GPL: Ideology first, technology and practicality second. Constant paranoia that someone is using the code base in violation of not only the spirit of the license but the 'spirit'.
And here you're talking about Theo de Raadt. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you like him or not, you can't say he pulls his punches.
BSD: Focus on the code, not the license
That's why *BSD refuses to include the new bash licensed under GPLv3, right? Hint: it isn't;-)
You may be right in the typical case. I just want to point to a few exceptions, hopefully preventing people from seeing the world as black-and-white as you do.
it's faster to develop for a single platform than to use a shotgun approach.
Yeah, but telling your developers that they can develop for windows only and then porting the application is likely to be a lot slower than writing things portably from day 1.
An argument to back this assertion up: the sooner you fix a bug, the cheaper it is to fix [this is widely believed]. Every dependence on a particular platform that's not put into a platform abstraction layer is a bug. If you develop for every platform all the time, you'll find and fix those bugs immediately, paying the lowest possible price for portability. If you develop for $PLATFORM first and then port, you'll pay the largest possible price for portability.
What if they offered Linus Torvalds a billion dollars for the trademark and the copyright to his code?
And assuming Linus accepted, of course...
Then we'd fork the latest version of the kernel (and git, and * FROM code WHERE copyright_holder = "Linus") and hack on.
To deal with the trademark, we'd have to rename the kernel. We could always use Linus' original name, Freax, or name it after some other maintainer... Mortonix? Coxix?
Entering from the right: big massive speakers, laying down the beat
Center Stage, Puff Daddy
Change or die muthafucka, muthafucka change or die Rock the change or else I'm gonna stick a knife through your eye The industry is founded on one simple rule Get out there and change or I will muthafuckin' kill you
I bought GH3 knowing that I knew some of the songs and (having played GH2) expecting the game to be fun on its own.
What I've found that the game being fun doesn't depend much on whether I know the music but whether I like the music.
Prior to buying the game, I didn't know Eric Johnson. After having played Cliffs of Dover in the game, it's one of the songs I can go back to and play over and over again, just for the fun of playing the song.
On the other hand, there are some songs I don't like; playing those is not fun, and it probably wouldn't be even if I knew the song.
If there wasn't already enough irony in that, consider that the *one* thing GH3 can't really do well is playing back the music without requiring interaction.
Once, long ago, Excel had a full flight simulator hidden in the code. Then Microsoft created the Flight Simulator team and it was one of their landmark "games".
Taking a trip in the time machine, this would disprove the assertion that there are no games for the Mac!;-)
With DNSSEC, it's the data that's authenticated. With DNSCurve, it appears to be the server.
The server? As I see it, it's the connection from the client (i.e. your ISP's caching proxy resolver) to the server; that is, the communication.
What's the difference? If you run your own trusted resolver and you trust the root, let's see:
Sec: you get the IP of.com and a signature which you trust Curve: you get the IP via a channel which you trust.
In both cases, you know the.com address that root wants you to know, and you trust the result. By induction,
2. ??? 3. profit.com
One difference, though: in Sec, you have to trust the root at the time it signs.com. With Curve, you have to trust the root when you talk to it. If the data-sending server is broken into, with Curve you're screwed (not so with Sec). I'm not saying that the machine the signing is done on (with Sec) is invulnerable, but it can probably be secured somewhat better... maybe?
Does DNSCurve protect against a meddling cache, or does it require all queries to be processed by the authoritative server or a trustable cache?
Good point. DNSCurve only secures the connection between the cache and the DNS servers. You as a plain ol' user have to trust the connection to your ISP's caching proxy. If you have nefarious neighbours and an ISP who thinks hubs are great (or whose switches can be made to act like hubs) and they know arp spoofing and stuff... you might be hosed. Not so with Sec: they might be able to modify traffic arbitrarily, but they can't make up a valid signature on their own data.
DNSCurve encrypts connections. This has per-byte overhead, plus per-connection overhead which can (mostly?) be made into per-peer overhead with caching. DNSSEC doesn't
Per-byte cost of what? Traffic or time?
