I use S3 for personal backup. Simply get JetS3t, and setup a cron job using their synchronize.sh script. Easy peasy.
I backup our growing collection (~7GB at this point) of photos/movies/music/personal docs nightly, costs about $1.20/month.
For now, I'm just backing up everything, brute force, once a week, and doing synchronize nightly (gets the additions/deletions). When I get around to it, I'll actually setup an rsync to a separate LVM volume, and backup just the diffs, or something fancier.
Dang, took too long to type. Oh well, have to revert back to other less trustworthy and stable things than the./ karma system as the foundation for my self-esteem.
Have you read the rest of the license? No MS fanboy here, but it is not exactly a draconian piece of legalese.
There are much better ways to attack MS. Try citing the company's track record of failing to observe laws, failing to deliver promised functionality, and failing to promote innovation in their dedicated developer base through patent threats, aggressive devaluation->buy-out tactics, questionable attempts at political influence (open standards in California anyone?)...
In case you're wondering, by including your 2nd paragraph, you have passed the official./ test for not being an MS fanboy (which you appeared to be worried about in your 1st paragraph). Well done!
Caveat - I have many copies of SuSE running on my blade farm -- all bought before the MS-Novell deal, with no concerns about patent infringement. So I'm not concerned about this -- my comment goes more toward understanding the basic logic of the deals being struck.
I've never understood the reasoning that a business is protected from patent suits. Isn't it true that after any of these deals expire, the company is subject to suit? What good is that?... it's akin to Microsoft herding users into lawsuit-holding-pens. You can see the scenario playing out -- "You will now be sued... unless of course you migrate to our Windows OS, employing the compatibility and migration tools that have been refined during our 5-year trojan horse relationship w/ LInux."
Even if you're covered from suit in perpetuity for licenses bought during the period the deal was active (and I don't know if that's the case or not), eventually you have to upgrade, and they can get you at that point, no?
I vote that no one who doesn't contribute in some significant way (time - money - resources) to the causes they claim are being hurt by the OLPC effort not be allowed to comment about those causes being hurt. Sheesh.
Just some info I didn't see reflected in the various posts:
Many U.S. gov't agencies are now requiring that key security-related products participate in the CC eval process; it's definitely a trend
When a product is evaluated, the submitter can choose to NOT have it listed on the Common Criteria site; you have to work directly with a vendor to know the status for sure
The process isn't cheap -- requires a significant effort to make your way through to the end; that has an impact on what products get evaluated, you need to find a sponsor willing to foot the bill (labor wise, no $$ cost to get evaluated iirc)
One of the complaints is that you have to re-eval all subsequent releases, even minor dot releases; becomes labor intensive
Though it's not listed (don't know why), XP64 is also certified
IA(also)NAL, but certainly some of the code they provide would compile cross platform. Probably more importantly, wouldn't this also defuse any questions about legality of Wine-based execution of code provided under this license?
Probably revolves around the interpretation of "software" -- if it means the end-state binaries, then that would indeed rule out the cross-platform considerations (but still be implicitly providing a license to use it with Wine/etc.). Moot until we know what software they're going to release under this license anyway.
And as NetCow rightly notes, it's the MS-LPL, my bad.
MS-PL says:
"(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product."
It doesn't say that only run on Windows. Can the code therefore be included in cross-platform solutions?
You're building a life, not (just) a career. What do you want to study?
From a "getting a job" perspective, it's not an either/or, it's an and/also. Frankly, in my experience as an interviewer, you won't have any more difficulty getting a job with a strong theoretical basis in computer science than you would if you focused on vocationally intensive courses, nor vice versa. When we hire, we know that any vocational experience a student gained is only going to shorten a brief learning curve anyways. Instead, what we look for are fundamental reasoning skills, organizational ability, work ethic, ability to communicate -- and those can shine through either course history.
Assuming you don't press on for a Ph.D. and build a teaching career, then your career will likely eventually tend to track toward implementation (e.g. software engineer) or abstract design (e.g. software architect), and that, frankly, will be determined more in the field than by what courses you've taken.
So... do you enjoy thinking through the "big issues", and understanding the underlying structure of the computer science universe? Take theory. Do you enjoy making something and seeing it work? Focus vocationally. Enjoy both? Find a program with a mix.
Then, once you're in your career, you can build in either direction anyways. And you can build a career you enjoy, and therefore one that fits cleanly into your overall life, out of either.
Slashdot Mirror
I backup our growing collection (~7GB at this point) of photos/movies/music/personal docs nightly, costs about $1.20/month.
For now, I'm just backing up everything, brute force, once a week, and doing synchronize nightly (gets the additions/deletions). When I get around to it, I'll actually setup an rsync to a separate LVM volume, and backup just the diffs, or something fancier.
Dang, took too long to type. Oh well, have to revert back to other less trustworthy and stable things than the ./ karma system as the foundation for my self-esteem.
Hmm, did I forget any ...
I've never understood the reasoning that a business is protected from patent suits. Isn't it true that after any of these deals expire, the company is subject to suit? What good is that? ... it's akin to Microsoft herding users into lawsuit-holding-pens. You can see the scenario playing out -- "You will now be sued ... unless of course you migrate to our Windows OS, employing the compatibility and migration tools that have been refined during our 5-year trojan horse relationship w/ LInux."
Even if you're covered from suit in perpetuity for licenses bought during the period the deal was active (and I don't know if that's the case or not), eventually you have to upgrade, and they can get you at that point, no?
I vote that no one who doesn't contribute in some significant way (time - money - resources) to the causes they claim are being hurt by the OLPC effort not be allowed to comment about those causes being hurt. Sheesh.
Uhh ... can you say "Postscript"? They didn't invent the idea of embedding code as part of graphic/print rendering.
Unless you're willing to say that everyone involved in engineering Postscript should be equally ashamed (and maybe you are).
IA(also)NAL, but certainly some of the code they provide would compile cross platform. Probably more importantly, wouldn't this also defuse any questions about legality of Wine-based execution of code provided under this license? Probably revolves around the interpretation of "software" -- if it means the end-state binaries, then that would indeed rule out the cross-platform considerations (but still be implicitly providing a license to use it with Wine/etc.). Moot until we know what software they're going to release under this license anyway. And as NetCow rightly notes, it's the MS-LPL, my bad.
MS-PL says: "(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product." It doesn't say that only run on Windows. Can the code therefore be included in cross-platform solutions?
From a "getting a job" perspective, it's not an either/or, it's an and/also. Frankly, in my experience as an interviewer, you won't have any more difficulty getting a job with a strong theoretical basis in computer science than you would if you focused on vocationally intensive courses, nor vice versa. When we hire, we know that any vocational experience a student gained is only going to shorten a brief learning curve anyways. Instead, what we look for are fundamental reasoning skills, organizational ability, work ethic, ability to communicate -- and those can shine through either course history.
Assuming you don't press on for a Ph.D. and build a teaching career, then your career will likely eventually tend to track toward implementation (e.g. software engineer) or abstract design (e.g. software architect), and that, frankly, will be determined more in the field than by what courses you've taken.
So ... do you enjoy thinking through the "big issues", and understanding the underlying structure of the computer science universe? Take theory. Do you enjoy making something and seeing it work? Focus vocationally. Enjoy both? Find a program with a mix.
Then, once you're in your career, you can build in either direction anyways. And you can build a career you enjoy, and therefore one that fits cleanly into your overall life, out of either.