Re:Why i'm still not switching...
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
License smicense. Bernstein is quite a good programmer. His license basically says you can use it, but you cannot distribute changes to it. You can freely distribute binaries AS LONG AS the binary dist make the installation EXACTLY the way the tarball build would do it. It is definitely free as in free beer.
If you use BIND, every few months you need to upgrade to avoid an exploit. BIND is responsible for more remote root exploits over the last 10 years than almost any other piece of software. The configuration is a total mess. If you use sendmail, the configuration is a mess, and it used to be the case that there was a remote root exploit of the month.
Now, if you use djbdns, it builds trivially. It is easy to set up. It is 100% secure. You have the source, and you can freely modify it FOR YOUR OWN NEEDS. The same is true of qmail. You can even send your changes back to Bernstein - he may incorporate them. He is NOT making $$ off the programs. His rationale for not allowing distributions of modification (I think) is that he is totally anal about details for security, and wants to oversee ANY distribution of his source.
So don't start barking about licensing issues unless you were one of the people browsing the web with lynx instead of netscape when lynx was the only opeen source option. Bernstein's code is very good software. And secure. And fast.
Re:Half the ram and twice as fast?
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
Hmm. Unlikely at best. But the fact is that this browser is very stable (java has not crashed my browser since a nightly DL'd a week ago) It's quite fast on a 450 PII with 128MB of ram, and the rendering engine rocks my world. Finally, there's no reason to keep using Netscape 4.7x
Konq under linux has mozilla beat no question for speed and font handling.
I am seeing about a 10 MByte difference in RAM for the process (explaining the loading time difference).
Konq is a GREAT example of the power of open source. Mozilla is a GREAT example how maintaining a cross-platform application can slow development to a crawl. Konq seems to have been written in half the time, and yet people who have honestly given both a try recently are quite fond of konq. (Abiword is another example of how cross-platform development can make open source move as fast as Microsoft). To add to that, my perception is that about 1/10th the programming time was placed into konqueror (of course, konqueror doesn't come with a free xmlterm...)
Re:Why i'm still not switching...
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
What are you using, a 286? Jeez, my dns servers don't even resolve "slashdot.org" that quickly.
Try djbdns on your local box. The answer to the broken bloated security risk that is BIND. Install it and never think about your DNS again. If you are not a DNS box, install it anyway to resolve local queries only.
These proposed strategies take advantage of known user habits (and although the memo is likely a fraud, I bet most of the items have some basis in truth).
Most computer users use EXACTLY what the computer installation places in front of them. Most users NEVER remove items from the default desktop, generally thinking that they may be useful someday and they will not be able to find them. So, if you own the default desktop and the default app settings, you own the computer business of the user.
Microsoft's.NET strategy is set to take advantage of this as well. Each six months or year you will need to update your.NET subscription for Microsoft's.NET services, like Microsoft Word and the operating system itself. They will take advantage of this at every step to push Microsoft and Microsoft only items, like MSN, like Microsoft Media player, etc...
The sad thing is, as the computer age matures, AOL's business model only looks stronger. Everyone believes that they will always be paying for ISP service, the same way they pay for phone service, electrical service... This revenue model stands in contrast to Microsoft, most of whose software could be replaced out of the box with Free Software without loss in functionality (excepting compatibility). Microsoft is trying to save their future, and AOL will own the world. As if they didn't already.
Unless Microsoft can break into the ISP market with substantial share, they will be reduced to a second tier player over the next decade.
They similarly hold patents on TrueType fonts, which are a blatant obvious extension of SOME aspects of TeX's Metafont.
Yes: they both describe fonts, they both have rasterizing hints... so what? Is Airbus blatantly obviously extending on Boeing's work by designing planes that happen to fly and use the same number of wings?
First of all Metafont existed at least 10 years before TrueType fonts existed.
Second, TrueType uses quadratic splines, compared to Metafont's cubic splines.
That about sums up the improvements. Metafont was never patented. Knuth has talked a little bit about technical comparisons of the two. Apple took something made freely available to all, made a trivial improvement, and locked away the intellectual property for 17 years. Now, if Knuth had done the same with Metafont, there is little doubt that TrueType NEVER WOULD HAVE EXISTED.