With Sec, you have to validate signature(hash(data)). That's a per-byte time overhead for the hash function. Symmetric encryption is similar. Assymetric encryption is always (well, almost always) applied to a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the data; symmetric encryption has performance characteristics much like hash functions: per-byte processing, 1-to-1 size ratio between input and output.
You're of the school of thought that thinks vacations are just different ways to do the same things you usually do.
No, I'm just telling you why you don't get modded up for your comments;-)
When I was in Paris, I promised myself to see the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre (and I delivered on that promise). And I went to see some showgirls, and while walking the streets at night a prostitute tried to earn some of my money.
Unfortunately, I was short on cash and had no credit card:(
I was about to say something to that effect, but had decided my post was long enough already.
I'm not sure I agree that it's impossible for any one vendor to get into a monopoly position. What if no other vendor comes up with (or sticks to) a viable business model? "No one got fired for buying support from Canonical."
Then again, whenever I try to think about how a Linux(-based) monopoly would look, everything I come up with seems to be contrived and highly unsustainable. We'll see if it ever comes to be...
Actually, so do I. I was just being moderate to whore karma;-)
On a serious note: I'd like to see free software be able to give everyone an optimal* computing experience so that I can justify wanting everyone to use only free software.
That happening would mean the death of Windows. The death of Windows is just in itself not very high on my list of priorities.
* No, not just good, but optimal: I'd be disappointed if there's a trade-off is between quality and freedom. For a certain kind of computer user (the/.-reading kind), there isn't. Apparently, for 33% of $(dict minilaptop) users Linux is the best deal too. I think we as a community have earned a pat on the back:)
I don't know, leave the fucking techno-toys behind and relax on the boat??? Get some drinks, mingle with people?
Let's see. You come to a site where people love techno-toys and don't have much in the mingly-personality department. Then you foul-talk the toys and encourage a not-much-loved behavior.
We're seeing Linux have 33% market share on a general-purpose computer. Yes, I know, it's a certain class of computer but what I driving at is that it's a machine that is suited for a wide variety of tasks (as opposed to only being a router, phone, DVR, text reader, etc.).
I'd love to live in a world where Linux had 33% market share on general-purpose computers. I think that trading one monopoly (MS) for another (Linux) is not a good thing, even if I like Linux.
What I'd much rather see is a wider variety of OSes and no one kind having a dominant position. That way, we can have more competition, more attention paid to being cross-platform and (hopefully) more interoperability.
I don't much care what everyone else uses as long as I have a good experience with Linux. As long as I can't make people stop hosting their videos in stupid flash wrappers (and gnash doesn't work very well) I'm dependent on flash working well enough on Linux. As long as there are no fast graphics cards with open-source drivers, I'm dependent on the proprietary ones.
So, I want the people in control of the software I have to run to be happy to treat the platform I run with some kind of respect.
But I don't want my choices imposed on anyone else. To healthy competition!
I think Mortal Kombat Armagultimate-whatever-it-is for the wii and (from what I suspect) Metroid Prime III doesn't really fit the demographic either, and at least MP3 seems to do well (Mortal Kombat).
And hey--just because I like Wii Sports, Zelda and Mario, does that mean I don't like blood and zombies?
Slashdot Mirror
At the danger of YHBT-YHL-HAND, here goes:
GPL: Ideology first, technology and practicality second. Constant paranoia that someone is using the code base in violation of not only the spirit of the license but the 'spirit'.
You realize you're talking about Linux (the kernel) here, right? Linus approves of Tivo (have a look at http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.1/2939.html)
BSD: Friendly environment
And here you're talking about Theo de Raadt. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you like him or not, you can't say he pulls his punches.
BSD: Focus on the code, not the license
That's why *BSD refuses to include the new bash licensed under GPLv3, right? Hint: it isn't ;-)
You may be right in the typical case. I just want to point to a few exceptions, hopefully preventing people from seeing the world as black-and-white as you do.
Next, he'll find the only five or six sites on the web that depict bestiality!
I think I know them:
usenet.us ...
usenet.eu
usenet.za
usenet.jp
it's faster to develop for a single platform than to use a shotgun approach.
