What a ridiculous concept. The security of an infrastructure is far more the people and dedication to keeping on top of issues more than it's the operating system. The recent Solaris/IIS worm took advantage of a year old hole to compromise IIS 5 servers, just as the portmapper/BIND/RPC/POP2/etc. Linux exploits take advantage of ancient (in computer time) and long since fixed holes. Of course it takes a grossly incompetent sysadmin to fall prey to any of these, but unfortunately there are many of those out there.
If there is such a thing as "cracking insurance" (I mean by real insurance firms that aren't just trying to get headlines by making a ridiculous policy) it would be based upon the manpower skills, policies, and possibly the use of outside agents to test the security. The idea that Linux=Secure and NT=Insecure is absurd and simplistic.
the first reason mostly apply to quebec, since the 50-50 result of 1995 referendum, there's a massive propaganda effort on canadian unity and symbolism. just look at the olympics and you'll see that there's even more canadian flags than usa ones! (hey, and we all know how much americans like to "show off") somehow quebec nationalism is bad but canadian nationalism is good. anyway.
Nonsense. Canadian patriotism has been strong in the same subdued sort of way for a long long time. It has nothing to do with Quebec, nor with any subliminal nationalism push. Personally I dislike outward Canadian nationalism because I think it'll lead to a backlash: I cringe when I'm in Europe and I see people with big Canadian flags (though damn it's a beautiful flag) on their backpack because that goes for so long before someone thinks "Who the hell do you think you are? Did you fight on the shores of Normandy? No? Then quit expecting Europeans to bow down to you dickhead." That's just me though. If I had my way I'd have a nationwide "Travelling to other countries? Leave the Canadiana behind because unless you did the shit personally quit expecting to be respected for it."
BTW: Canadian Nationalism and Quebec Nationalism are two very different things. The great pride of Quebec is the language of French (a variant of French that strangely those from France mock) and to many the straight-and-narrow French society culture (i.e. As Parizeau said the "Ethnic" vote is keeping the true white French Quebecor from having the great independant nation of French White Quebecors). Canadian nationalism is a pride in the freedoms and equality of Canada. It's a pride in the multicultural tolerance and truly in the duality of Canada between French Canada and English Canada. It's a pride that despite obstacles of geography we continue to build one of the best societies on Earth for all Canadians. There will be no particular "culture" that is the pride of Canada because to do so would be racist.
BTW2: If anyone is fighting to pretend it's different it's not English Canada (where there are huge differences across the nation anyways. Alberta is completely unlike Ontario which is totally unlike the East Coast): It's Quebec. Quebec is constantly trying to invent itself as a unique society hoping to get accolades by the rest of the world. English Canada says the sky is blue? Well damnit French Canadians will be certain it must be purple. Gotta be different however trivially.
The museum example was entirely bogus because museums are paid for by our money in the first place, and secondly they're non-profit. If Mandrake get out of their financial slump then do you ever expect them to turn around and share their profits with their customers? It'd be cool, but I doubt it.
If the community gave them $10,000 and that paid for several programmers to actually be able to spend their days programming (rather than getting a "real" job), and then Mandrake releases that code under the GPL, then that is what they're giving back.
Personally, I doubt the Microsoft IPv6 stack is even close in quality or readiness to, say, the KAME stack, or the Japanese alternative Linux IPv6 stack.
And this is based upon what information? MS (particularly MS Research) has been working on and readying an IPv6 stack for several years now.
But that's not the point. The point is, this is Microsoft. Never mind it's not an "official" MS site. It's got the Microsoft label on it. All it would take is for one or two major news outlets (besides Slashdot!) to cover this, and IPv6 will be =THE= technology to use. Simply because of the label.
Played right, this could make or break IPv6, as a practical, day-to-day alternative to IPv4, simply because of the value on the sticker.
Huh? Because MS took a GPLd web server and tested it against their IPv6 library and headers that means that IPv6 is going primetime? MS has been doing stuff with IPv6 for a long time and this changes nothing. The only reason this is news is because of the GPL.
IPv6 has a long uphill struggle ahead of it. Mind you we'd all already be using IPv6 if there wasn't a little something called NAT, but since there is the reality is that for 99% of the population IP4 is adequate and works. And when you have that network effect (for example like gasoline and gasoline powered cars) it's extremely hard to overcome.
TV and film look good because the images are naturally blended into each other so this mimics the persistence of vision that occurs when we naturally see things (i.e. your brain may only pull the image x times per second, but that image is a composite of all that was seen in that period of time). If you have a home video camera you'll find that most of them have an "action" setting that switches from this blurred image collection to a static sequential frame type, and you'll find that it looks quite nasty as far as being "realistic". It looks like those old movies where it was very flashy.
Indeed 3dfx (before they died) built the capability to render many scenes into one into their chipset. The idea was that even if it was 60fps, each of those 60fps would have the natural pOV and would "look" much smoother.
