I know this problem exists, but through my browsing habits, I've found a work-around. What I do is open up three or four sites in tabs, and then open more in the background while I'm reading those. Because I spend upwards of a minute reading the first site, the others have loaded in the background before I finish reading the second or third page. So even if one or two pages have a long-load time, I barely notice.
Javascript is usually involved. Because Javascript is single-threaded and does in-order execution, if an ad uses Javascript, then waiting on that javascript to finish will hold up the rest of the page.
AOL owned the copyrights to the songs supposedly downloaded. AOL/TimeWarner owns both AOL and the record label involved. The claim is that AOL was a party to the download and owns the copyright. I don't think this is going to worry Verizon or Comcast or whoever, since they don't own copyrights.
Redundancy only helps when you have a system that stops working, not one that malfunctions:
For instance, imagine a RAID 1 in which the data is becoming corrupted. Having redundancy doesn't help: you just have two copies of a corrupted file.
In this instance, a network card started spewing out crap. Because it could fill it's pipe, and most of the packets were rebroadcast down most of the other cables, they also filled those cables.
I don't know why you aren't modded +5 (at the moment anyway), but you're precisely correct.
The number one requirement for a new instruction set is that it runs Windows and most Win32 programs at speeds comparable to existing processors. Given the size and scope of Windows, Microsoft probably can't easily port Windows and Win32 and Visual Studio's compiler over to another instruction set easily.
This means that we either need hardware or software emulation of x86 (and possibly x86-64) on whatever new instruction set comes along. So it either has to support x86 and most x86 extension (SSE, etc), in which case it's an oversized x86 extension, or it has to be so much better than x86 that a processor can run x86 programs at about 80% speed. In either case, you'll still have a heck of a time getting non-OSS software ported to the new instruction set (as x86 will be "fast enough")
I'm not making excuses. This is a rationale, not a rationalization. I think of all security the same way. An occasional slip-up happens. In this case, it was a non-trivial one. If the organization (Ubuntu and its community) goes forth from here and fixes these problems and prevents them from happening again, then they'll be quickly forgiven. If they keep the same staff and the same set-up and don't change much, they'll be scorned.
Novell had an option: They could have done nothing. SCO sued them because they stood up to SCO's claim that they owned UNIX. The SCO vs. IBM case would have fallen apart for SCO anyway (as most of the "infringing" stuff is POSIX and/or header files). And it may have even come out that SCO didn't own UNIX (and Novell could have simply filed an amicus curie brief or something).
The straight-up fact is that they set themselves up to get sued by SCO for the purpose of defending their copyright and defending the community. They could have wussed out without any major consequences, but they didn't.
Oh, from the sounds of it, all that you say is well-warranted. They were running a version of Ubuntu from October of 2005, which was obsoleted in April of this year, and they weren't using encryption. This is security 101, and they didn't do it. This does sound a lot more like an administration problem than a software problem.
Ultimately, I'd say that if this does wind up being an admin problem, then Ubuntu Server will not suffer. The bottom line is that a poorly administered server is a hacker target regardless of the OS.
The real test is how they react to this, and how they clean up their mess. Everyone screws up, but what separates good people from bad is how they react to problems and screw-ups.
It sounds like that part at least is still underway, with a meeting (FTA) in "#ubuntu-locoteams on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 2:00PM UTC". Seeing as that's yesterday, we should probably reserve judgement a day or two to see how they respond.
What she did is encouraging others, she insisted and won! Getting attorney fees back. It should scare whatever out of the RIAA if that kind of reaction takes hold
The goal is to get people to settle quickly. This is possible because the only possibility of breaking even (winning and getting your attorney's fees paid for) is very hard to accomplish. Most people can not afford to be out $70,000 for a 2 year stretch, even if they would ultimately get it back, that would still cripple their finances.
You think one with a spirit and persistance of Debbie Forster to take on the RIAA is discouraged by them not paying? Think again!
There will inevitably be brave and persistent (or simply rich) people who will fight these sorts of battles. But Capitol is doing this so that average Joes who are less brave than this defendant won't fight back. They seek to make her example less powerful.
they are the most poorly managed businesses I have ever seen
Personally, I think this is the nightmare scenario for everyone. If any of them actually goes out of business (or even files for bankruptcy and recovers), there will suddenly be a firestorm of backlash legislation to protect the other Big Labels.
The largest problem with piracy is that the labels are using it to cover their mismanagement and complete inability to adapt to the changing climate. If one of the labels goes out of business, regardless of the reason, it will be blamed on piracy.
Immaturity is not the reason. The reason is that companies know that making the process as hard as possible discourages others from undertaking that process. They want you to simply eat the loss, and if they make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back, then you wouldn't try again next time.