As many people have pointed out, anyone reasonably experienced, and any "real" website, isn't vulnerable to this if they followed the best practice of deleting all app mappings that aren't in use. It's like the blank SQL sa password all over again. Easy to get worked up about, pretty much a nonissue for anyone who even halfway knows what they're doing.
Right. And millions of stolen credit card numbers as a result is only proof of stupid admins, not stupid software.
Software has an obligation to setup secure by default, and insecure by the expressed will of the admin. Apparently with IIS and/or MSSQL this little bit of advice is forgotten.
You can go on and on about how anyone who bothered to read the docs would not setup the server in a vulnerable way, but this ignores an INCREDIBLY important aspect of human nature. That default computer usage should be reasonable is assumed by default. 80+% of all web users NEVER change their home page. In a simliar vein, most web admins simply use the default install, irrespective of the potential holes pr default passwords.
The default install has to work securely, plain and simple. For IIS or MSSQL, there are obvious reasons that your customers' business is not safe if you used the default install.
This story is such flamebait, it's unbelievable. Here we have the editors of Slashdot, who advocate Open Source everything, flaming an Open Source vendor (which is what Apple is with respect to Darwin) for using an Open Source license for its intended purposes.
Actually, the story took Apple to task for failing to allow anyone to even code workalike versions of Quicktime Viewers and TrueType fonts, 2 of the feathers in Apple's patent portfolio. If you use linux you cannot view a Quicktime movie made with the Sorensen codec. Forget about it. Sorensen has exclusive licensing with Apple, and so Sorensen cannot do anything about it. Apple will NOT allow anyone to code a workalike for the Sorensen codec Quicktime movies.
They similarly hold patents on TrueType fonts, which are a blatant obvious extension of SOME aspects of TeX's Metafont. For this reason it will be some years before you will see any vendor claim to use TrueType fonts under linux. The Freetype project is in blatant violation of these patents anyway, so apparently Apple doesn't want to raise a fuss (and, Microsoft pays a hefty fee each year to use TrueType font technology).
Now, Apple releases OS X, based on an open source kernel. They trumpet the fact that they use an open source kernel, yet they disrespect the open source community. WRT Quicktime, they could at least release a binary viewer for linux...
Look, the point of the article is pretty simple. Only install binaries from trusted sources. Otherwise, get the source from a trusted source, compile and install it.
And if you can't get the source from a trusted source, DON"T INSTALL IT.
I would take this a step further, as a measure for improving the solidity of an installation. Only get binary RPMs from your distribution. NEVER get them from anyplace else. Your distribution is the best place to insure that everything is solid and working together well (especially if you run Debian:stable). Anything else, let the configure script figure out the details during a compile.
And if you hose your system by using third party binary packages or untrusted binaries, you will need to re-install. And in that time, you can think about what steps you can take to avoid re-installing again in the future.
If you ran crack on a system at your company (without written permission) where you do systems for the Govt, don't whine when they prosecute you...
You are right - it is kinda dumb. However, hashed passwords are world readable on a system, and good passwords cannot be reasonably broken with crack. Security affects ALL users, and crack is a reasonable security tool. There is no evidence it was used to break into accounts.
As a different example, I sometimes portscan machines on which I have accounts. If there are gaping holes, I tell the administrator. Am I a criminal for portscanning machines because I am legitimately concerned for their security ? Is it less of a problem if I simply run `netstat -al` instead of `nmap -sT` ? My real concern is that my work is not interrupted because some admin set up a machine running an old version of BIND. Because then a re-install is required, and sometimes worse.
Copying password hashes that are world readable is not a crime. Forwarding email could be illegal at anal enough companies though... His other crimes (running crack, copying password hashes) are things any user with reasonable concerns could do, and require NO special access to machines ie: he uncovered no information that anyone with an account could not easily uncover.
Can someone, who has spent more time on this, please explain to me how this could happen? I have been trying to understand this and I still can't...:(
Basically, Schwartz did one thing really wrong - he ran crack on the password file to check for bad passwords, and he didn't immediately report his results (or his intent to run crack in the first place).
As for copying files against instructions and stealing files, he basically had a.forward in his home directory re-directing his email off-site. And yes, Intel owns his email on his Intel account.
Really though - any decent sys admin worrying about security today gets clearance and runs crack, and forwarding email doesn't really seem like a crime - unless you are an over-ambitious security person at Intel.
Although, that being said, they are planning a release of a linux based AOL appliance. Which presumably will have an AIM clone running on linux.