There was a whole debate some time back where people were arguing over the limits of what the human eye could see and there were some pretty ridiculous statements. For example some people were claiming that absolutely, positively people could not see over 30 fps (for instance), yet I can tell you my anecdotal evidence that I can absolutely see the difference between Q3 at 60fps, and 100fps, and 120fps. Each increase (with the static Q3 slideshow which is what computers present) feels smoother.
I wish it was open source : I'd fix the bugs myself. Then I could CVS the bug fixes back to them and they can release it to the general public. This would be a much better product if they OSS'd it.
For me to contribute though I would demand that it be released under the GPL license. I have no doubt that they would still do well through tip jars and contributions by thankful individuals.
Re:Some people always want what they don't have ..
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
In general I have found that the popular open source products have above average quality and have many useful features. Having access to the source code is nice, but for me it generally hasn't been needed.
On the other hand, I've found that popular commercial software products tend to have lower than average quality, but are feature rich. For these products, I would love to have the source code so that I could fix the one or two showstoppers that just irritate the f*ck out of me.
I would love to see some metrics on open source code quality because from personal experience I've found the general quality of open source to be lacking. Of course my general anecdotes are no more credible than yours, but I see the exact opposite of what you see.
Indeed sometimes it seems that a lot of software is released under open source in an apologetic manner to try to make lemonade out of lemons: "Ooops, my program is a POS and doesn't do anything good? Well RTFM and scratch your own itch! It's the spirit of open source! Oh and after you fix it give the code back so I can take credit for it.". "Closed Source" software has to make something functional and usable, and there is no fallback of saying that the user should just go in there and fix that code up.
So what if I take GPL'd code (which is EXEC'd in its own memory space and isn't hosted by MTX) and convert it to process memory mapped files and shared memory, and from my main application I read/write to this shared memory to communicate? What if it hosts a socket port and processes that way?
This troll has been answered many times over in this discussion. In short: an application that is running on Linux is utilizing kernel system calls and glibc, neither of which is licensed under the plain vanilla GPL. If you want to know the details, read some of the replies to the other trolls.
Generally the reply is "Uh, don't you worry about it. Your software doesn't have to be under the GPL...for now...". http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html : Please point out the special wording that says "Oh, but don't worry...it's not really under the GPL...". Whatever.
It's interesting that you call that natural conclusions of the various possible outcomes "FUD" (a word that much like troll refers to whatever is of the opposing view) when in reality they would indeed be the logical conclusions.
If Vivendi is forced to release their code then yes: If you use GPLd software you lose your IP (oh, wait...you can make money on distribution and service...bwahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaaha).
Definition : Troll - Anything that puts forth an argument that I or my cadre of cohorts disagree with i.e. Someone advocating that religious persecution is heinous would be a troll in Nazi Germany.
You can utilize GPL'd applications, you just can't directly link to it. This isn't a moral issue, it's a licensing issue, please don't make it more than it is.
Define "directly link". A DLL is dynamically loaded at runtime (it isn't linked at compile time), and while it is loaded and runs in the common memory space of the host application you could just as easily (about a 20 second job for most functional applications that don't used shared memory. A little more if you're using shared memory) separate it to an out-of-process COM server that communicates via COM stubs. You could just as easily stub it out to work via a HTTP server through SOAP and XML.
The FSF and GPL fanatics like to keep their options open so they can "enforce" the GPL only so far that they don't offend people who are a little smarter than accepting the viral conditions and religion of the GPL, but they keep their options open in the future. If they can effectively attack a DLL then there is nothing stopping them from imposing the same conditions on functionality called through a HTTP layer (despite the semantics it's the same bloody thing). I would love to see technical specifics dictating what is and what isn't covered under the GPL.
the rest of your post is so troll-like it's not worth my time. A little common sense would do you some good
Pot-Kettle-Black. The problem is that perhaps I have a little too much common sense so I can see past narrow interpretations that serve a movement at a time. If a DLL is open to attack then there is nothing but myopic people who can't understand parallels stopping them from going after anything that remotely utilizes GPL'd code.
I wouldn't have any problem with a company taking and using my code, it's simply a license issue, if you don't like the license that code comes with, roll your own, don't whine and bitch about how you really want to use that code but the license it comes with is SOOOOO UNFAIR.
No it isn't unfair, however it's viral and this is something that so many in the movement fail to acknowledge. Sure, come on in, enjoy yourself...oh by the way we own your soul. The point is that given the very loose definitions defined by the GPL (note that I've heard that theoretically everything that runs on Linux has to be GPLd but for the fact that Linus has unilaterally stated that that is not so) it is incredibly dangerous for any company to touch anything GPLd with a 200 foot pole.
