what kind of pansy ass lame fuckwit chooses one or the other? Just sit there knifing your arms until it's hard to describe them as arms anymore. PS: wrists are for asswipes anyway. Ram some knives into your guts and then we'll talk about who's hardcore.
I've never known anyone to not spell it out.. and yet you say "for clarity".. geez, do you really need that extra sixteenth-second it takes to say "G I F" instead of "GIFF"?
Seems it really is a loophole. There's nothing in there that says you need to keep giving someone access to the binaries once they redistribute the source- and if you dont give them access to future releases of your binaries, they dont have any right to the source. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it says that explicitely, in the FAQ if not in the GPL itself- you are not obligated to give source to modifications you make yourself and do not distribute. (the moment you distribute them in any way, though, the GPL kicks in and anyone can request source)
There's nothing pro-microsoft about not buying a mac. They didnt buy everyone leather chairs either, did they? Macs are one company, PCs are many companies, every last PC sale in the world is Apple's own fault for its control over hardware. Or am I wrong? I could be, I'm not exactly in the mac loop, but that's how it was last week.
Again, that paper explains impersonating someone else. Why should the other person exist at all? Can't the "attacker" (if I'm reading this right) send the SYN/ACK blindly themselves, without the "impersonated" host even existing?
but when initiating a connection, I know what my sequence numbers are because I'm sending them. I dont need to know what his sequence numbers are because he doesnt ever ask (does he?)
Whose sequence numbers do I need to guess (and why?)
my real point is that getting them to turn on windows' built-in NAT routing is enough of a challenge (especially noteable now that wireless is so popular- no need for extra cards), they already go out and buy seperate NAT routers. I find it extraordinarily odd that Linksys and the like havent been buying up millions in ads telling people that they need to install firewalls NOW after the more recent nasties. With enough initial advertising, the fear would never go away.
Re:The bottom line
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
yeah, linksys sure would hate for that to happen to its router sales. No company would want to sell four personal firewalls to every home instead of one whole router. Try again.
How are sequence numbers relevent to this? I didnt know anything about them, so I googled for it, read a couple articles, and I still dont know how they are relevant if you initiated the connection in the first place. Sequence number attacks seem to be about taking over someone else's authenticated sessions.. am I wrong?
There are plenty of mature OSS projects, I'm not saying there arent. And all I'm really saying is- Mozilla doesnt yet meet up with all this hype which is suddenly being generated around it, and if we keep telling people "Switch to open source! Use this browser, and this mail client, and everything will be better!", and then they try it and find out they can't actually run a business the way they were before... it's not a nice thing to do.
if you read into that in the slightest, you might have noted that IE is not the only competition. Things like tabbed browsing is achieved substantially better than Mozilla in its competition. (though firefox with the right extentions does a decent if slow job), that is to say- your points are ALL invalid. Every one of them is implimented better in competing browsers. (ezxcept popup blocking, which is arguable as to which is better)
If I found someone who was even fatter, lazier, and stupider than me, I'd probably look great next to him (even if he could run twice as fast)
Well I wasnt specifically talking about IE.. actually, I wasnt specifically talking about browsers. "Not having the exact same bugs as IE" isnt really a good selling point, since it's true of anything at all which doesnt integrate with IE..
"doesnt have this bug!" is not a feature.
Really what I'm talking about is lack of maturity. Maybe, lack of polish. Another way to put it might be that there's polish right now where there isnt anything underneath the polish, and the bits that exist dont have polish on them.
I'm not going to sit here and make a list (really, I dont think I could) but I can't see how anyone can sit down and compare mozilla software with whatever it is trying to copy (yes, copy, not come up with original concepts) and decide that the copy is currently better.
People who modded my original post have apparently never heard of an opinion, glad you seem to have:)
you mean "seeking any evidence at all that someone has had success with their software":)
Am I the only one who thinks OSS shouldnt keep trying to encourage people to put all their money on software which is not yet as good as its closed-source competition?