Really, AIM is the protocol of AOL, it requires AOL servers to run, and their is no implicit permission to use their protocol on their servers if they are not your ISP. People might instead rally around an open messenging service like those offered by Yahoo!.
Remember the last court order Napster was ordered to take their service down completely. It was then that napster said oh wait we'll put up filters if we can stay open. The courts have already decided that the non-infinging uses of Napster are expendable.
The injunction against the last court order basically said that the court order had to allow for non-infringing uses of Napster - hence the revised court order which said Napster had to block identified copyrighted material from the plaintiffs. Any decision by this court will be reasonably bound by the appeals court to allow for non-infringing uses. To allow blocking of non-infringing uses is akin to saying you cannot host a web site in which people freely exchange free information.
It is a great scam too. The best form of advertising possible is air play, and the recording companies get paid on a per play basis for this advertising.
Radio broadcasters PAY copyright holders royalties in order to play their music.
Since virtually all artists sign over their copyrights to the recording companies, radio broadcasters are paying the companies that make up the RIAA.
I would not dispute that radio is not free. However, it seems rather trivial that I may listen to, and record, any song played on the airways, and play it back at my leisure (protected by the fourth amendment).
The court has an obligation to ALLOW non-infringing uses of Napster that will prevent this from happening. You have to identify infringing uses, and block them. Not block everything, and then decide what is non-infringing and allow it.
Basically, a long long time ago, the RIAA opened a really bad Pandora's box called radio. In this scheme, the radio stations pay the RIAA to play music, and the consumer gets music for free. Well, it is only a small leap in the consumer's mind from free music over the radio to free music on demand via Napster.
If it were not for free music to the consumer, the RIAA would be nearly worthless. That is their dominant form of advertising - radio, MTV, et al. Now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
Most people find themselves most comfortable on a mechanical keyswitch. The most common technologies are the ALPS mechanical keyswitches (found on SOME NMB keyboards) or the IBM mechanical keyswitches (OMNIKEY keyboards $$$).
Per element, mechanical keyswitches cost a lot. Capacitive membranes are the cheapest, and the worst.
I think the NMB mechanical keyboards are around $50 US - probably the least expensive ALPS keyswitch keyboard out there.
Darwin Keyboards used to make a split keyboard with ALPS keyswitches that use 75% of the force of the NMB keyboards. Now datadesk carries them.
Subscription based service in which the server does most of the processing, and a client interface makes the user feel just like they are using Word on their own machine.
This is largely created because new computer sales are slowing down and M$'s revenue stream is slowing proportionally. Also, M$ is totally pissed off about copies of their software, particularly in Asia. If people want to use M$'s software, they will pay a subscription fee and use.NET.
And, according to M$, the.NET servers can be running linux.
They want linux support on the servers. They are not going to support.NET on linux clients.
This is the standard M$ move. They will allow anyone to be a.NET server, but only Windows can be clients. Then, slowly, they will leverage the desktop to work into the server market.
You can note the recent incompatibility with name service in Windows2000 to try to leverage Windows into the DNS server market.
In this case, it turned out that the graduate student had faked his data to fit with his theory. The professor -- who had been the first name on the paper -- excused himself by saying that he had not even read the paper in question.
All authors share responsibility and copyright for published works - the first author more so than the others, in general. If someone had incurred enormous fiscal loss that was critically dependent on your copyrighted (but false) work, you and the other authors would bear some liability.
Besides that, in general, you ought to be able to competently discuss papers on which you are an author. When I ask someone about a paper on which they are an author and they cannot answer even a simple question, it is really quite bad. For them.
In science, your reputation among your peers is one critical aspect of your career. People still cheat in various ways, but their reputation suffers.
In any case, cheating is generally a personal choice. I can tell you from teaching college courses that people cheat. We would sometimes release test and homework solution sets with arbitrary and funny silly errors such as "2 + 2 = -4" - these errors were not on the conceptual sort we were testing, merely really stupid errors we inserted to test people.
It was surprising how often these showed up in subsequent years on tests and homeworks. People REALLY do not care, and cheating is generally not treated NEARLY seriously enough. And as a result, LOTS of people cheat.
With respect to the ask/. question, acknowledge your sources, always. You will NEVER get in academic difficulty if all sources are respectfully cited. The worst form of offense is passing off someone else's work as your own - a copyright violation.
