Microsoft's probable response to OSS Java, would be to comb through the source code for bugs, and call a press conference to announce "one gadzillion bugs found in open source Java, more probably exist".
I think the last thing Microsoft wants to do right now is to put "lots of bugs == bad" into people's minds.
Maybe it's just me, but unless T is talking about examining the offending carcass, rewriteing the code (self-modifying code? *gasp*) and then resurrecting the thing, isn't he talking about basically the same thing?
You should have fixed the code. But Tanenbaum's approach is to design an OS that is secure against your attempts to fsck up the system.:-)
Even if all that memory was free(2)'d, it still wouldn't return to the OS.
You mean free(3)'d.
I assume you're referring to brk(2) style allocation, in which memory is not freed until a program exits. GNU/Linux doesn't use that (yes, "GNU/Linux". Linux supports brk(2), but GNU libc mostly doesn't use it, IIRC). Instead, it uses mmap(2) to allocate memory, and munmap(2) to return it to the OS.
Well, I don't know about Windows, but on Linux, an application can't deal gracefully with running out of memory unless /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory is set to 2.
Will this GoogleTalk be available to users of Desktop Linux?
Who cares? As far as I know, the protocols are open, so we can create our own implementations. It's far more important to have an open protocol than to have some official-but-binary-only Linux client.
One the other hand, DNA is quite different. You can learn from DNA things the govenrment is not entitled to know. Your lineage, your health prospects, your allegries, and any number of personal attributes. From blood you can learn even more. e.g. are you HiV positive.
Yes, however, the government can covertly get your DNA anyway. Ever dispose of a paper cup? Your DNA is on it, and they have the technology to extract it.
In Canada, the police have the authority to search most DNA-containing material that you dispose of. So that paper cup is fair game (at least if disposed of in a public place). However, since the DNA of anyone who recently touched that cup could be on it, the DNA from the cup itself is not enough to prove in a criminal court that the DNA really belongs to you. However, it is enough (when matched to suspicious DNA at a crime scene) to allow the police to get a warrant to require you to give them a sample of your DNA (typically a blood sample).
Not that any of this discounts your points, but in this discussion I think it might be helpful to know that if the government wants your DNA, they have the technology to get it with reasonably high probability.
We should all defend the open hardware model at every opportunity, and we need to resist and rebut the Macfascist point of view, that one good supplier is all you need, you don't need choice.
What do you think about the nVidia/ATI/various WiFi proprietary interfaces issue?
I'm going to automate the process of creating malware. The automation process will be designed specifically to exploit a hole in their classification software, so that it executes arbitrary code that changes the software so that it classifies all MS software as "F1R5T P05T lolol!"
This newspaper is withholding some details of the vulnerability at the request of several elections officials and scientists, partly because exploiting it is so simple and the tools for doing so are widely available.
Wait... WHAT???
I take that to mean that elections officials intend to continue using the machines! Are we insane?
I can't, because you clearly believe in the idea that a social construct such as freedom of speech has some fundamental, inherent "rightness", and I do not.
CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS
Article 33. All persons holding the nationality of the People's Republic of China are citizens of the People's Republic of China. All citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law. Every citizen enjoys the rights and at the same time must perform the duties prescribed by the Constitution and the law.
Article 34. All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited. Article 38. The personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.
Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.
Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.
Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.
And, in case there was any doubt,
AMENDMENT FOUR
...
Article 33 has a third paragraph added: "The State respects and preserves human rights."
Slashdot Mirror
What if your spoon is too big?
I think the last thing Microsoft wants to do right now is to put "lots of bugs == bad" into people's minds.
Sounds like Firefox. Or even Debian (though Debian is a lot more liberal with the use of its trademark.)
You should have fixed the code. But Tanenbaum's approach is to design an OS that is secure against your attempts to fsck up the system. :-)
My totally uninformed guess is that it's freeing a whole bunch of little chunks of memory, and/or calling a huge tree of destructors.
You mean free(3)'d.
I assume you're referring to brk(2) style allocation, in which memory is not freed until a program exits. GNU/Linux doesn't use that (yes, "GNU/Linux". Linux supports brk(2), but GNU libc mostly doesn't use it, IIRC). Instead, it uses mmap(2) to allocate memory, and munmap(2) to return it to the OS.
Well, I don't know about Windows, but on Linux, an application can't deal gracefully with running out of memory unless /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory is set to 2.
Who cares? As far as I know, the protocols are open, so we can create our own implementations. It's far more important to have an open protocol than to have some official-but-binary-only Linux client.
See also: Canada's DNA Identification Act.
They're actors. And that's not real ketchup
Yes, however, the government can covertly get your DNA anyway. Ever dispose of a paper cup? Your DNA is on it, and they have the technology to extract it.
In Canada, the police have the authority to search most DNA-containing material that you dispose of. So that paper cup is fair game (at least if disposed of in a public place). However, since the DNA of anyone who recently touched that cup could be on it, the DNA from the cup itself is not enough to prove in a criminal court that the DNA really belongs to you. However, it is enough (when matched to suspicious DNA at a crime scene) to allow the police to get a warrant to require you to give them a sample of your DNA (typically a blood sample).
Not that any of this discounts your points, but in this discussion I think it might be helpful to know that if the government wants your DNA, they have the technology to get it with reasonably high probability.
What do you think about the nVidia/ATI/various WiFi proprietary interfaces issue?
*Whoosh*
Just try executing any Big Brother tactic when every citizen of your country has arms and knows how to use them.
And that is exactly the problem.
I'm going to automate the process of creating malware. The automation process will be designed specifically to exploit a hole in their classification software, so that it executes arbitrary code that changes the software so that it classifies all MS software as "F1R5T P05T lolol!"
Exi-stance is the stance you make just before you dart for the door trying to avoid an angry mob.
Wait... WHAT???
I take that to mean that elections officials intend to continue using the machines! Are we insane?
Meanwhile, that U.S. National Zeitgeist is forbidden.
The MPAA ratings board, of course!
"Hmm... DeCSS is apparently pornographic..."
Heh. I like to think that maybe, just maybe, a few of them actually took the time to look at RFC 3675.
WTF? Did you just make that up?
Why?
Ah, but they do:
And, in case there was any doubt,
Of course, there's Article 51.
"Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts. Boy, I'm getting mighty sick of this"
*Poof*
"Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts..."