Ultimately, the big fear is that if you are publically successful in such a suit, then it will inspire others to sue or fight back instead of bowing down. It's the "Millions for Defense, Not a Penny for Tribute" strategy. Same reason we "don't negotiate" with terrorists (not that I'm calling you or Ms. Foster a terrorist).
I don't think that that follows. They've made a few mistakes, and this was one of them. They shouldn't make ultimatums like that. That said, I have a feeling that they'll continue to be a lot more responsive on the patching front than Microsoft, and I think that the point has been made, even if they won't stick to a set time-line.
The Debian thing is not a strike against Mozilla. Their stance is correct and clear. You can't have someone else using your trademark to cover something that they are supporting. If the Debian team introduces a bug or something into their build of Firefox, Mozilla's brand will suffer. That's why Mozilla wanted Debian to rebrand it.
At the same time though, Microsoft has Halo 3 coming out this fall, and they may not want that competing with GTA4. I am in the market for a 360 (waiting for the price cut later this month on the Premium), and I know that I wasn't going to buy Halo 3 at launch because I'd spend my money on GTA4. Now I may buy Halo 3 at launch when it's $50 instead of waiting until it drops in price in the Spring.
A public facing web server is one that has a non-private IP address. Most computers on home networks or corporate intranets have IP addresses that are in the private ranges (for instance, 192.168.1.101 is my desktop when plugged into my apartment's router) and use Network Address Translation through their routers such that all the computers in my apartment share an external IP address. Our router is public-facing, but my desktop isn't.
Wikia is the for-profit arm of Wikimedia. A large amount of Wikia profits help cover Wikimedia costs, and I'm pretty sure Wikia pays a Mediawiki developer. It also pays the salaries of some people who spend a lot of time administering Wikimedia, including Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley.
There are way too many uses of "wiki" in that paragraph...
Anyhow, my point is that while it's a for-profit, it's still "for the public good" in a sense, since it exists to support non-profits, and thus it's not crazy to donate them CPU cycles.
Going from Linux to Mac is pretty straightforward. OS X has an X11 install (it's available on the install disk, but not installed by default), glibc, python, php, and stuff. You can install the KDE libraries from source, and I think KDE 4 will have a Mac binary.
However, the question is asking about going from Mac to Linux, which is more difficult.
Windows Experience Index rankings for HDDs appear to only cover size. Yeah, that's dumb, but it's only to make sure you have enough room for Vista, swap, pagefile, and some extra storage. You're right that anything over 120 or 160 GB should get top score.
Well, it's a famous forking/unforking story regarding GCC, and today we've had a GCC forking story, and a forking->unforking story. Since stories about successful unforks and stories about GCC aren't all that common on Slashdot, it makes sense you haven't seen it here before.
Fortunately, in this case the reference is actually relevant to the process and the discussion. In the GCC story, it was completely unrelated to a license-based fork of GCC.
Expecting OS X web use to stay above Vista web use is pretty darn silly. Anyone who wasn't expecting Vista to reach 30-50 percent adoption rates (at the minimum) within 4 years is nuts. So "Vista passing OS X" is not unexpected. Only in the ultimate Mac Fanboys' wet dream would OS X marketshare permenantly exceed Vista marketshare.
Also, "percent of web pages browsed" sucks balls as a statistic, since it only covers select websites, doesn't take into account some blocking and privacy techniques, ignores user-agent spoofing, and assumes everyone browses the web at the same rate of pages/machine/day. Now some of that (not a lot of UA spoofing really, and web-browsing rates are probably similar) is not a huge deal, but some of it (which web pages are covered) really is.
I think the million-dollar issue with the included media codecs is legality. When you pick up Linspire, you have the benefit of knowing it'll work and that it's legit. On Ubuntu, in the US, most of the solutions violate patents (which may or may not be valid). Personally, I think patents on things like VC-1 or MPEG standards are stupid, but they're there.
Then there's the DRM. Currently, WMP DRM only works on Windows. If MS releases something for Linspire/Novell that allows DRM'd content playback, those distros have a leg up in accessing things that are protected by that DRM. However, this would be obviated if MS does as promised and creates a Silverlight-based DRM-supporting player for WMA/WMV.
It doesn't affect Apple much at all, as Apple has no patents on Objective-C itself, and GCC is already replaceable on everything it's included on (it's probably not included on the AppleTV or iPhone). Obviously, replacing GCC is risky on a Mac (could break Xcode), but someone could do it. Apple's only patents would be on the Cocoa/Carbon/CoreEverything frameworks (which aren't under GPL or LGPL), and so would be unaffected.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this problem exists, but through my browsing habits, I've found a work-around. What I do is open up three or four sites in tabs, and then open more in the background while I'm reading those. Because I spend upwards of a minute reading the first site, the others have loaded in the background before I finish reading the second or third page. So even if one or two pages have a long-load time, I barely notice.
