Important: Cisco just published this advisory....
on
Code Red Refunds?
·
· Score: 1
Cisco just published the an advisory regarding the modem defect. (Note that (a) this comes long after the fact, and (b) Cisco doesn't provide a link to the updated firmware; it merely mentions its existence. To get the update, customers will have to go through - ugh! - Qwest again.)
I just tried to post the advisory here, but Slashdot's software -- in its infinite wisdom -- rejected it with the message "junk character post" (perhaps it was sensitive to the boxes drawn with text characters). So, go to http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-cbos-we bserver-pub.shtml to see it.
Did you say "the TCP buffer fills up and crashes the OS?" Hmmm. This might mean that one can exploit the buffer overflow to do fun things with the router. If so, it might get Cisco to release a version of its CBOS that isn't crashable, which would be a real long term solution to the problem.
I helped quite a few Qwest customers get back online after the worm knocked them off the Net repeatedly, so I can speak with confidence about the cause of the problem. First, Qwest did not update the firmware in users' Cisco DSL modems to the latest version, which was more resistant to the worm. Second, it did not configure those modems to disable the Web interface, which is a serious security risk. Finally, when users' modems began to fail, Qwest did not supply complete information on how to fix the problem for several days... and when it finally did update the information, many users with crashing modems could not see it because it was on the Web! Cisco shares a bit of the blame in that it produced the susceptible modems, but for the most part, the fault lies with Qwest, which believes that it does not have to care because it has a well-cemented monopoly in virtually all of its 14-state territory.
The OSI should not continue its attempts to "force fit" the GPL, and the FSF, into the category of "open source." They don't fit, and it is time to quit trying to pretend that they can.
"Open source" is pro-business. But Richard Stallman's mission is to destroy all commercial software businesses. It has been ever since he developed a grudge against them, and began raving that they were "evil," many years ago. (The story of how this happened is well documented in Steven Levy's book Hackers.)
The GPL also violates at least two and probably three points of the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against a group of people (commercial programmers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software). It is also viral. Attempting to deny that it violates the definition, and labeling the GPL as an "open source" license, hurts the Open Source Initiative's credibility. It appears to be violating its own principles so as to hitch a ride on the Linux bandwagon (Linux is, after all, GPLed.) To be true to its written principles, the OSI must quit attempting to call the GPL an "open source" license.
Richard Stallman, Bradley Kuhn, and the FSF itself say that the GPL is not an "open source" license. What better people to make this decision than the author of the license and the head of the group that attempts to foist it upon others? By attempting to include a license whose authors explicitly do not want it included, the OSI again weakens its ethical position.
The OSI has, at this juncture, the opportunity to be ethical and to oppose discriminatory licenses such as the GPL. Only by doing so will it stay true to its claimed principles. A split will not weaken that movement; there is still a great deal of truly free software, such as the BSDs, which is unencumbered by the GPL and is truly business-friendly. Only by attempting to include the GPL -- against the author's wishes and the OSI's own principles -- can it lose.
The ideology expressed by Mr. Stallman and Mr. Kuhn, alas, is that the "evil" of commercial software (which they call "proprietary" software even though this is a misuse of the word) is so terrible that it warrants the confiscation of authors' work. This is what the GPL does.
The GPL uses force (the force of copyright laws and the government) to coerce someone who creates enhancements -- perhaps very valuable enhancements -- to publicly available code to give those enhancements away without any hope of being rewarded for their true value. (Yes, it is occasionally possible to secure a job in which one is paid, by the hour, for enhancing GPLed code. But the few authors who are able to get such jobs -- and there will never be many, because financing the creation of GPLed code has not proven to be a viable business strategy -- author is not compensated according to the value of his work, but rather by the hour. Usually as an employee of a large, faceless corporation.
Richard Stallman notes, in The GNU Manifesto, that one of the explicit purposes of the GPL is to reduce programmers to, at best, the status of wage slaves. There's no prospect of being well rewarded for a "truly righteous hack." At best, there's a paycheck -- and, according to the same document, a key goal of the GPL is to reduce the size of that paycheck.
Is this freedom? Common sense dictates that it is not.