If however like me, you prefer to preserve your code as open and the source code available to normal users, you use the GPL
This is classic open source FUD. If someone utilizes some parts of open source code in a proprietary, commercial, $1,000,000 / copy piece of software, in no way does that limit or subvert the original open source code (it's still just as free as it originally was). If I release a BSD-License MPEG compressor and Microsoft uses parts of it in Media Player 9, that doesn't make my code disappear. Indeed, as many open source fanatics as want to can make competitors to the MS product with the same code, and this naturally means that the effective ability to charge in a commercial product is limited by marketing, and by the value-added put in by Microsoft, or whatever vendor happened to integrate open source code.
you know, no one forces you to use GPL'd code. No one is preventing you from rolling your own. I personally like the nature of the GPL, it means that I can release my code for free (speech) and have assurance that my gift to the community won't be taken by some company and sold as a proprietary piece of software. and above all
Any application that is running on Linux is utilizing the work of GPLd code, therefore should only GPLd code be legal to run on Linux? If you say no then tell me why: I'd love to hear the definition of what is acceptable use and what is not. It seems to me that acceptable use is whatever will get the FSF and the GPL in the door, at which point the rules change. IBM, Sun, Oracle: They're all idiotic to go near Linux or GPLd code with a 200 foot pole.
my gift to the community won't be taken by some company
This is the funniest irony of the GPL community: Somehow if someone uses GPLd code they have "stolen" it (despite the fact that their use of it in no way inhibits its freedom and accessibility), yet GPL fanatics will be the first to tell you that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property and that the etherial nature of code makes it free for the taking.
In other news I am hardly surprized to see my parent post modded to Troll. How very surprizing. This whole GPL (I will not say OSS as the BSD license is respectable and BSD developers are truly selfless) is such a sham. The talking heads on top, raking in the rewards (incl. fame) for the movement, change their tune all the time to insidiously infect the world with their religion. It's a real sucker that doesn't see through it.
Again if I use a function in a library (which itself may be opensource), how does that differ from making a SOAP call to a GPLd web server? Would the SOAP call, and the fact that my code "relies" upon that code, require me to GPL my code? What if NASDAQ put up a stock quote server that was running on a GPLd web server : Would every single application that connects to it need to be released under the GPL under threat from the "free" (but harbouring lots of lawyers) FSF? I have no doubt the GPL hoardes will say "no of course not!" but it's only to make the GPL palatable.
I'm not a big fan of PC Anywhere (nice program but man did it cause a lot of system faults [as it hooks into the video driver/GDI], not to mention that the scripting was seriously broken in several ways), though I've had fantastic success with Netmeeting : It's fast and VERY reliable. However there's virtually no reason to ever need the GUI to administer 2000 : Close to everything is accessible via remote management tools that while providing a nice GUI communicate over a small pipe commands.
I think most Linux users are still suffering flashbacks from the Win95/98 era where crashes were quite common. Windows 2000 (and NT 4 for that matter) are extremely stable, but I doubt many Linux hackers have tried them for any length of time
Agreed, and there is some logic to that given that most home machines ship with Windows Me rather than the astronomically more reliable (secure, capable, etc. etc. etc) Windows 2000. However it is the Linux community that foolishly jumps to cast all "Windoze" under one umbrella, despite the fact that they differ so incredibly.
Having said that I completely understand the direction MS has taken (sustaining backwards compatability while moving forward), and truly it is genius. It's easy to say "Scrap everything and start anew" (I'm sure there are lots of people looking at Linux, which has evolved to have warts and the trappings of a real world system, who express the same desire to scrap it all and start fresh), but when people want to be able to use old hardware and run old programs, compromises have to be made. And along the line MS pushed new abstracted interfaces like DirectX and now they are at a position where they can transition the home market to Windows XP. It should be interesting.
Funny, my wife insisted that I install Linux to both boxes because she's bloody well tired of the crashes, lockups, lost data, and corruption within the system. I took too long to do the second box (the nice one, that I use for games and she uses for everything) so she set up a dual-boot herself (so I can still play my games).
I married the perfect woman.;-)
This is too easy....is your wife one of the palm sisters? Is she a voice in your head?
My wife has never encountered a crash, "corruption within the system", lockups, or lost data. Well Sanitarium went in a perpetual loop once (though of course Linux would have magically fixed that third party code right?), but any rational person realizes that their is no such thing as a perfect complex system. She hasn't encountered crashes because previously she worked on NT 4, and now Windows 2000. Amazing how most Linux fanatics with their anecdotes and poor system configuration abilities fail to be able to hodge together their 386 with 70ns EDO SIMM DRAM into a workable reliable configuration, though their anecdotes about the unreliability of NT 4/2000 are held up as proof of something.
At work I've been able to get some of our MCSE Gates clones to switch to Linux and Gnome using Mandrake. They tried RedHat but complained about it being too difficult. I hope Mandrake can solve their problems and get some product on the shelf, and developers on the keyboards soon.