And wrt cheating, some people do it and benefit. It is a personal choice as to the potential costs and risks. I like being able to look my self in the mirror and say with confidence that anyone with reasonable skills that tries to replicate my work will find the same answers I gave. If that is not the case you are blocking science, instead of advancing it. But I guess there is the question of whether you are advancing science or your career...
If Linux wants to succeed, it should appear simple at all layers -- the code itself, the documentation, and the logistical distribution (from manufacturer to reseller to retailer to customer).
This is a fundamental shift in thinking from commercial software. Linux does not exist to take over the world, it does not exist to please grandma, and it does not exist to sell machines.
It exists because the people who work on it enjoy it, use it, and make it better. That being said, it will never be the case that linux developers from top to bottom will roll over and make their software ready for grandma. However, with the entry of corporate sponsorship of software, you can expect that things like desktop projects (GNOME, KDE), office projects (KDEOffice, OpenOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric, StarOffice) will begin to be able to cater very directly to being easy to use for someone with few computer skills.
Also remember that the OEM reseller has a tremendous advantage in making the OS easy to use. The end user doesn't have to install it.
Really, I think the reason linux has not been configured for newbies is that the free developers are utterly unresponsive to market demand and could care less what articles are written about it. The corporate sponsorship cares, and they will make it happen. But now the demand is just starting to exist, so it will take a little time. Linux can change its faces so fast. Five years ago enlightenment didn't exist, KDE didn't exist, StarOffice didn't exist, GNOME didn't exist, and people were psyched because fvwm2 was out and was fairly customizable. In another five years you can only imagine where it will go wrt end user ease of use.
Linux can be whatever a distribution packages it to be. It can be twm, vi, TeX, lynx. It can be KDE2.1 with anti-aliasing built in, Windoze-alike user interface, KWord/Wordperfect/Abiword, KAIM, and Konquerer or Mozilla or Netscape.
It will not take a genius to see that distribution sales are NOT made to the end user, but ARE made to the OEM seller. Hardware sales will occur on the basis of the distribution packaging. Dell and Compaq and IBM and whoever will be packaging linux to grandma in a few years. They will do it because that is the way it will sell. They will do it to make money on hardware sales. They will do it because they will be able to sell their hardware CHEAPER than hardware with Windoze BECAUSE the operating system intellectual property is FREE, and the cost of the operating system is a service charge to load and customize it. And whereas Windoze forces them to pay Microsoft to load Microsoft's software on their machines, the linux distros will load and customize the software for the OEMs. As part of a service contract.
The market will demand it, and it will come. It will come BECAUSE hardware companies can use it to make money. Because that is the American way.
Linux company stock is underwhelming. Yet linux grows.
Robert Young, Redhat CEO, once stated that he was not in the operating system to make more money than Bill Gates. He knows that is absurd.
Robert Young thinks he will win when the market for operating systems is 1% of its current value. Linux is such a good product for free that Microsoft will lose 99% of their corporate value.
And that is what is scaring the crap out of Bill Gates and Jim Allchin. It doesn't matter how well you market, and how well you use your monopoly.
Once people grasp that something free can do the job they need done, commercial sales for that market are next to worthless.
I wouldn't sweat it though - Microsoft, even at 1% of today's value, is still worth an insane amount of money.
Click through is governed by copyright. As eminent proof, I can extract the usable binaries from packages I purchase for most commercial software without clicking through. I guess that makes me a thief in the US (do to DMCA). Or does it ?? Click throughs do not protect copyrights - they attempt, illegally, to extend them.
I might feel differently if they actually asked me to click through BEFORE I write a check. They ask you to agree to a license that governs something, and you cannot see the license before you make a purchase. Of course they give you the right to demand a refund, but do you remember the protests in which consumers demanded refunds for Windows ? It is a big ball of wax shined on to convince you that you do not have rights you have. Very few things about click throughs meet the standards to be called a contract.
The software has only copyright, and copyright has fair use. Evaluating and posting public commentary on that use is one of the most standard protected forms of fair use.
Slashdot Mirror
License smicense. Bernstein is quite a good programmer. His license basically says you can use it, but you cannot distribute changes to it. You can freely distribute binaries AS LONG AS the binary dist make the installation EXACTLY the way the tarball build would do it. It is definitely free as in free beer.
