Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?
Aside from the fact, that I think someone wearing a bomb, wanting to get in as far as possible, would NOT be wearing the mechanism on the outside of their clothing, advertising it for a guard to see....I think we've just with this incident, given the 'terrorists' a good clue how to sneak stuff by. If it doesn't have wires and components hanging out of it...if it doesn't look like a hand fabbed piece of electronic equipment, they probably aren't gonna get stopped at gunpoint for wearing a bomb.
I disagree with you. Why should you expect someone who is going to blow himself up in a airport to act rationally? Experience shows that violent criminals do not always act rationally. The others neither, by the way.
Following your statement, if I enter in a airport with a gun and I show it to a policeman - when I spot one - the policeman should be reassured, if I wanted to commit a crime I would have kept it hidden. Obviously the answer is: a man with a gun in a airport is suspicious, if they know that someone is trying to snake in something that looks like a gun they _have_ to stop him.
Home-made looking electric circuits that you wear on yourself are suspicious too in a airport. This is common sense and the policemen did the right thing.
If something looks like a bomb, they should check. It's not that they check only things that look like bombs, but those too.
I have to add that I welcome penalties for those who intentionally waste the police's time. It's more serious than trolling on./.
There are a number of issues: e.g. scaling the supply voltage is expensive because it requires the replacing of the power supply, then there are a number of physical problems, e.g. subthreshold conduction.
In the end, I prefer RMS's way: enforce what you think is right (if you have the right to do it): if you want people to give back, ask them to do so. I think this make more sense than complaining that none gives back to convince people to do it, IMHO.
Just because someone uses my code, it doesn't mean we're friends. He just didn't want to rewrite it, and thought my licensing terms were acceptable.
He was speaking about a dual GPL-BSD licensed code.
A few days ago, one of the author posted a patch on LKML that removed the BSD license. This patch hasn't been included in the mainline kernel, since all developers have to agree to change the license.
Nothing particularly interesting, but some time ago, there has been a big fuss about some (almost all) code taken from linux's bcm43xx, included in openBSD public CVS without notice of original authors or correct license.
In short: the linux developers contacted the openBSD developer and offered to relicense some part of the code as BSD-GPL, the bsd developer complained that they had no tact because this matter had to be discussed privately and that they were not helping the open-source community. de Raadt replied to the thread... you can imagine how this ended up.
This explains why some people considered the patch news. I don't.
The discussion about dual licensing is surely more interesting.
If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back.
That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file:
"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."
It's not true: he can modify and distribute under BSD the original code that was released under BSD, he can't distribute as BSD whatever was added and licensed under GPL. So none is stealing his work, they are just licensing their intellectual work as they feel it's better.
Exactly as Theo did when he decided to use BSD license: he choose BSD for a number of reasons, one of these was apparently that he thought that this kind of behavior is acceptable, as BSD license allows it.
So, why doesn't he change openBSD's license to something that he actually likes?
I think things are probably a bit more complex than what you say, but I'm not confident with the GPL.
Don't you have to provide the GPL license itself with a GPL'ed program, even if in binary form?
Otherwise, they may not be in violation: they distribute a compiled GPL'ed application, they may claim that until now none asked for source code - since none knew that the license was GPL, of course... We still have to see if they are willing to release their changes.
Moreover, can you distribute a derivative work of GPL software in binary for without giving credit to the original authors?
Does anybody use port knocking? It can't be used on ports used by common users (like 80 on a web server), but opening port 22 for admins knocking seems pretty neat...
Red Hat Global Desktop 'would be sold with a one-year subscription to security updates.'
Hmmm, let's see... on the one hand I can start paying for updates after 12 months.... on the other hand I get free updates for 18 months (or 36 months for LTS releases). I'm a Linux user, I've been using Debian for quite a long time. I don't use Linux because it's free. I use it because I like it, I think it is rationally organized - well at least most things are - and it makes me more productive (than Windows).
If I think of the time I spend in front of a pc, I have to admit I'm willing to pay to support the developers, even if I'm a student.
A very cheap OS may be fine, but an effective one is better.
CUPS servers can broadcast information about the printers they share. CUPS on my laptop makes them available to me automatically.
Home, work, friends' home, wherever I am, if there's a printer shared by a CUPS server in the network, it's in my printers list. All I have to do is press Ctrl-P and select one.
Modern PCs are horrible. ACPI is a complete design disaster in every way. But we're kind of stuck with it. If any Intel people are listening to this and you had anything to do with ACPI, shoot yourself now, before you reproduce.
We live in a free country, where I can choose the OS I wish to use. Damn, it's even called free software.
I didn't say that you have to be dumb to use Ubuntu - which is a great Linux distribution, by the way - I said that making things really easy isn't what really matters to me in the end. Maybe, you think that of yourself, but that's a completely different problem.