I have a couple of Linus fans at work and I've tried to convince them to use and program for Windows 2000, but everytime they throw up their hands: "This ATL is too hard! COM is too hard! MTS gives me a headache! ISAPI modules are too difficult for me to comprehend! ActiveDirectory is too complex!" Eventually, after spouting anti-MS rhetoric to whoever would listen (to justify their failures) they rebooted their Linux which they could understand easier. I suppose they just couldn't handle the hard world of Windows. I plan on trying again in a couple of years.
Please tell us how you were able to determine that the cause of the glitch wasn't a hardware problem.
Because he's a super 31337 Linux programmer and he is well aware of how horrible M$ programmers are. All Linux programmers are of impeccable credentials and they produce code of utmost quality (not only is it hyper-optimized and with 0 defects, but it also manages to fix faults in third party software too!). All M$ programmers are losers who don't know how to program and whose code defect rate is horrible.
At least that's what I've learned on Slashdot. Surely it's true though right?
Overclocking is an end in itself. There's not much to be gained that can't be gained through a few bucks well spent, particularly if you factor in the overhead that is involved when setting up that water cooling rig. Extra parts, setup time, hardware failure when screwups happen(not to mention shortened hardware lifespan and bye bye warranty). The same can be said for monitoring the cooling system designed for this purpose. Trollish as it may sound, overclocking doesn't get you anywhere and is a waste of time.
Well obviously for a lot of people who don't go to quite the lengths (i.e. building water cooling and such) overclocking can be a great way to increase get performance for nothing. Two years ago (or thereabouts) I got a Celeron 300 (with the 128KB L2 cache) and by just covering a couple of pins (boosting the voltage to 2.2v) and pushing the bus speed to 100Mhz, instantly I had a 450Mhz processor (when at the time Pentium II 450s were about 4x+ more expensive) : This processor is still going strong in my firewall today. No cost to me but for a couple of minutes of tape cutting, and I derived 50% greater performance.
However for the people who go all out with case mods and cooling systems, I think the actual performance is on the bottom of the motivational reasons list. Just simply doing the project and having fun while discussing it with friends and people who share a common interest is the motivator.
Re:Commercial software: A drain on the world econo
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
The simple fact that you fail to understand that software, or the flow and execution of instrucitons has ___ZERO___ difference from the design of a microprocessor proves that your opinion is valueless. The design of a microprocessor _IS_ software. How absolutely hilarious.
Do you people have Linus tatooed on your foreheads? This absolute IRONY (and it is ironic hearing you idiots defending the IP of the design of a microprocessor, but on the other side of your mouth saying that the same IP is valueless in software) is astounding. The sad thing is that I respect Linus, and I will wager that he is absolutely ashamed by the people who hold him up as their prophet.
Re:Commercial software: A drain on the world econo
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
Nah the software industry isn't going anywhere, and that is evident in the fact that the adoption rate of Linux is regressing on the desktop space.
While Linux and the fanaticism around it has the makings of a cult minus the castration (then again who knows...), what I was moreso saying was the name brand recognition that these folks are building for themselves in lieu of cash (and it is convertable to cash. I'll bet you Transmeta paid big $ to have Linus on the staff). Why did Linus name a UNIX ripoff after himself? Why does ESR put out paper after paper saying the same thing (BTW: It's funny how people read different things into these things. I read TC&TB from ESR and I see a paper about a guy talking about how he did this and he did that, but somehow others use this as some sort of proof of the benefits of OSS....)? Why do these "gurus" run to publish anti-MS papers emblazoned with their name? Because it's barely about giving at all or selflessness at all.
As I've said before I do respect the BSD people a lot more, because most of them seem to have real lives and they actually selflessly contribute. Who cares if MS uses the sockets (though it's amazing how many idiots don't understand the difference between Berkley sockets the programming API and the TCP/IP stack of BSD): That's giving. You won't find that sort of giving with Stallman and friends though. For them it's their way or the highway, and non-free software is evil (uhhh, no wait now they're pretending that the GPL and for-a-fee software is somehow compatible...if you believe that I have a Statue of Liberty I can sell you), and they make sure you know their names.
Microsoft hasn't put out great code since (probably) the 4k BASIC interpreter (and I hear it *was* good code).
Microsoft has put out lots of great code. Microsoft has a lot of the best programmers in the industry working for them (and I'll bet you >25% of professional OSS advocates have one or more MS Press book on code quality, project leadership, GUI design, etc. Amazing how given the supposed poor quality of MS code these fly off the shelves), and these people have put out a lot of extraordinary software (not all of it, but a lot of it). Fanatics won't see it that way though because nothing MS puts out could be worthy of the great standards of ESR or Stallman.