I've worked with quite a few people with dyslexia and also with visual impairments that slow reading(e.g problems with motor control and accommodation that make it difficult for the reader to return his or her eyes to the beginning of the next line).
While it appears that some rude idiiots here on Slashdot would like to portray you and other people who have such problems as mentally impaired, it just ain't necessarily so. I've worked with several who are clearly brilliant -- perhaps even genius-level.
Those who rent these e-books should, by law, make an accommodation for you. Though they may not be in business long enough for this to happen. The market rejected DivX and will probably reject time-limited books as well.
Everyone experiences a movie in the same amount of time. But readers read at all different speeds. And it's wonderful to savor a book... read particularly good passages over a few times... refer back to the book later. In short, one of the greatest virtues of books is that they are not time-limited.
Many people who
have dyslexia, learning disabilities, or impaired vision might not
be able to read the book as quickly as those with normal vision,
reading speed, and reading comprehension. Also, what about the blind?
Few screen readers can talk as fast as a normal reader can scan a
book. This could be considered to be discrimination under the ADA.
Interesting thing about Dolby's letter: It claims that Dolby wants to sue NetBSD for having a link on its Web site to the URL of a README file! Not the code, but merely the README. Linking should not be illegal in any case (the EFF is pressing this issue on behalf of Eric Corley and 2600 now), but especially to a piece of text.
Also note that the README file in question, at http://www.jp.netbsd.org/ja/JP/Documentation/Packa ges/list/audio/ac3dec/README.html, states that the code has security problems and recommends removing it. Why on Earth would Dolby sue NetBSD for linking to a page that suggests removal of the controversial software?
'Commercial developers' have chosen a bad business model.
So far, no "open source" business model has ever been shown to produce a reasonable return on investment or to produce a company that's a going concern for the long term.
Furthermore, it is inappropriate for you -- or government (whose force the GPL enlists via the copyright laws) to dictate the business model that programmers use to sell their work.
Anybody in the world has the freedom to go into business selling buckets of air, but choosing to do so is probably not the brightest idea.
Running a dive shop -- which fills tanks with air -- can, in fact, be a very profitable business. This is a good example of a business that adds value to something that is freely available. Developers should be able to do the same by building upon open source software and licensing the improved version. It works well with BSD... which may, in fact, be the salvation of Apple Computer.
Basically, what McAfee has here is a patent on doing nearly any sort of update or repair to a system via a Java applet. Since Sun itself advocated the use of Java for this and similar purposes, there is clearly much prior art. Just look at any of Sun's own papers or marketing literature about what client-side Java is supposed to be good for.
Once my code is released under the GPL, it can never be taken away.
Nor can it if it is released under a truly free license, such as the BSD license. An author who creates a derivative work can choose not to give away his changes, but the original is still available to the public.
The difference is that, under the GPL, the code bears a "poison pill" that specifically hurts commercial developers. This discrimination is, as Stallman himself says, "the principle and the purpose."
I'm surprised that Lineo paid to license this patent. There's prior art -- for example, Intel's real-time kernel that ran beneath Windows 3.1. They were showing this off in the late 80's-early 90's, as I recall, at the Embedded Systems Conference.
Look at the spite, malice, nastiness, and anger in the above message. (Not to mention the poster's misinterpretation of Brian's words.... This person is so blinded by anger that he cannot read objectively.) This is a destructive force that must be stopped.
It's my code, and if I don't want you making money off of my labor, that is 100% my perogative.
It's clear from the above that you don't understand the economics of the situation. By releasing your code to end users for free, you have already reduced the market value of the code and functionality to zero. (If it's available for free, who would pay money for it?) Therefore, any money that is made from a program that incorporates that code is entirely due to the value that the other author(s) have added.
The BSD License is fair because it recognizes this fundamental arithmetic. The GPL is not, because it throws a needless impediment in programmers' way -- forcing them to waste their time re-coding the wheel. If you attempt to prevent your colleagues from using code which has no market value, you are being spiteful -- as can be seen from the tone of your message above. To paraphrase Brian Reid, programmers should stand on one another's shoulders -- not one another's feet.
