 would be acceptable.
All SHA1 being broken means is that it is easy to find a collision, or 2 values that match. If you are using it to verify the integrity of a file, then even if a collision is found, it's going to be plainly evident.
Though it's easy to find a collision, it is *impossible* to choose the content of that collision.
The importance of SHA1 being broken is when it is used for say, obfuscating passwords. If a system is compromised, and the cracker gets a list of password hashes, they can then generate from that list of password hashes, a list of valid plaintext sequences that would generate that hash.
So in the former case, the cracker would find a matching set of plaintext to the logfile, but due to the contents of the alternative plaintext probably being a psuedo-random jumble of data, anyone who looks in any detail at the fake log file will instantly see that it is falsified. The cracker may as well create a false logfile, and lie about the hash.
In the latter, it would allow the cracker to get a list of passwords that could be used to compromise his target systems much more quickly than he could have without them.
*pulls the battery out of his macbook and throws it at the OP*
If KHTML is relicensed under LGPL3, then all Apple will do is fork at the final LGPL2 version. It's not as if they lack the resources to maintain their own fork themselves, but what will happen is that KHTML will lose a major supporter. The v2 and v3 are incompatible, so any additions apple releases to their fork won't be able to be included, unless Apple allows the "version 2 or later" clause. I imagine the same will go for TiVo; they're building an embedded device, so there is no need for them to use the latest and greatest tool. They'll just fork their own, and fix any problems they come across.
But surely the clauses applying to the MS-Novell deal (though they don't specifically refer to it, but that's what they are aimed at) are completely unenforceable in a court of law?
How can it be that a license that 1) MS has and never will agree to 2) that didn't exist when the deal was made be valid?
If I write a program and license it under the condition that you pay me £10 for it, can I then change the license a week later and say you have to pay 10 people £10 instead?
If a law banning something is instated by the Government, they are very rarely retrospective (how can you comply with something that does not exist yet?).
Either I'm missing something, or the GPL 3 is going to be totally unenforceable.
cat /path/to/file | sed s/old/new/ > /path/to/file
I choose neither. BSD anyone?
"Mum, the living room wall has got a dead pixel!"
I for one, welcome our new radiation-resistant giant fungal overlords!
What is new about this? Electrons emit light too; they're 1.0 × 10^-6 nm in diameter, over a million times smaller?
Anyone have a link to something a little more in depth than the blog post that is TFA that explains this a little better?
Yes you can.
Heh, pity there isn't a +1, original mod really.
Yeah... Y'all know what I meant :)
XAML is part of the .NET framework...
So what is to stop mono adding support for it?
The opensource have reimplemented SMB, Flash (mostly), Java (almost). Hell they reimplemented unix in about a hundred different ways, so tell me again why this is a step back for linux?
The only way it could be a step back is if linux had a hard time keeping up with new technologies, is this really the case?
It's not like the OS market has a high lock-in potential. If Linux wants to compete with Microsoft, JUST FUCKING DO IT already.
Go out, talk to some websites, pay them money, get people to advertise there.
Oh you mean, Linux can't make them as good a deal as Microsoft? Microsoft is more efficient and does its job well? Well, then what are they bitching about? An efficient company doing what customers want is hardly a bad thing to have.
^--- Just for the irony value
I don't know about MS here, but some commenters should be tagged potkettleblack. Should murderers be fair game too be murdered themselves? Should we point and laugh when rapists get raped themselves? Slightly extreme examples, but there you go.
Just because MS is a convicted monopolist, doesn't mean that they don't have a valid complaint.
Take a look at the apple discussion board for bootcamp; there are stories of about 1% of iMacs being unable to run bootcamp at all, the British keyboard layout has no double quote key, resizing paritions in several cases has hosed systems, just to choose a few.