Slashdot Mirror
What a ridiculous concept. The security of an infrastructure is far more the people and dedication to keeping on top of issues more than it's the operating system. The recent Solaris/IIS worm took advantage of a year old hole to compromise IIS 5 servers, just as the portmapper/BIND/RPC/POP2/etc. Linux exploits take advantage of ancient (in computer time) and long since fixed holes. Of course it takes a grossly incompetent sysadmin to fall prey to any of these, but unfortunately there are many of those out there.
If there is such a thing as "cracking insurance" (I mean by real insurance firms that aren't just trying to get headlines by making a ridiculous policy) it would be based upon the manpower skills, policies, and possibly the use of outside agents to test the security. The idea that Linux=Secure and NT=Insecure is absurd and simplistic.
the first reason mostly apply to quebec, since the 50-50 result of 1995 referendum, there's a massive propaganda effort on canadian unity and symbolism. just look at the olympics and you'll see that there's even more canadian flags than usa ones! (hey, and we all know how much americans like to "show off") somehow quebec nationalism is bad but canadian nationalism is good. anyway.
Nonsense. Canadian patriotism has been strong in the same subdued sort of way for a long long time. It has nothing to do with Quebec, nor with any subliminal nationalism push. Personally I dislike outward Canadian nationalism because I think it'll lead to a backlash: I cringe when I'm in Europe and I see people with big Canadian flags (though damn it's a beautiful flag) on their backpack because that goes for so long before someone thinks "Who the hell do you think you are? Did you fight on the shores of Normandy? No? Then quit expecting Europeans to bow down to you dickhead." That's just me though. If I had my way I'd have a nationwide "Travelling to other countries? Leave the Canadiana behind because unless you did the shit personally quit expecting to be respected for it."
BTW: Canadian Nationalism and Quebec Nationalism are two very different things. The great pride of Quebec is the language of French (a variant of French that strangely those from France mock) and to many the straight-and-narrow French society culture (i.e. As Parizeau said the "Ethnic" vote is keeping the true white French Quebecor from having the great independant nation of French White Quebecors). Canadian nationalism is a pride in the freedoms and equality of Canada. It's a pride in the multicultural tolerance and truly in the duality of Canada between French Canada and English Canada. It's a pride that despite obstacles of geography we continue to build one of the best societies on Earth for all Canadians. There will be no particular "culture" that is the pride of Canada because to do so would be racist.
BTW2: If anyone is fighting to pretend it's different it's not English Canada (where there are huge differences across the nation anyways. Alberta is completely unlike Ontario which is totally unlike the East Coast): It's Quebec. Quebec is constantly trying to invent itself as a unique society hoping to get accolades by the rest of the world. English Canada says the sky is blue? Well damnit French Canadians will be certain it must be purple. Gotta be different however trivially.
Totally off-topic but thank you for the proportional representation link. I absolutely agree with that campaign.
Cheers!
The museum example was entirely bogus because museums are paid for by our money in the first place, and secondly they're non-profit. If Mandrake get out of their financial slump then do you ever expect them to turn around and share their profits with their customers? It'd be cool, but I doubt it.
If the community gave them $10,000 and that paid for several programmers to actually be able to spend their days programming (rather than getting a "real" job), and then Mandrake releases that code under the GPL, then that is what they're giving back.
Personally, I doubt the Microsoft IPv6 stack is even close in quality or readiness to, say, the KAME stack, or the Japanese alternative Linux IPv6 stack.
And this is based upon what information? MS (particularly MS Research) has been working on and readying an IPv6 stack for several years now.
But that's not the point. The point is, this is Microsoft. Never mind it's not an "official" MS site. It's got the Microsoft label on it. All it would take is for one or two major news outlets (besides Slashdot!) to cover this, and IPv6 will be =THE= technology to use. Simply because of the label.
Played right, this could make or break IPv6, as a practical, day-to-day alternative to IPv4, simply because of the value on the sticker.
Huh? Because MS took a GPLd web server and tested it against their IPv6 library and headers that means that IPv6 is going primetime? MS has been doing stuff with IPv6 for a long time and this changes nothing. The only reason this is news is because of the GPL.
IPv6 has a long uphill struggle ahead of it. Mind you we'd all already be using IPv6 if there wasn't a little something called NAT, but since there is the reality is that for 99% of the population IP4 is adequate and works. And when you have that network effect (for example like gasoline and gasoline powered cars) it's extremely hard to overcome.
TV and film look good because the images are naturally blended into each other so this mimics the persistence of vision that occurs when we naturally see things (i.e. your brain may only pull the image x times per second, but that image is a composite of all that was seen in that period of time). If you have a home video camera you'll find that most of them have an "action" setting that switches from this blurred image collection to a static sequential frame type, and you'll find that it looks quite nasty as far as being "realistic". It looks like those old movies where it was very flashy.
Indeed 3dfx (before they died) built the capability to render many scenes into one into their chipset. The idea was that even if it was 60fps, each of those 60fps would have the natural pOV and would "look" much smoother.