If your key selling point is "it's open-source", you arent getting anywhere. Wait until you have some really great software instead of (basically) misleading people so that they'll be stuck with your software installed on all their systems and will send bug reports and other feedback because it's easier than re-installing everything again. It's dishonest. There is some great software out there. Mozilla software is potentially mere months away from joining its ranks. Why start building a history of distrust?
please note this doesnt mean hitting play when something is playing shouldnt pause, or hitting pause when something is paused shouldnt play, I was only calling you an idiot.
while a one-button system might work for a device, it does NOT make for good software. You have just demonstrated a very good reason why actual UI designers are an absolute requirement if OSS is going to move forward: even if you try to think of a good UI, and dont write any code at all, you wont know when to stop. You'll create crap. Good UI design doesnt come from the ass, it comes from working with things, talking to others who work with things, and improving apon them. OSS should be perfect for this, but we dont have any place for people to make UI suggestions, and we dont have UI designers who would be able to read, filter, and combine those ideas.
Nobody can come up with a good user interface. Everybody, on the other hand, that's a different story. The trick is finding out how to get everybody. When you're talking about writing code, it's simple enough: It's open-source, send a patch. When you're talking about using the product of that code, it's an entirely different matter: people who send patches probably shouldnt be trusted with their UI suggestions in the first place;)
I'm not talking about forcing anyone about anything, fuckwad. I'm just curious as to why you think it is an okay thing to do. This is a forum, fucking exchange your thoughts and knowledge already.
okay.. I just spider-searched this story for the word "evil" and still dont know where you pulled it. It's quite possible I've missed something, I just dont see "evil" anywhere in that context..
Slashdot Mirror
what kind of pansy ass lame fuckwit chooses one or the other? Just sit there knifing your arms until it's hard to describe them as arms anymore.
PS: wrists are for asswipes anyway. Ram some knives into your guts and then we'll talk about who's hardcore.
replicators don't spread by radio waves, what are you talking about?!!
Didnt I see that on six star trek two outer limits and one stargate episodes?
I've never known anyone to not spell it out.. and yet you say "for clarity".. geez, do you really need that extra sixteenth-second it takes to say "G I F" instead of "GIFF"?
Seems it really is a loophole. There's nothing in there that says you need to keep giving someone access to the binaries once they redistribute the source- and if you dont give them access to future releases of your binaries, they dont have any right to the source. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it says that explicitely, in the FAQ if not in the GPL itself- you are not obligated to give source to modifications you make yourself and do not distribute. (the moment you distribute them in any way, though, the GPL kicks in and anyone can request source)
I challenge you to find someone who would kick you out of their van if you gave the candy to someone else :)
There's nothing pro-microsoft about not buying a mac. They didnt buy everyone leather chairs either, did they? Macs are one company, PCs are many companies, every last PC sale in the world is Apple's own fault for its control over hardware. Or am I wrong? I could be, I'm not exactly in the mac loop, but that's how it was last week.
Again, that paper explains impersonating someone else. Why should the other person exist at all? Can't the "attacker" (if I'm reading this right) send the SYN/ACK blindly themselves, without the "impersonated" host even existing?
though it seems much more likely the poster just doesnt know how to divide, asked mscalc to convert "8" to binary, and then counted the digits.
but when initiating a connection, I know what my sequence numbers are because I'm sending them. I dont need to know what his sequence numbers are because he doesnt ever ask (does he?)
Whose sequence numbers do I need to guess (and why?)
my real point is that getting them to turn on windows' built-in NAT routing is enough of a challenge (especially noteable now that wireless is so popular- no need for extra cards), they already go out and buy seperate NAT routers. I find it extraordinarily odd that Linksys and the like havent been buying up millions in ads telling people that they need to install firewalls NOW after the more recent nasties. With enough initial advertising, the fear would never go away.
yeah, linksys sure would hate for that to happen to its router sales. No company would want to sell four personal firewalls to every home instead of one whole router.