If you use BIND, every few months you need to upgrade to avoid an exploit. BIND is responsible for more remote root exploits over the last 10 years than almost any other piece of software. The configuration is a total mess. If you use sendmail, the configuration is a mess, and it used to be the case that there was a remote root exploit of the month.
Now, if you use djbdns, it builds trivially. It is easy to set up. It is 100% secure. You have the source, and you can freely modify it FOR YOUR OWN NEEDS. The same is true of qmail. You can even send your changes back to Bernstein - he may incorporate them. He is NOT making $$ off the programs. His rationale for not allowing distributions of modification (I think) is that he is totally anal about details for security, and wants to oversee ANY distribution of his source.
So don't start barking about licensing issues unless you were one of the people browsing the web with lynx instead of netscape when lynx was the only opeen source option. Bernstein's code is very good software. And secure. And fast.
Hmm. Unlikely at best. But the fact is that this browser is very stable (java has not crashed my browser since a nightly DL'd a week ago) It's quite fast on a 450 PII with 128MB of ram, and the rendering engine rocks my world. Finally, there's no reason to keep using Netscape 4.7x
Konq under linux has mozilla beat no question for speed and font handling.
I am seeing about a 10 MByte difference in RAM for the process (explaining the loading time difference).
Konq is a GREAT example of the power of open source. Mozilla is a GREAT example how maintaining a cross-platform application can slow development to a crawl. Konq seems to have been written in half the time, and yet people who have honestly given both a try recently are quite fond of konq. (Abiword is another example of how cross-platform development can make open source move as fast as Microsoft). To add to that, my perception is that about 1/10th the programming time was placed into konqueror (of course, konqueror doesn't come with a free xmlterm...)
What are you using, a 286? Jeez, my dns servers don't even resolve "slashdot.org" that quickly.
Try djbdns on your local box. The answer to the broken bloated security risk that is BIND. Install it and never think about your DNS again. If you are not a DNS box, install it anyway to resolve local queries only.
DJBDNS
These proposed strategies take advantage of known user habits (and although the memo is likely a fraud, I bet most of the items have some basis in truth).
.NET strategy is set to take advantage of this as well. Each six months or year you will need to update your .NET subscription for Microsoft's .NET services, like Microsoft Word and the operating system itself. They will take advantage of this at every step to push Microsoft and Microsoft only items, like MSN, like Microsoft Media player, etc...
Most computer users use EXACTLY what the computer installation places in front of them. Most users NEVER remove items from the default desktop, generally thinking that they may be useful someday and they will not be able to find them. So, if you own the default desktop and the default app settings, you own the computer business of the user.
Microsoft's
The sad thing is, as the computer age matures, AOL's business model only looks stronger. Everyone believes that they will always be paying for ISP service, the same way they pay for phone service, electrical service... This revenue model stands in contrast to Microsoft, most of whose software could be replaced out of the box with Free Software without loss in functionality (excepting compatibility). Microsoft is trying to save their future, and AOL will own the world. As if they didn't already.
Unless Microsoft can break into the ISP market with substantial share, they will be reduced to a second tier player over the next decade.
They similarly hold patents on TrueType fonts, which are a blatant obvious extension of SOME aspects of TeX's Metafont.
Yes: they both describe fonts, they both have rasterizing hints... so what? Is Airbus blatantly obviously extending on Boeing's work by designing planes that happen to fly and use the same number of wings?
First of all Metafont existed at least 10 years before TrueType fonts existed.
Second, TrueType uses quadratic splines, compared to Metafont's cubic splines.
That about sums up the improvements. Metafont was never patented. Knuth has talked a little bit about technical comparisons of the two. Apple took something made freely available to all, made a trivial improvement, and locked away the intellectual property for 17 years. Now, if Knuth had done the same with Metafont, there is little doubt that TrueType NEVER WOULD HAVE EXISTED.
link to Knuth interview
As many people have pointed out, anyone reasonably experienced, and any "real" website, isn't vulnerable to this if they followed the best practice of deleting all app mappings that aren't in use. It's like the blank SQL sa password all over again. Easy to get worked up about, pretty much a nonissue for anyone who even halfway knows what they're doing.
Right. And millions of stolen credit card numbers as a result is only proof of stupid admins, not stupid software.
Software has an obligation to setup secure by default, and insecure by the expressed will of the admin. Apparently with IIS and/or MSSQL this little bit of advice is forgotten.