Alternatively, use AdBlock.
Javascript is usually involved. Because Javascript is single-threaded and does in-order execution, if an ad uses Javascript, then waiting on that javascript to finish will hold up the rest of the page.
AOL owned the copyrights to the songs supposedly downloaded. AOL/TimeWarner owns both AOL and the record label involved. The claim is that AOL was a party to the download and owns the copyright. I don't think this is going to worry Verizon or Comcast or whoever, since they don't own copyrights.
Redundancy only helps when you have a system that stops working, not one that malfunctions:
For instance, imagine a RAID 1 in which the data is becoming corrupted. Having redundancy doesn't help: you just have two copies of a corrupted file.
In this instance, a network card started spewing out crap. Because it could fill it's pipe, and most of the packets were rebroadcast down most of the other cables, they also filled those cables.
I don't know why you aren't modded +5 (at the moment anyway), but you're precisely correct.
The number one requirement for a new instruction set is that it runs Windows and most Win32 programs at speeds comparable to existing processors. Given the size and scope of Windows, Microsoft probably can't easily port Windows and Win32 and Visual Studio's compiler over to another instruction set easily.
This means that we either need hardware or software emulation of x86 (and possibly x86-64) on whatever new instruction set comes along. So it either has to support x86 and most x86 extension (SSE, etc), in which case it's an oversized x86 extension, or it has to be so much better than x86 that a processor can run x86 programs at about 80% speed. In either case, you'll still have a heck of a time getting non-OSS software ported to the new instruction set (as x86 will be "fast enough")
I'm not making excuses. This is a rationale, not a rationalization. I think of all security the same way. An occasional slip-up happens. In this case, it was a non-trivial one. If the organization (Ubuntu and its community) goes forth from here and fixes these problems and prevents them from happening again, then they'll be quickly forgiven. If they keep the same staff and the same set-up and don't change much, they'll be scorned.
Novell had an option: They could have done nothing. SCO sued them because they stood up to SCO's claim that they owned UNIX. The SCO vs. IBM case would have fallen apart for SCO anyway (as most of the "infringing" stuff is POSIX and/or header files). And it may have even come out that SCO didn't own UNIX (and Novell could have simply filed an amicus curie brief or something).
The straight-up fact is that they set themselves up to get sued by SCO for the purpose of defending their copyright and defending the community. They could have wussed out without any major consequences, but they didn't.
Oh, from the sounds of it, all that you say is well-warranted. They were running a version of Ubuntu from October of 2005, which was obsoleted in April of this year, and they weren't using encryption. This is security 101, and they didn't do it. This does sound a lot more like an administration problem than a software problem.
Ultimately, I'd say that if this does wind up being an admin problem, then Ubuntu Server will not suffer. The bottom line is that a poorly administered server is a hacker target regardless of the OS.
The real test is how they react to this, and how they clean up their mess. Everyone screws up, but what separates good people from bad is how they react to problems and screw-ups.
It sounds like that part at least is still underway, with a meeting (FTA) in "#ubuntu-locoteams on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 2:00PM UTC". Seeing as that's yesterday, we should probably reserve judgement a day or two to see how they respond.
Zach is a man's name
The goal is to get people to settle quickly. This is possible because the only possibility of breaking even (winning and getting your attorney's fees paid for) is very hard to accomplish. Most people can not afford to be out $70,000 for a 2 year stretch, even if they would ultimately get it back, that would still cripple their finances.
There will inevitably be brave and persistent (or simply rich) people who will fight these sorts of battles. But Capitol is doing this so that average Joes who are less brave than this defendant won't fight back. They seek to make her example less powerful.
they are the most poorly managed businesses I have ever seen
Personally, I think this is the nightmare scenario for everyone. If any of them actually goes out of business (or even files for bankruptcy and recovers), there will suddenly be a firestorm of backlash legislation to protect the other Big Labels.
The largest problem with piracy is that the labels are using it to cover their mismanagement and complete inability to adapt to the changing climate. If one of the labels goes out of business, regardless of the reason, it will be blamed on piracy.
Immaturity is not the reason. The reason is that companies know that making the process as hard as possible discourages others from undertaking that process. They want you to simply eat the loss, and if they make it as hard as possible for you to get your money back, then you wouldn't try again next time.
Ultimately, the big fear is that if you are publically successful in such a suit, then it will inspire others to sue or fight back instead of bowing down. It's the "Millions for Defense, Not a Penny for Tribute" strategy. Same reason we "don't negotiate" with terrorists (not that I'm calling you or Ms. Foster a terrorist).