Try again.
How are sequence numbers relevent to this? I didnt know anything about them, so I googled for it, read a couple articles, and I still dont know how they are relevant if you initiated the connection in the first place. Sequence number attacks seem to be about taking over someone else's authenticated sessions.. am I wrong?
good point.. she should also get a huge package.
There are plenty of mature OSS projects, I'm not saying there arent. And all I'm really saying is- Mozilla doesnt yet meet up with all this hype which is suddenly being generated around it, and if we keep telling people "Switch to open source! Use this browser, and this mail client, and everything will be better!", and then they try it and find out they can't actually run a business the way they were before... it's not a nice thing to do.
if you read into that in the slightest, you might have noted that IE is not the only competition. Things like tabbed browsing is achieved substantially better than Mozilla in its competition. (though firefox with the right extentions does a decent if slow job), that is to say- your points are ALL invalid. Every one of them is implimented better in competing browsers. (ezxcept popup blocking, which is arguable as to which is better)
If I found someone who was even fatter, lazier, and stupider than me, I'd probably look great next to him (even if he could run twice as fast)
anyone who thinks the difference between "good" and "bad" can be listed is an idiot.
Well I wasnt specifically talking about IE.. actually, I wasnt specifically talking about browsers. "Not having the exact same bugs as IE" isnt really a good selling point, since it's true of anything at all which doesnt integrate with IE..
:)
"doesnt have this bug!" is not a feature.
Really what I'm talking about is lack of maturity. Maybe, lack of polish. Another way to put it might be that there's polish right now where there isnt anything underneath the polish, and the bits that exist dont have polish on them.
I'm not going to sit here and make a list (really, I dont think I could) but I can't see how anyone can sit down and compare mozilla software with whatever it is trying to copy (yes, copy, not come up with original concepts) and decide that the copy is currently better.
People who modded my original post have apparently never heard of an opinion, glad you seem to have
Where in my post did I mention IE? 'cause really, I can't find it anywhere...
you mean "seeking any evidence at all that someone has had success with their software" :)
Am I the only one who thinks OSS shouldnt keep trying to encourage people to put all their money on software which is not yet as good as its closed-source competition?
If your key selling point is "it's open-source", you arent getting anywhere. Wait until you have some really great software instead of (basically) misleading people so that they'll be stuck with your software installed on all their systems and will send bug reports and other feedback because it's easier than re-installing everything again. It's dishonest.
There is some great software out there. Mozilla software is potentially mere months away from joining its ranks. Why start building a history of distrust?
please note this doesnt mean hitting play when something is playing shouldnt pause, or hitting pause when something is paused shouldnt play, I was only calling you an idiot.
"two things I've seen do this, therefor most do it and it is a good thing", nice logic.
while a one-button system might work for a device, it does NOT make for good software. You have just demonstrated a very good reason why actual UI designers are an absolute requirement if OSS is going to move forward: even if you try to think of a good UI, and dont write any code at all, you wont know when to stop. You'll create crap.
;)
Good UI design doesnt come from the ass, it comes from working with things, talking to others who work with things, and improving apon them. OSS should be perfect for this, but we dont have any place for people to make UI suggestions, and we dont have UI designers who would be able to read, filter, and combine those ideas.
Nobody can come up with a good user interface. Everybody, on the other hand, that's a different story. The trick is finding out how to get everybody.
When you're talking about writing code, it's simple enough: It's open-source, send a patch.
When you're talking about using the product of that code, it's an entirely different matter: people who send patches probably shouldnt be trusted with their UI suggestions in the first place
I'm not talking about forcing anyone about anything, fuckwad. I'm just curious as to why you think it is an okay thing to do. This is a forum, fucking exchange your thoughts and knowledge already.
okay.. I just spider-searched this story for the word "evil" and still dont know where you pulled it. It's quite possible I've missed something, I just dont see "evil" anywhere in that context..