(Nightingale being the firm that has stepped in to liquidate the company.) By shutting off the service before the auction on August 16th, Nightingale has destroyed whatever goodwill the company might have had left and has prevented the auction of part or all of the network as a "going concern," as claimed at http://www.metricom.com/auctioninfo/. It has also
sabotaged WWC's chances of being able to sell the services provided by a buyer. WWC has been hurt by this. It should sue.
WWC, of all the Metricom resellers, is apparently the one that's fighting hardest to keep the system alive. They may, in fact, sue to prevent the network from being turned off on August 8th.
It just may not work (depending on the ages of the modems) in areas where the Metricom poletop transmitters are still active. (I suspect that this was done so that people would not create peer-to-peer networks that interfered with the service they were trying to sell.) On the newer units, the peer-to-peer mode seems to "shut off" if a poletop radio is "acquired."
I have mixed feelings about the demise of Metricom, myself. Properly used, the technology could have had great benefits. However, the company was arrogant and poorly managed. At one time, K N Energy (the local gas company) announced that they were going to deploy Metricom in our town. Neither they nor Metricom had given consideration to the fact that a wireless WAN serving many community organizations and some of the schools ran on the same frequency band. (The Metricom equipment -- dozens of transmitters running at the maximum legal output -- would have blown the other users right off the air.) The existing users made a reasonable request before the City Council: If Metricom was going to monopolize a public resource -- the 900 MHz band -- they should pay at least some of the cost of moving the schools and small business users to another band. But Ralph Derrickson of Metricom (the CEO until the bankruptcy) arrogantly refused to make any such concession. Fortunately, K N Energy's management was not so coldhearted, and agreed to help the community network move to another band if Ricochet was to be deployed in our city. (The network was never deployed, however, as K N Energy dropped its Ricochet franchise shortly thereafter.) The story is at http://www.lariat.org/metricom.html.
It may have been a similar lack of consideration for others (prices too high for the market; poor customer service) that led to Metricom's recent economic problems. $80 per month for 128 Kbps or less simply wasn't competitive with DSL, and there are not enough mobile users to support such a system by themselves. $29.95 per month would be more like it.
Sorry, but I think you have seriously missed something. It is not equitable to release the code so that anyone can use it in the way that benefits him or her the most... except for the commercial software developer. This is not only inequitable but discriminatory. And it's intentional. As Stallman himself says, "discrimination is the principle and the purpose." He announces, openly, that he wants to destroy all commercial software companies and programmers. This is the purpose of the GPL, and it is a destructive and spiteful agenda that programmers -- out of respect for their own profession -- should reject.
A mere month ago, Metricom announced that it was entering Chapter 11 so as to restructure its debts and look for new financing. Seemed reasonable, considering that the company -- while its technology was promising -- owed so much money. Rumors were floating about that the company was cleaning house in order to be bought.
Then, a few days ago, Metricom announced that it hoped to sell off part or all of the company (perhaps city by city?) "as a going concern."
Well, OK. Maybe they couldn't restructure their debts or get out of all of their commitments. At least the network would be worth pennies on the dollar to a willing buyer -- like Iridium.
Then, just today, Metricom announces that it is terminating service as of August 8, 2001 -- a week before the auction!
At this point, the excuses no longer hold water. How can one sell a company as a going concern if it is no longer "going?" Who will buy the infrastructure and customer base in a city after those customers have already been cut off for more than a week, have lost faith in the company, and are seeking other options?
It appears -- and the stockholders and creditors should be outraged at this -- that whoever is running the show here is more interested in killing the company than in actually selling its assets for the greatest possible return. Could it be that Worldcom wants to see Metricom dead because it represents competition? Or that there are other skeletons hidden in the closets that would make any takeover of the company infeasible? The answers are unclear, but one thing is: Contrary to the court's order, whoever is in charge of the liquidation seems intent upon minimizing, rather than maximizing, the value of the company's assets. And ought to be held responsible for doing so.
I've been typing in my car while travelling the I-5 (between 605 and 405 junctions) while travelling 50 to 80 mph. (Yes, while driving...but, I wasn't using a cell phone!)
I can see it now:
Haha! First post!