There was a whole debate some time back where people were arguing over the limits of what the human eye could see and there were some pretty ridiculous statements. For example some people were claiming that absolutely, positively people could not see over 30 fps (for instance), yet I can tell you my anecdotal evidence that I can absolutely see the difference between Q3 at 60fps, and 100fps, and 120fps. Each increase (with the static Q3 slideshow which is what computers present) feels smoother.
I wish it was open source : I'd fix the bugs myself. Then I could CVS the bug fixes back to them and they can release it to the general public. This would be a much better product if they OSS'd it.
For me to contribute though I would demand that it be released under the GPL license. I have no doubt that they would still do well through tip jars and contributions by thankful individuals.
In general I have found that the popular open source products have above average quality and have many useful features. Having access to the source code is nice, but for me it generally hasn't been needed.
On the other hand, I've found that popular commercial software products tend to have lower than average quality, but are feature rich. For these products, I would love to have the source code so that I could fix the one or two showstoppers that just irritate the f*ck out of me.
I would love to see some metrics on open source code quality because from personal experience I've found the general quality of open source to be lacking. Of course my general anecdotes are no more credible than yours, but I see the exact opposite of what you see.
Indeed sometimes it seems that a lot of software is released under open source in an apologetic manner to try to make lemonade out of lemons: "Ooops, my program is a POS and doesn't do anything good? Well RTFM and scratch your own itch! It's the spirit of open source! Oh and after you fix it give the code back so I can take credit for it.". "Closed Source" software has to make something functional and usable, and there is no fallback of saying that the user should just go in there and fix that code up.
How ridiculous a set of rules.
So what if I take GPL'd code (which is EXEC'd in its own memory space and isn't hosted by MTX) and convert it to process memory mapped files and shared memory, and from my main application I read/write to this shared memory to communicate? What if it hosts a socket port and processes that way?
This troll has been answered many times over in this discussion. In short: an application that is running on Linux is utilizing kernel system calls and glibc, neither of which is licensed under the plain vanilla GPL. If you want to know the details, read some of the replies to the other trolls.
Generally the reply is "Uh, don't you worry about it. Your software doesn't have to be under the GPL...for now...". http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html : Please point out the special wording that says "Oh, but don't worry...it's not really under the GPL...". Whatever.
It's interesting that you call that natural conclusions of the various possible outcomes "FUD" (a word that much like troll refers to whatever is of the opposing view) when in reality they would indeed be the logical conclusions.
If Vivendi is forced to release their code then yes: If you use GPLd software you lose your IP (oh, wait...you can make money on distribution and service...bwahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaaha).
Definition : Troll - Anything that puts forth an argument that I or my cadre of cohorts disagree with i.e. Someone advocating that religious persecution is heinous would be a troll in Nazi Germany.
You can utilize GPL'd applications, you just can't directly link to it. This isn't a moral issue, it's a licensing issue, please don't make it more than it is.
Define "directly link". A DLL is dynamically loaded at runtime (it isn't linked at compile time), and while it is loaded and runs in the common memory space of the host application you could just as easily (about a 20 second job for most functional applications that don't used shared memory. A little more if you're using shared memory) separate it to an out-of-process COM server that communicates via COM stubs. You could just as easily stub it out to work via a HTTP server through SOAP and XML.
The FSF and GPL fanatics like to keep their options open so they can "enforce" the GPL only so far that they don't offend people who are a little smarter than accepting the viral conditions and religion of the GPL, but they keep their options open in the future. If they can effectively attack a DLL then there is nothing stopping them from imposing the same conditions on functionality called through a HTTP layer (despite the semantics it's the same bloody thing). I would love to see technical specifics dictating what is and what isn't covered under the GPL.
the rest of your post is so troll-like it's not worth my time. A little common sense would do you some good
Pot-Kettle-Black. The problem is that perhaps I have a little too much common sense so I can see past narrow interpretations that serve a movement at a time. If a DLL is open to attack then there is nothing but myopic people who can't understand parallels stopping them from going after anything that remotely utilizes GPL'd code.
I wouldn't have any problem with a company taking and using my code, it's simply a license issue, if you don't like the license that code comes with, roll your own, don't whine and bitch about how you really want to use that code but the license it comes with is SOOOOO UNFAIR.
No it isn't unfair, however it's viral and this is something that so many in the movement fail to acknowledge. Sure, come on in, enjoy yourself...oh by the way we own your soul. The point is that given the very loose definitions defined by the GPL (note that I've heard that theoretically everything that runs on Linux has to be GPLd but for the fact that Linus has unilaterally stated that that is not so) it is incredibly dangerous for any company to touch anything GPLd with a 200 foot pole.