I do use Session Manager (or the Safari equivalent). But then the page that loaded the ad comes back, and the cycle repeats...
So I have to close the whole freaking app? That's a pretty big hit if I have more than a few tabs open.
I don't think that that follows. They've made a few mistakes, and this was one of them. They shouldn't make ultimatums like that. That said, I have a feeling that they'll continue to be a lot more responsive on the patching front than Microsoft, and I think that the point has been made, even if they won't stick to a set time-line.
The Debian thing is not a strike against Mozilla. Their stance is correct and clear. You can't have someone else using your trademark to cover something that they are supporting. If the Debian team introduces a bug or something into their build of Firefox, Mozilla's brand will suffer. That's why Mozilla wanted Debian to rebrand it.
At the same time though, Microsoft has Halo 3 coming out this fall, and they may not want that competing with GTA4. I am in the market for a 360 (waiting for the price cut later this month on the Premium), and I know that I wasn't going to buy Halo 3 at launch because I'd spend my money on GTA4. Now I may buy Halo 3 at launch when it's $50 instead of waiting until it drops in price in the Spring.
A public facing web server is one that has a non-private IP address. Most computers on home networks or corporate intranets have IP addresses that are in the private ranges (for instance, 192.168.1.101 is my desktop when plugged into my apartment's router) and use Network Address Translation through their routers such that all the computers in my apartment share an external IP address. Our router is public-facing, but my desktop isn't.
Wikia is the for-profit arm of Wikimedia. A large amount of Wikia profits help cover Wikimedia costs, and I'm pretty sure Wikia pays a Mediawiki developer. It also pays the salaries of some people who spend a lot of time administering Wikimedia, including Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley.
There are way too many uses of "wiki" in that paragraph...
Anyhow, my point is that while it's a for-profit, it's still "for the public good" in a sense, since it exists to support non-profits, and thus it's not crazy to donate them CPU cycles.
It doesn't, but I'm pretty sure xCode installs it for some reason.
Going from Linux to Mac is pretty straightforward. OS X has an X11 install (it's available on the install disk, but not installed by default), glibc, python, php, and stuff. You can install the KDE libraries from source, and I think KDE 4 will have a Mac binary.
However, the question is asking about going from Mac to Linux, which is more difficult.
Windows Experience Index rankings for HDDs appear to only cover size. Yeah, that's dumb, but it's only to make sure you have enough room for Vista, swap, pagefile, and some extra storage. You're right that anything over 120 or 160 GB should get top score.
Well, it's a famous forking/unforking story regarding GCC, and today we've had a GCC forking story, and a forking->unforking story. Since stories about successful unforks and stories about GCC aren't all that common on Slashdot, it makes sense you haven't seen it here before.
Fortunately, in this case the reference is actually relevant to the process and the discussion. In the GCC story, it was completely unrelated to a license-based fork of GCC.
Expecting OS X web use to stay above Vista web use is pretty darn silly. Anyone who wasn't expecting Vista to reach 30-50 percent adoption rates (at the minimum) within 4 years is nuts. So "Vista passing OS X" is not unexpected. Only in the ultimate Mac Fanboys' wet dream would OS X marketshare permenantly exceed Vista marketshare.
Also, "percent of web pages browsed" sucks balls as a statistic, since it only covers select websites, doesn't take into account some blocking and privacy techniques, ignores user-agent spoofing, and assumes everyone browses the web at the same rate of pages/machine/day. Now some of that (not a lot of UA spoofing really, and web-browsing rates are probably similar) is not a huge deal, but some of it (which web pages are covered) really is.
I think the million-dollar issue with the included media codecs is legality. When you pick up Linspire, you have the benefit of knowing it'll work and that it's legit. On Ubuntu, in the US, most of the solutions violate patents (which may or may not be valid). Personally, I think patents on things like VC-1 or MPEG standards are stupid, but they're there.
Then there's the DRM. Currently, WMP DRM only works on Windows. If MS releases something for Linspire/Novell that allows DRM'd content playback, those distros have a leg up in accessing things that are protected by that DRM. However, this would be obviated if MS does as promised and creates a Silverlight-based DRM-supporting player for WMA/WMV.
It doesn't affect Apple much at all, as Apple has no patents on Objective-C itself, and GCC is already replaceable on everything it's included on (it's probably not included on the AppleTV or iPhone). Obviously, replacing GCC is risky on a Mac (could break Xcode), but someone could do it. Apple's only patents would be on the Cocoa/Carbon/CoreEverything frameworks (which aren't under GPL or LGPL), and so would be unaffected.