Yeah, but telling your developers that they can develop for windows only and then porting the application is likely to be a lot slower than writing things portably from day 1.
An argument to back this assertion up: the sooner you fix a bug, the cheaper it is to fix [this is widely believed]. Every dependence on a particular platform that's not put into a platform abstraction layer is a bug. If you develop for every platform all the time, you'll find and fix those bugs immediately, paying the lowest possible price for portability. If you develop for $PLATFORM first and then port, you'll pay the largest possible price for portability.
3) Hold my entire music collection.
:-O
Where did you find the 120GB version?
What language do they speak in Lesbia?
English, maybe? I heard they speak english in What...
I don't see why celebrity audio-book readers should feel that they have any god-given monopoly on reading books aloud.
It's obvious: they can make more money that way. That's why. Have you forgotten what the goal of copyright is?
(Sorry if I broke your irony-meter; you can by my Unbreakable(TM)(R)(patented technology) irony-meter for the mere sum of $400.)
Where do I get my eye-patch?
Returrrn yer pirate card at th' entrance, yer scurvey land-lubber. It be named an arrr-patch!
What if they offered Linus Torvalds a billion dollars for the trademark and the copyright to his code?
And assuming Linus accepted, of course...
Then we'd fork the latest version of the kernel (and git, and * FROM code WHERE copyright_holder = "Linus") and hack on.
To deal with the trademark, we'd have to rename the kernel. We could always use Linus' original name, Freax, or name it after some other maintainer... Mortonix? Coxix?
And then there'd be happy hacking all around.
I can't believe I read this and immediately thought "What kind of lame name is pimp 0-day ear 94?"
Can I be a loser too? ;-)
Change or die.
Entering from the right: big massive speakers, laying down the beat
Center Stage, Puff Daddy
Change or die muthafucka, muthafucka change or die
Rock the change or else I'm gonna stick a knife through your eye
The industry is founded on one simple rule
Get out there and change or I will muthafuckin' kill you
(With apologies to Parker and Stone)
I bought GH3 knowing that I knew some of the songs and (having played GH2) expecting the game to be fun on its own.
What I've found that the game being fun doesn't depend much on whether I know the music but whether I like the music.
Prior to buying the game, I didn't know Eric Johnson. After having played Cliffs of Dover in the game, it's one of the songs I can go back to and play over and over again, just for the fun of playing the song.
On the other hand, there are some songs I don't like; playing those is not fun, and it probably wouldn't be even if I knew the song.
So: liking >> knowing.
I just play the games to listen to music.
If there wasn't already enough irony in that, consider that the *one* thing GH3 can't really do well is playing back the music without requiring interaction.
Once, long ago, Excel had a full flight simulator hidden in the code. Then Microsoft created the Flight Simulator team and it was one of their landmark "games".
Taking a trip in the time machine, this would disprove the assertion that there are no games for the Mac! ;-)
With DNSSEC, it's the data that's authenticated. With DNSCurve, it appears to be the server.
The server? As I see it, it's the connection from the client (i.e. your ISP's caching proxy resolver) to the server; that is, the communication.
What's the difference? If you run your own trusted resolver and you trust the root, let's see:
Sec: you get the IP of .com and a signature which you trust
Curve: you get the IP via a channel which you trust.
In both cases, you know the .com address that root wants you to know, and you trust the result. By induction,
2. ???
3. profit.com
One difference, though: in Sec, you have to trust the root at the time it signs .com. With Curve, you have to trust the root when you talk to it. If the data-sending server is broken into, with Curve you're screwed (not so with Sec). I'm not saying that the machine the signing is done on (with Sec) is invulnerable, but it can probably be secured somewhat better... maybe?
Does DNSCurve protect against a meddling cache, or does it require all queries to be processed by the authoritative server or a trustable cache?
Good point. DNSCurve only secures the connection between the cache and the DNS servers. You as a plain ol' user have to trust the connection to your ISP's caching proxy. If you have nefarious neighbours and an ISP who thinks hubs are great (or whose switches can be made to act like hubs) and they know arp spoofing and stuff... you might be hosed. Not so with Sec: they might be able to modify traffic arbitrarily, but they can't make up a valid signature on their own data.