If however like me, you prefer to preserve your code as open and the source code available to normal users, you use the GPL
This is classic open source FUD. If someone utilizes some parts of open source code in a proprietary, commercial, $1,000,000 / copy piece of software, in no way does that limit or subvert the original open source code (it's still just as free as it originally was). If I release a BSD-License MPEG compressor and Microsoft uses parts of it in Media Player 9, that doesn't make my code disappear. Indeed, as many open source fanatics as want to can make competitors to the MS product with the same code, and this naturally means that the effective ability to charge in a commercial product is limited by marketing, and by the value-added put in by Microsoft, or whatever vendor happened to integrate open source code.
you know, no one forces you to use GPL'd code. No one is preventing you from rolling your own. I personally like the nature of the GPL, it means that I can release my code for free (speech) and have assurance that my gift to the community won't be taken by some company and sold as a proprietary piece of software. and above all
Any application that is running on Linux is utilizing the work of GPLd code, therefore should only GPLd code be legal to run on Linux? If you say no then tell me why: I'd love to hear the definition of what is acceptable use and what is not. It seems to me that acceptable use is whatever will get the FSF and the GPL in the door, at which point the rules change. IBM, Sun, Oracle: They're all idiotic to go near Linux or GPLd code with a 200 foot pole.
my gift to the community won't be taken by some company
This is the funniest irony of the GPL community: Somehow if someone uses GPLd code they have "stolen" it (despite the fact that their use of it in no way inhibits its freedom and accessibility), yet GPL fanatics will be the first to tell you that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property and that the etherial nature of code makes it free for the taking.
In other news I am hardly surprized to see my parent post modded to Troll. How very surprizing. This whole GPL (I will not say OSS as the BSD license is respectable and BSD developers are truly selfless) is such a sham. The talking heads on top, raking in the rewards (incl. fame) for the movement, change their tune all the time to insidiously infect the world with their religion. It's a real sucker that doesn't see through it.
Again if I use a function in a library (which itself may be opensource), how does that differ from making a SOAP call to a GPLd web server? Would the SOAP call, and the fact that my code "relies" upon that code, require me to GPL my code? What if NASDAQ put up a stock quote server that was running on a GPLd web server : Would every single application that connects to it need to be released under the GPL under threat from the "free" (but harbouring lots of lawyers) FSF? I have no doubt the GPL hoardes will say "no of course not!" but it's only to make the GPL palatable.
My wife concluded that you must be around thirteen years of age. Max
Whoa! Zinger! Ouch! Touche! My feelings have been hurt.
Well my wife says that you are a stinky and have cooties! (is it kooties or cooties?).
I'm not a big fan of PC Anywhere (nice program but man did it cause a lot of system faults [as it hooks into the video driver/GDI], not to mention that the scripting was seriously broken in several ways), though I've had fantastic success with Netmeeting : It's fast and VERY reliable. However there's virtually no reason to ever need the GUI to administer 2000 : Close to everything is accessible via remote management tools that while providing a nice GUI communicate over a small pipe commands.
I think most Linux users are still suffering flashbacks from the Win95/98 era where crashes were quite common. Windows 2000 (and NT 4 for that matter) are extremely stable, but I doubt many Linux hackers have tried them for any length of time
Agreed, and there is some logic to that given that most home machines ship with Windows Me rather than the astronomically more reliable (secure, capable, etc. etc. etc) Windows 2000. However it is the Linux community that foolishly jumps to cast all "Windoze" under one umbrella, despite the fact that they differ so incredibly.
Having said that I completely understand the direction MS has taken (sustaining backwards compatability while moving forward), and truly it is genius. It's easy to say "Scrap everything and start anew" (I'm sure there are lots of people looking at Linux, which has evolved to have warts and the trappings of a real world system, who express the same desire to scrap it all and start fresh), but when people want to be able to use old hardware and run old programs, compromises have to be made. And along the line MS pushed new abstracted interfaces like DirectX and now they are at a position where they can transition the home market to Windows XP. It should be interesting.
Funny, my wife insisted that I install Linux to both boxes because she's bloody well tired of the crashes, lockups, lost data, and corruption within the system. I took too long to do the second box (the nice one, that I use for games and she uses for everything) so she set up a dual-boot herself (so I can still play my games).
;-)
I married the perfect woman.
This is too easy....is your wife one of the palm sisters? Is she a voice in your head?
My wife has never encountered a crash, "corruption within the system", lockups, or lost data. Well Sanitarium went in a perpetual loop once (though of course Linux would have magically fixed that third party code right?), but any rational person realizes that their is no such thing as a perfect complex system. She hasn't encountered crashes because previously she worked on NT 4, and now Windows 2000. Amazing how most Linux fanatics with their anecdotes and poor system configuration abilities fail to be able to hodge together their 386 with 70ns EDO SIMM DRAM into a workable reliable configuration, though their anecdotes about the unreliability of NT 4/2000 are held up as proof of something.
Geesh, what are you blaming me for?