You can go on and on about how anyone who bothered to read the docs would not setup the server in a vulnerable way, but this ignores an INCREDIBLY important aspect of human nature. That default computer usage should be reasonable is assumed by default. 80+% of all web users NEVER change their home page. In a simliar vein, most web admins simply use the default install, irrespective of the potential holes pr default passwords.
The default install has to work securely, plain and simple. For IIS or MSSQL, there are obvious reasons that your customers' business is not safe if you used the default install.
This story is such flamebait, it's unbelievable. Here we have the editors of Slashdot, who advocate Open Source everything, flaming an Open Source vendor (which is what Apple is with respect to Darwin) for using an Open Source license for its intended purposes.
Actually, the story took Apple to task for failing to allow anyone to even code workalike versions of Quicktime Viewers and TrueType fonts, 2 of the feathers in Apple's patent portfolio. If you use linux you cannot view a Quicktime movie made with the Sorensen codec. Forget about it. Sorensen has exclusive licensing with Apple, and so Sorensen cannot do anything about it. Apple will NOT allow anyone to code a workalike for the Sorensen codec Quicktime movies.
They similarly hold patents on TrueType fonts, which are a blatant obvious extension of SOME aspects of TeX's Metafont. For this reason it will be some years before you will see any vendor claim to use TrueType fonts under linux. The Freetype project is in blatant violation of these patents anyway, so apparently Apple doesn't want to raise a fuss (and, Microsoft pays a hefty fee each year to use TrueType font technology).
Now, Apple releases OS X, based on an open source kernel. They trumpet the fact that they use an open source kernel, yet they disrespect the open source community. WRT Quicktime, they could at least release a binary viewer for linux...
Look, the point of the article is pretty simple. Only install binaries from trusted sources. Otherwise, get the source from a trusted source, compile and install it.
And if you can't get the source from a trusted source, DON"T INSTALL IT.
I would take this a step further, as a measure for improving the solidity of an installation. Only get binary RPMs from your distribution. NEVER get them from anyplace else. Your distribution is the best place to insure that everything is solid and working together well (especially if you run Debian:stable). Anything else, let the configure script figure out the details during a compile.
And if you hose your system by using third party binary packages or untrusted binaries, you will need to re-install. And in that time, you can think about what steps you can take to avoid re-installing again in the future.
Gates Law: the speed of software will halve every 18 months.
If you ran crack on a system at your company (without written permission) where you do systems for the Govt, don't whine when they prosecute you...
You are right - it is kinda dumb. However, hashed passwords are world readable on a system, and good passwords cannot be reasonably broken with crack. Security affects ALL users, and crack is a reasonable security tool. There is no evidence it was used to break into accounts.
As a different example, I sometimes portscan machines on which I have accounts. If there are gaping holes, I tell the administrator. Am I a criminal for portscanning machines because I am legitimately concerned for their security ? Is it less of a problem if I simply run `netstat -al` instead of `nmap -sT` ? My real concern is that my work is not interrupted because some admin set up a machine running an old version of BIND. Because then a re-install is required, and sometimes worse.
Copying password hashes that are world readable is not a crime. Forwarding email could be illegal at anal enough companies though... His other crimes (running crack, copying password hashes) are things any user with reasonable concerns could do, and require NO special access to machines ie: he uncovered no information that anyone with an account could not easily uncover.
Can someone, who has spent more time on this, please explain to me how this could happen? I have been trying to understand this and I still can't... :(
.forward in his home directory re-directing his email off-site. And yes, Intel owns his email on his Intel account.
Basically, Schwartz did one thing really wrong - he ran crack on the password file to check for bad passwords, and he didn't immediately report his results (or his intent to run crack in the first place).
As for copying files against instructions and stealing files, he basically had a
Really though - any decent sys admin worrying about security today gets clearance and runs crack, and forwarding email doesn't really seem like a crime - unless you are an over-ambitious security person at Intel.
This is fully within AOL to do.
Although, that being said, they are planning a release of a linux based AOL appliance. Which presumably will have an AIM clone running on linux.
Really, AIM is the protocol of AOL, it requires AOL servers to run, and their is no implicit permission to use their protocol on their servers if they are not your ISP. People might instead rally around an open messenging service like those offered by Yahoo!.