That's the reason why Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Ark Linux and other more "difficult" distributions are still widely used - there are other people that think the same I wrote.
My post above is incomplete, because I didn't say why. I couldn't care less about being "elite", I never thought I was. If I was such a prick as you say, I would have told you to go back to Windows.
I've been using Linux for quite a long time, and I know my way around enough. There are things that can be done from the CLI with a single command. It's easy and quick - well at least for me. It doesn't depend on what software is available on that particular computer and on what type of distribution it has.
Clicking through a GUI, on the other hand, is not that quick, it's not scriptable, you have to look which software is available and different distributions often offer different GUI to configure the system, while ifconfig is always there, for example.
Linux is a very powerful operating system. Sometimes GUI offers just a subset of what it's really possible to do. Usability is a wonderful thing but if that doesn't let me do what I want to, it's not that great anymore.
You got several things wrong in you post, one of these is that you speak about "tweaking out my system" and "fight with hardware". I don't do those things, I configured my system once - well it almost did it by itself - and I changed something when hardware changed. None spoke about "tweaking".
By the way, how can a thing called "tweaking" be required? Isn't it against its definition?
Have you ever heard of Ubuntu?
Its goal is exactly what you describe, here is a quote from the Ubuntu Linux website:
Ubuntu 'Just Works'
We've done all the hard work for you. Once Ubuntu is installed, all the basics are in place so that your system will be immediately usable.
And it adds that it has all the most common applications: a web browser, a mail client...
I have to add that I'm not a big fan of these distributions 'just work'. It seems to imply: "This is a OS that even the dumbest can use."
Something you can use even if you're still wondering: "How do I download the Internet?"
When you hear that in other languages is even more annoying. If the URL doesn't start with www. and the website doesn't exist most browsers are smart enough to add it. Usually they do both exist and point to the same website e.g. http://slashdot.org/http://www.slashdot.org/
The www should not be necessary and should be avoided because it makes people look silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, the gun example wasn't great. But I still think my point is valid.
Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?
Aside from the fact, that I think someone wearing a bomb, wanting to get in as far as possible, would NOT be wearing the mechanism on the outside of their clothing, advertising it for a guard to see....I think we've just with this incident, given the 'terrorists' a good clue how to sneak stuff by. If it doesn't have wires and components hanging out of it...if it doesn't look like a hand fabbed piece of electronic equipment, they probably aren't gonna get stopped at gunpoint for wearing a bomb.
I disagree with you. Why should you expect someone who is going to blow himself up in a airport to act rationally? Experience shows that violent criminals do not always act rationally. The others neither, by the way.Following your statement, if I enter in a airport with a gun and I show it to a policeman - when I spot one - the policeman should be reassured, if I wanted to commit a crime I would have kept it hidden. Obviously the answer is: a man with a gun in a airport is suspicious, if they know that someone is trying to snake in something that looks like a gun they _have_ to stop him.
Home-made looking electric circuits that you wear on yourself are suspicious too in a airport. This is common sense and the policemen did the right thing.
If something looks like a bomb, they should check. It's not that they check only things that look like bombs, but those too.
I have to add that I welcome penalties for those who intentionally waste the police's time. It's more serious than trolling on
I fixed it for you both:
He said: usability reduces the available choices.
You said: it's called usability.
News at 11.
Of course, this is just the main concept.
There are a number of issues: e.g. scaling the supply voltage is expensive because it requires the replacing of the power supply, then there are a number of physical problems, e.g. subthreshold conduction.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSFET#Difficulties_arising_due_to_MOSFET_scaling for more.
I thought the same just after I clicked "Submit". :)
It was even a good joke.
If this is true and there is no easy workaround, I'll switch to another language.
I hope this will not be included in v3.0.
individual contributors to the kernel are going to use GPL3
This is news to me: do you have some evidence to support that?
First it's not rude, it's exactly what the license allows you to. Second, it's not illegal, as it's allowed.
How can this possibly be insightful?
You're right, there's difference.
Thanks.
I see this in this way, I may be wrong.
In the end, I prefer RMS's way: enforce what you think is right (if you have the right to do it): if you want people to give back, ask them to do so. I think this make more sense than complaining that none gives back to convince people to do it, IMHO.
Just because someone uses my code, it doesn't mean we're friends. He just didn't want to rewrite it, and thought my licensing terms were acceptable.
He was speaking about a dual GPL-BSD licensed code.
6 18239
A few days ago, one of the author posted a patch on LKML that removed the BSD license.
This patch hasn't been included in the mainline kernel, since all developers have to agree to change the license.
Nothing particularly interesting, but some time ago, there has been a big fuss about some (almost all) code taken from linux's bcm43xx, included in openBSD public CVS without notice of original authors or correct license.
Here's the link to the slashdot story: http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/07/1
In short: the linux developers contacted the openBSD developer and offered to relicense some part of the code as BSD-GPL, the bsd developer complained that they had no tact because this matter had to be discussed privately and that they were not helping the open-source community. de Raadt replied to the thread... you can imagine how this ended up.
This explains why some people considered the patch news. I don't.
The discussion about dual licensing is surely more interesting.
If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back.
That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do
not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you
would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file:
"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."
It's not true: he can modify and distribute under BSD the original code that was released under BSD, he can't distribute as BSD whatever was added and licensed under GPL. So none is stealing his work, they are just licensing their intellectual work as they feel it's better.
Exactly as Theo did when he decided to use BSD license: he choose BSD for a number of reasons, one of these was apparently that he thought that this kind of behavior is acceptable, as BSD license allows it.
So, why doesn't he change openBSD's license to something that he actually likes?
RMS and TdR have something in common...
I think things are probably a bit more complex than what you say, but I'm not confident with the GPL.
Don't you have to provide the GPL license itself with a GPL'ed program, even if in binary form?
Otherwise, they may not be in violation: they distribute a compiled GPL'ed application, they may claim that until now none asked for source code - since none knew that the license was GPL, of course...
We still have to see if they are willing to release their changes.
Moreover, can you distribute a derivative work of GPL software in binary for without giving credit to the original authors?
Does anybody use port knocking?
It can't be used on ports used by common users (like 80 on a web server), but opening port 22 for admins knocking seems pretty neat...
I have no experience about this.
I don't use Linux because it's free. I use it because I like it, I think it is rationally organized - well at least most things are - and it makes me more productive (than Windows).
If I think of the time I spend in front of a pc, I have to admit I'm willing to pay to support the developers, even if I'm a student.
A very cheap OS may be fine, but an effective one is better.
I disagree. The lesson is: whatever software you use in your product, respect its license.
Using BSD would make it easier to respect the license. Anyway complying with sect.3 of the GPL wasn't hard and the apparently didn't even try to.
If you don't want to (or simply don't care), use BSD-licensed code or write your own code.
On a sunny day, at noon, you get roughly 1KW per square meter.
I don't know if this agrees with what you said.
I use it on my laptop and it's very useful.
CUPS servers can broadcast information about the printers they share. CUPS on my laptop makes them available to me automatically.
Home, work, friends' home, wherever I am, if there's a printer shared by a CUPS server in the network, it's in my printers list. All I have to do is press Ctrl-P and select one.
I hope Apple will not kill CUPS.
Why every time someone speaks of portable code they refer to Java?
Isn't python just as portable?
From: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds
We live in a free country, where I can choose the OS I wish to use. Damn, it's even called free software.
I didn't say that you have to be dumb to use Ubuntu - which is a great Linux distribution, by the way - I said that making things really easy isn't what really matters to me in the end. Maybe, you think that of yourself, but that's a completely different problem.
That's the reason why Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Ark Linux and other more "difficult" distributions are still widely used - there are other people that think the same I wrote.
My post above is incomplete, because I didn't say why. I couldn't care less about being "elite", I never thought I was. If I was such a prick as you say, I would have told you to go back to Windows.
I've been using Linux for quite a long time, and I know my way around enough. There are things that can be done from the CLI with a single command. It's easy and quick - well at least for me. It doesn't depend on what software is available on that particular computer and on what type of distribution it has.
Clicking through a GUI, on the other hand, is not that quick, it's not scriptable, you have to look which software is available and different distributions often offer different GUI to configure the system, while ifconfig is always there, for example.
Linux is a very powerful operating system. Sometimes GUI offers just a subset of what it's really possible to do. Usability is a wonderful thing but if that doesn't let me do what I want to, it's not that great anymore.
You got several things wrong in you post, one of these is that you speak about "tweaking out my system" and "fight with hardware". I don't do those things, I configured my system once - well it almost did it by itself - and I changed something when hardware changed. None spoke about "tweaking".
By the way, how can a thing called "tweaking" be required? Isn't it against its definition?
Have you ever heard of Ubuntu?
Its goal is exactly what you describe, here is a quote from the Ubuntu Linux website:
Ubuntu 'Just Works'
We've done all the hard work for you. Once Ubuntu is installed, all the basics are in place so that your system will be immediately usable.
And it adds that it has all the most common applications: a web browser, a mail client...
I have to add that I'm not a big fan of these distributions 'just work'. It seems to imply: "This is a OS that even the dumbest can use."
Something you can use even if you're still wondering: "How do I download the Internet?"
The printer manufacturers that don't include this will obviously sell more.
"Watch your competitors take suicide: priceless."
When you hear that in other languages is even more annoying.
If the URL doesn't start with www. and the website doesn't exist most browsers are smart enough to add it.
Usually they do both exist and point to the same website e.g. http://slashdot.org/ http://www.slashdot.org/
The www should not be necessary and should be avoided because it makes people look silly.