(yes it's a joke. Ha ha.)
At work I've been able to get some of our MCSE Gates clones to switch to Linux and Gnome using Mandrake. They tried RedHat but complained about it being too difficult. I hope Mandrake can solve their problems and get some product on the shelf, and developers on the keyboards soon.
I have a couple of Linus fans at work and I've tried to convince them to use and program for Windows 2000, but everytime they throw up their hands: "This ATL is too hard! COM is too hard! MTS gives me a headache! ISAPI modules are too difficult for me to comprehend! ActiveDirectory is too complex!" Eventually, after spouting anti-MS rhetoric to whoever would listen (to justify their failures) they rebooted their Linux which they could understand easier. I suppose they just couldn't handle the hard world of Windows. I plan on trying again in a couple of years.
Please tell us how you were able to determine that the cause of the glitch wasn't a hardware problem.
Because he's a super 31337 Linux programmer and he is well aware of how horrible M$ programmers are. All Linux programmers are of impeccable credentials and they produce code of utmost quality (not only is it hyper-optimized and with 0 defects, but it also manages to fix faults in third party software too!). All M$ programmers are losers who don't know how to program and whose code defect rate is horrible.
At least that's what I've learned on Slashdot. Surely it's true though right?
Overclocking is an end in itself. There's not much to be gained that can't be gained through a few bucks well spent, particularly if you factor in the overhead that is involved when setting up that water cooling rig. Extra parts, setup time, hardware failure when screwups happen(not to mention shortened hardware lifespan and bye bye warranty). The same can be said for monitoring the cooling system designed for this purpose. Trollish as it may sound, overclocking doesn't get you anywhere and is a waste of time.
Well obviously for a lot of people who don't go to quite the lengths (i.e. building water cooling and such) overclocking can be a great way to increase get performance for nothing. Two years ago (or thereabouts) I got a Celeron 300 (with the 128KB L2 cache) and by just covering a couple of pins (boosting the voltage to 2.2v) and pushing the bus speed to 100Mhz, instantly I had a 450Mhz processor (when at the time Pentium II 450s were about 4x+ more expensive) : This processor is still going strong in my firewall today. No cost to me but for a couple of minutes of tape cutting, and I derived 50% greater performance.
However for the people who go all out with case mods and cooling systems, I think the actual performance is on the bottom of the motivational reasons list. Just simply doing the project and having fun while discussing it with friends and people who share a common interest is the motivator.
The simple fact that you fail to understand that software, or the flow and execution of instrucitons has ___ZERO___ difference from the design of a microprocessor proves that your opinion is valueless. The design of a microprocessor _IS_ software. How absolutely hilarious.
Do you people have Linus tatooed on your foreheads? This absolute IRONY (and it is ironic hearing you idiots defending the IP of the design of a microprocessor, but on the other side of your mouth saying that the same IP is valueless in software) is astounding. The sad thing is that I respect Linus, and I will wager that he is absolutely ashamed by the people who hold him up as their prophet.
Nah the software industry isn't going anywhere, and that is evident in the fact that the adoption rate of Linux is regressing on the desktop space.
While Linux and the fanaticism around it has the makings of a cult minus the castration (then again who knows...), what I was moreso saying was the name brand recognition that these folks are building for themselves in lieu of cash (and it is convertable to cash. I'll bet you Transmeta paid big $ to have Linus on the staff). Why did Linus name a UNIX ripoff after himself? Why does ESR put out paper after paper saying the same thing (BTW: It's funny how people read different things into these things. I read TC&TB from ESR and I see a paper about a guy talking about how he did this and he did that, but somehow others use this as some sort of proof of the benefits of OSS....)? Why do these "gurus" run to publish anti-MS papers emblazoned with their name? Because it's barely about giving at all or selflessness at all.
As I've said before I do respect the BSD people a lot more, because most of them seem to have real lives and they actually selflessly contribute. Who cares if MS uses the sockets (though it's amazing how many idiots don't understand the difference between Berkley sockets the programming API and the TCP/IP stack of BSD): That's giving. You won't find that sort of giving with Stallman and friends though. For them it's their way or the highway, and non-free software is evil (uhhh, no wait now they're pretending that the GPL and for-a-fee software is somehow compatible...if you believe that I have a Statue of Liberty I can sell you), and they make sure you know their names.
Microsoft hasn't put out great code since (probably) the 4k BASIC interpreter (and I hear it *was* good code).
Microsoft has put out lots of great code. Microsoft has a lot of the best programmers in the industry working for them (and I'll bet you >25% of professional OSS advocates have one or more MS Press book on code quality, project leadership, GUI design, etc. Amazing how given the supposed poor quality of MS code these fly off the shelves), and these people have put out a lot of extraordinary software (not all of it, but a lot of it). Fanatics won't see it that way though because nothing MS puts out could be worthy of the great standards of ESR or Stallman.