Remember the last court order Napster was ordered to take their service down completely. It was then that napster said oh wait we'll put up filters if we can stay open. The courts have already decided that the non-infinging uses of Napster are expendable.
The injunction against the last court order basically said that the court order had to allow for non-infringing uses of Napster - hence the revised court order which said Napster had to block identified copyrighted material from the plaintiffs. Any decision by this court will be reasonably bound by the appeals court to allow for non-infringing uses. To allow blocking of non-infringing uses is akin to saying you cannot host a web site in which people freely exchange free information.
It is a great scam too. The best form of advertising possible is air play, and the recording companies get paid on a per play basis for this advertising.
Radio broadcasters PAY copyright holders royalties in order to play their music.
Since virtually all artists sign over their copyrights to the recording companies, radio broadcasters are paying the companies that make up the RIAA.
I would not dispute that radio is not free. However, it seems rather trivial that I may listen to, and record, any song played on the airways, and play it back at my leisure (protected by the fourth amendment).
The court has an obligation to ALLOW non-infringing uses of Napster that will prevent this from happening. You have to identify infringing uses, and block them. Not block everything, and then decide what is non-infringing and allow it.
Basically, a long long time ago, the RIAA opened a really bad Pandora's box called radio. In this scheme, the radio stations pay the RIAA to play music, and the consumer gets music for free. Well, it is only a small leap in the consumer's mind from free music over the radio to free music on demand via Napster.
If it were not for free music to the consumer, the RIAA would be nearly worthless. That is their dominant form of advertising - radio, MTV, et al. Now they have to sleep in the bed they made.
Well, a few things first.
C ap.htm">Keyswitch technology review</A>
Most people find themselves most comfortable on a mechanical keyswitch. The most common technologies are the ALPS mechanical keyswitches (found on SOME NMB keyboards) or the IBM mechanical keyswitches (OMNIKEY keyboards $$$).
Per element, mechanical keyswitches cost a lot. Capacitive membranes are the cheapest, and the worst.
I think the NMB mechanical keyboards are around $50 US - probably the least expensive ALPS keyswitch keyboard out there.
Darwin Keyboards used to make a split keyboard with ALPS keyswitches that use 75% of the force of the NMB keyboards. Now datadesk carries them.
<A href-"http://www.pcguide.com/ref/kb/const/switch_
<A href-"http://www.datadesktech.com/smartb.htm">C urrent home of Smartboard</A>
I've just finished "make" and started "make install" on one of my FreeBSD boxes, fucking crap.
You sound quite the fool to anyone who has actually compiled X from source. Especially a BSD style build.
Do you have a fucking clue what .Net is?
.NET.
.NET servers can be running linux.
Subscription based service in which the server does most of the processing, and a client interface makes the user feel just like they are using Word on their own machine.
This is largely created because new computer sales are slowing down and M$'s revenue stream is slowing proportionally. Also, M$ is totally pissed off about copies of their software, particularly in Asia. If people want to use M$'s software, they will pay a subscription fee and use
And, according to M$, the
They want linux support on the servers. They are not going to support .NET on linux clients.
.NET server, but only Windows can be clients. Then, slowly, they will leverage the desktop to work into the server market.
This is the standard M$ move. They will allow anyone to be a
You can note the recent incompatibility with name service in Windows2000 to try to leverage Windows into the DNS server market.
In this case, it turned out that the graduate student had faked his data to fit with his theory. The professor -- who had been the first name on the paper -- excused himself by saying that he had not even read the paper in question.
/. question, acknowledge your sources, always. You will NEVER get in academic difficulty if all sources are respectfully cited. The worst form of offense is passing off someone else's work as your own - a copyright violation.
All authors share responsibility and copyright for published works - the first author more so than the others, in general. If someone had incurred enormous fiscal loss that was critically dependent on your copyrighted (but false) work, you and the other authors would bear some liability.
Besides that, in general, you ought to be able to competently discuss papers on which you are an author. When I ask someone about a paper on which they are an author and they cannot answer even a simple question, it is really quite bad. For them.
In science, your reputation among your peers is one critical aspect of your career. People still cheat in various ways, but their reputation suffers.
In any case, cheating is generally a personal choice. I can tell you from teaching college courses that people cheat. We would sometimes release test and homework solution sets with arbitrary and funny silly errors such as "2 + 2 = -4" - these errors were not on the conceptual sort we were testing, merely really stupid errors we inserted to test people.