DNSCurve encrypts connections. This has per-byte overhead, plus per-connection overhead which can (mostly?) be made into per-peer overhead with caching. DNSSEC doesn't
Per-byte cost of what? Traffic or time?
With Sec, you have to validate signature(hash(data)). That's a per-byte time overhead for the hash function. Symmetric encryption is similar. Assymetric encryption is always (well, almost always) applied to a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the data; symmetric encryption has performance characteristics much like hash functions: per-byte processing, 1-to-1 size ratio between input and output.
You're of the school of thought that thinks vacations are just different ways to do the same things you usually do.
No, I'm just telling you why you don't get modded up for your comments ;-)
When I was in Paris, I promised myself to see the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre (and I delivered on that promise). And I went to see some showgirls, and while walking the streets at night a prostitute tried to earn some of my money.
Unfortunately, I was short on cash and had no credit card :(
You, sir, deserves more mod points.
I was about to say something to that effect, but had decided my post was long enough already.
I'm not sure I agree that it's impossible for any one vendor to get into a monopoly position. What if no other vendor comes up with (or sticks to) a viable business model? "No one got fired for buying support from Canonical."
Then again, whenever I try to think about how a Linux(-based) monopoly would look, everything I come up with seems to be contrived and highly unsustainable. We'll see if it ever comes to be...
I want [Windows] to die die die die die!
Actually, so do I. I was just being moderate to whore karma ;-)
On a serious note: I'd like to see free software be able to give everyone an optimal* computing experience so that I can justify wanting everyone to use only free software.
That happening would mean the death of Windows. The death of Windows is just in itself not very high on my list of priorities.
* No, not just good, but optimal: I'd be disappointed if there's a trade-off is between quality and freedom. For a certain kind of computer user (the /.-reading kind), there isn't. Apparently, for 33% of $(dict minilaptop) users Linux is the best deal too. I think we as a community have earned a pat on the back :)
What weird economics are at work at Dell?
Some wild speculation:
I hope this gets the thought train rolling ;-)
It's kind of like being retroactively billed for all the times you've slept with your ex-wife.
That's why you pay up-front and by the hour ;-)
I don't know, leave the fucking techno-toys behind and relax on the boat??? Get some drinks, mingle with people?
Let's see. You come to a site where people love techno-toys and don't have much in the mingly-personality department. Then you foul-talk the toys and encourage a not-much-loved behavior.
I wish I had your courage ;-)
The problem are the other two thirds.
What? I'm sorry, What???
We're seeing Linux have 33% market share on a general-purpose computer. Yes, I know, it's a certain class of computer but what I driving at is that it's a machine that is suited for a wide variety of tasks (as opposed to only being a router, phone, DVR, text reader, etc.).
I'd love to live in a world where Linux had 33% market share on general-purpose computers. I think that trading one monopoly (MS) for another (Linux) is not a good thing, even if I like Linux.
What I'd much rather see is a wider variety of OSes and no one kind having a dominant position. That way, we can have more competition, more attention paid to being cross-platform and (hopefully) more interoperability.
I don't much care what everyone else uses as long as I have a good experience with Linux. As long as I can't make people stop hosting their videos in stupid flash wrappers (and gnash doesn't work very well) I'm dependent on flash working well enough on Linux. As long as there are no fast graphics cards with open-source drivers, I'm dependent on the proprietary ones.
So, I want the people in control of the software I have to run to be happy to treat the platform I run with some kind of respect.
But I don't want my choices imposed on anyone else. To healthy competition!
That's a really interesting claim.
I think Mortal Kombat Armagultimate-whatever-it-is for the wii and (from what I suspect) Metroid Prime III doesn't really fit the demographic either, and at least MP3 seems to do well (Mortal Kombat).
And hey--just because I like Wii Sports, Zelda and Mario, does that mean I don't like blood and zombies?
although the guys sort of style sort of annoys me
Sort of fixed that, for you...
Can we not have articles started with lies on slashdot from now on? Maybe keep the lies towards the end?
"Yes"
Just point them to a page on the corporate intranet, they put in their login, profit?
You're doing it wrong! It's: