It's a risk anyway. From what I can tell, the client is just a glorified version of apt-get or Windows Update. It downloads programs, checks their signatures, and runs them on your computer. Presumably, the F@H people won't sign anything malicious.
It's quite simple, really. You start with 6to4 or Toredo (which, in case you aren't aware, is IPv6-over-IPv4, and you can run it now), and you gradually start pushing the IPv4 gateways closer and closer to the core of the Internet, until the address shortage is alleviated.
What's a year? That bone is old. Really old. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly old it is. You may think that it's a long time between dupes on Slashdot, but that's peanuts compared to the age of this bone...
when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter.
Anybody know how to run firefox as an untrusted X client? I tried, but I just get this:
$ sux --untrusted me-browser 'firefox' The program 'firefox-bin' received an X Window System error. This probably reflects a bug in the program. The error was 'BadAtom (invalid Atom parameter)'. (Details: serial 3 error_code 5 request_code 20 minor_code 0) (Note to programmers: normally, X errors are reported asynchronously; that is, you will receive the error a while after causing it. To debug your program, run it with the --sync command line option to change this behavior. You can then get a meaningful backtrace from your debugger if you break on the gdk_x_error() function.)
Not having read the article, I'd like to say that "Administrator J. Doe was warned" doesn't necessarily mean anything. Sure, after the fact, it looks damning, but you have to remember that these guys get intel all the time, and most of it is wrong. For example, how many times could you have been overheard talking about ways that a person could bypass security, blow stuff up, do something criminal, etc, even though you have no intention of ever carrying it out? It's a fairly common topic for idle conversation. Do shady people only talk about terrorist activity when they're serious? Of course not.
There is a certain skill is being able to sift through all the noise in order to pick out important details, and the fact that somebody failed to do so 100% of the time just isn't surprising. I'm not saying that this is or isn't such a case, but it's something to keep in mind, in general.
When I first heard the recording, I thought I heard him say "a man". I've always understood it to be merely a shoddy record. I didn't know there was a controversy.
Then again, when I first heard about it, I thought the gay marriage bill in Canada was going to be a triviality that was barely even newsworthy.
Yeah. There are basically 4 ways you can distribute Firefox:
Called "Firefox", with Firefox logo
Called "Firefox", with open-use logo
Called something else, with Firefox logo
Called something else, with open-use logo
Nobody does #3, and the Firefox build process automatically lets you choose between #1 and #4. Until now, Debian has been doing #2 (IIRC, with the approval of the Mozilla Foundation). This change would move Debian to #4, so the logo copyright really has nothing to do with it.
As much as I like Debian, I hate the Debian Firefox package. It gets updated infrequently compared to the Mozilla updates, etc.
Just a guess, but it's probably because the Mozilla developers don't bother making sure Firefox works on all of the architectures that Debian supports before they make releases.
No, but he'd probably object because Firefox isn't a GNU project. I can't find the link anymore, but IIRC the FSF used to ask people not to name their non-GNU projects "GNU something". I don't know if that's still the case.
According to the DFSG, they'd have to keep it in nonfree if they wanted to keep the name.
Does this have anything do with the DFSG? If the Mozilla foundation is insisting that modified versions can't be called "Firefox", then Debian can't distribute a modified Firefox at all (whether or not it's in non-free).
Slashdot Mirror
It's a risk anyway. From what I can tell, the client is just a glorified version of apt-get or Windows Update. It downloads programs, checks their signatures, and runs them on your computer. Presumably, the F@H people won't sign anything malicious.
s/Toredo/Teredo/. I keep confusing Teredo with Tor and el Torito.
As for convincing everyone to use the IPv6 Internet, communist China will help with that quite a bit.
It's quite simple, really. You start with 6to4 or Toredo (which, in case you aren't aware, is IPv6-over-IPv4, and you can run it now), and you gradually start pushing the IPv4 gateways closer and closer to the core of the Internet, until the address shortage is alleviated.
Clue: I know plenty, and none of them are losing their jobs, but I don't live in the U.S.
Could this just be a reversal of what happened during the tech boom, where:
I'm curious if many of the competent, professional I.T. people are really losing their jobs.
The bone is 70 million years old. What's the rush? Why not wait a few years until I get there?
What's a year? That bone is old. Really old. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly old it is. You may think that it's a long time between dupes on Slashdot, but that's peanuts compared to the age of this bone...
How is that a good reason?
Anybody know how to run firefox as an untrusted X client? I tried, but I just get this:
Not having read the article, I'd like to say that "Administrator J. Doe was warned" doesn't necessarily mean anything. Sure, after the fact, it looks damning, but you have to remember that these guys get intel all the time, and most of it is wrong. For example, how many times could you have been overheard talking about ways that a person could bypass security, blow stuff up, do something criminal, etc, even though you have no intention of ever carrying it out? It's a fairly common topic for idle conversation. Do shady people only talk about terrorist activity when they're serious? Of course not.
There is a certain skill is being able to sift through all the noise in order to pick out important details, and the fact that somebody failed to do so 100% of the time just isn't surprising. I'm not saying that this is or isn't such a case, but it's something to keep in mind, in general.
Huh? It doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, but if he'd said that, in 100 years from now, we'd be having people claiming that the moon was founded on Christian principles.
I think it depends on your accent. Neil said it like I would, with "for a" basically pronounced as one syllable---more or less like "furra" or "f'ra".
When I first heard the recording, I thought I heard him say "a man". I've always understood it to be merely a shoddy record. I didn't know there was a controversy.
Then again, when I first heard about it, I thought the gay marriage bill in Canada was going to be a triviality that was barely even newsworthy.
People make such a big deal out of nothing.
Interesting, thanks for the link.
Nobody does #3, and the Firefox build process automatically lets you choose between #1 and #4. Until now, Debian has been doing #2 (IIRC, with the approval of the Mozilla Foundation). This change would move Debian to #4, so the logo copyright really has nothing to do with it.
WTF? No. Debian can't distribute a modified version of Firefox and call it "Firefox", regardless of whether or not it's in non-free.
How would that not still be trademark infringement?
Just a guess, but it's probably because the Mozilla developers don't bother making sure Firefox works on all of the architectures that Debian supports before they make releases.
Not if you use a 64-bit time_t.
No, but he'd probably object because Firefox isn't a GNU project. I can't find the link anymore, but IIRC the FSF used to ask people not to name their non-GNU projects "GNU something". I don't know if that's still the case.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198447&c id=16259661
Does this have anything do with the DFSG? If the Mozilla foundation is insisting that modified versions can't be called "Firefox", then Debian can't distribute a modified Firefox at all (whether or not it's in non-free).
Linus isn't insisting that people get his approval for their patches before they can use the "Linux" trademark.
... if they hadn't set the camera to use the flash.