It was surprising how often these showed up in subsequent years on tests and homeworks. People REALLY do not care, and cheating is generally not treated NEARLY seriously enough. And as a result, LOTS of people cheat.
With respect to the ask
And wrt cheating, some people do it and benefit. It is a personal choice as to the potential costs and risks. I like being able to look my self in the mirror and say with confidence that anyone with reasonable skills that tries to replicate my work will find the same answers I gave. If that is not the case you are blocking science, instead of advancing it. But I guess there is the question of whether you are advancing science or your career...
If Linux wants to succeed, it should appear simple at all layers -- the code itself, the documentation, and the logistical distribution (from manufacturer to reseller to retailer to customer).
This is a fundamental shift in thinking from commercial software. Linux does not exist to take over the world, it does not exist to please grandma, and it does not exist to sell machines.
It exists because the people who work on it enjoy it, use it, and make it better. That being said, it will never be the case that linux developers from top to bottom will roll over and make their software ready for grandma. However, with the entry of corporate sponsorship of software, you can expect that things like desktop projects (GNOME, KDE), office projects (KDEOffice, OpenOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric, StarOffice) will begin to be able to cater very directly to being easy to use for someone with few computer skills.
Also remember that the OEM reseller has a tremendous advantage in making the OS easy to use. The end user doesn't have to install it.
Really, I think the reason linux has not been configured for newbies is that the free developers are utterly unresponsive to market demand and could care less what articles are written about it. The corporate sponsorship cares, and they will make it happen. But now the demand is just starting to exist, so it will take a little time. Linux can change its faces so fast. Five years ago enlightenment didn't exist, KDE didn't exist, StarOffice didn't exist, GNOME didn't exist, and people were psyched because fvwm2 was out and was fairly customizable. In another five years you can only imagine where it will go wrt end user ease of use.
Troll.
Linux can be whatever a distribution packages it to be. It can be twm, vi, TeX, lynx. It can be KDE2.1 with anti-aliasing built in, Windoze-alike user interface, KWord/Wordperfect/Abiword, KAIM, and Konquerer or Mozilla or Netscape.
It will not take a genius to see that distribution sales are NOT made to the end user, but ARE made to the OEM seller. Hardware sales will occur on the basis of the distribution packaging. Dell and Compaq and IBM and whoever will be packaging linux to grandma in a few years. They will do it because that is the way it will sell. They will do it to make money on hardware sales. They will do it because they will be able to sell their hardware CHEAPER than hardware with Windoze BECAUSE the operating system intellectual property is FREE, and the cost of the operating system is a service charge to load and customize it. And whereas Windoze forces them to pay Microsoft to load Microsoft's software on their machines, the linux distros will load and customize the software for the OEMs. As part of a service contract.
The market will demand it, and it will come. It will come BECAUSE hardware companies can use it to make money. Because that is the American way.
She obviously doesn't get it.
Linux company stock is underwhelming. Yet linux grows.
Robert Young, Redhat CEO, once stated that he was not in the operating system to make more money than Bill Gates. He knows that is absurd.
Robert Young thinks he will win when the market for operating systems is 1% of its current value. Linux is such a good product for free that Microsoft will lose 99% of their corporate value.
And that is what is scaring the crap out of Bill Gates and Jim Allchin. It doesn't matter how well you market, and how well you use your monopoly.
Once people grasp that something free can do the job they need done, commercial sales for that market are next to worthless.
I wouldn't sweat it though - Microsoft, even at 1% of today's value, is still worth an insane amount of money.
Click-through is like any other contract.
Click through is governed by copyright. As eminent proof, I can extract the usable binaries from packages I purchase for most commercial software without clicking through. I guess that makes me a thief in the US (do to DMCA). Or does it ?? Click throughs do not protect copyrights - they attempt, illegally, to extend them.
I might feel differently if they actually asked me to click through BEFORE I write a check. They ask you to agree to a license that governs something, and you cannot see the license before you make a purchase. Of course they give you the right to demand a refund, but do you remember the protests in which consumers demanded refunds for Windows ? It is a big ball of wax shined on to convince you that you do not have rights you have. Very few things about click throughs meet the standards to be called a contract.
The software has only copyright, and copyright has fair use. Evaluating and posting public commentary on that use is one of the most standard protected forms of fair use.