Uh, BSD is dying and Natalie Portman is the most gorgeous creature
ever to have given a Wookiee a
Slashdot Mirror
I just tried to post the advisory here, but Slashdot's software -- in its infinite wisdom -- rejected it with the message "junk character post" (perhaps it was sensitive to the boxes drawn with text characters). So, go to http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-cbos-we bserver-pub.shtml to see it.
Did you say "the TCP buffer fills up and crashes the OS?" Hmmm. This might mean that one can exploit the buffer overflow to do fun things with the router. If so, it might get Cisco to release a version of its CBOS that isn't crashable, which would be a real long term solution to the problem.
I helped quite a few Qwest customers get back online after the worm knocked them off the Net repeatedly, so I can speak with confidence about the cause of the problem. First, Qwest did not update the firmware in users' Cisco DSL modems to the latest version, which was more resistant to the worm. Second, it did not configure those modems to disable the Web interface, which is a serious security risk. Finally, when users' modems began to fail, Qwest did not supply complete information on how to fix the problem for several days... and when it finally did update the information, many users with crashing modems could not see it because it was on the Web! Cisco shares a bit of the blame in that it produced the susceptible modems, but for the most part, the fault lies with Qwest, which believes that it does not have to care because it has a well-cemented monopoly in virtually all of its 14-state territory.
In other words, if you buy a UNIX system from IBM, it will now be already equipped with pre-installed AIX and Panes....
(GD Sorry, couldn't resist)
The OSI should not continue its attempts to "force fit" the GPL, and the FSF, into the category of "open source." They don't fit, and it is time to quit trying to pretend that they can.
"Open source" is pro-business. But Richard Stallman's mission is to destroy all commercial software businesses. It has been ever since he developed a grudge against them, and began raving that they were "evil," many years ago. (The story of how this happened is well documented in Steven Levy's book Hackers.)
The GPL also violates at least two and probably three points of the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against a group of people (commercial programmers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software). It is also viral. Attempting to deny that it violates the definition, and labeling the GPL as an "open source" license, hurts the Open Source Initiative's credibility. It appears to be violating its own principles so as to hitch a ride on the Linux bandwagon (Linux is, after all, GPLed.) To be true to its written principles, the OSI must quit attempting to call the GPL an "open source" license.
Richard Stallman, Bradley Kuhn, and the FSF itself say that the GPL is not an "open source" license. What better people to make this decision than the author of the license and the head of the group that attempts to foist it upon others? By attempting to include a license whose authors explicitly do not want it included, the OSI again weakens its ethical position.
The OSI has, at this juncture, the opportunity to be ethical and to oppose discriminatory licenses such as the GPL. Only by doing so will it stay true to its claimed principles. A split will not weaken that movement; there is still a great deal of truly free software, such as the BSDs, which is unencumbered by the GPL and is truly business-friendly. Only by attempting to include the GPL -- against the author's wishes and the OSI's own principles -- can it lose.
--Brett Glass
The GPL uses force (the force of copyright laws and the government) to coerce someone who creates enhancements -- perhaps very valuable enhancements -- to publicly available code to give those enhancements away without any hope of being rewarded for their true value. (Yes, it is occasionally possible to secure a job in which one is paid, by the hour, for enhancing GPLed code. But the few authors who are able to get such jobs -- and there will never be many, because financing the creation of GPLed code has not proven to be a viable business strategy -- author is not compensated according to the value of his work, but rather by the hour. Usually as an employee of a large, faceless corporation.
Richard Stallman notes, in The GNU Manifesto, that one of the explicit purposes of the GPL is to reduce programmers to, at best, the status of wage slaves. There's no prospect of being well rewarded for a "truly righteous hack." At best, there's a paycheck -- and, according to the same document, a key goal of the GPL is to reduce the size of that paycheck.
Is this freedom? Common sense dictates that it is not.
--Brett Glass
I've worked with quite a few people with dyslexia and also with visual impairments that slow reading(e.g problems with motor control and accommodation that make it difficult for the reader to return his or her eyes to the beginning of the next line).
While it appears that some rude idiiots here on Slashdot would like to portray you and other people who have such problems as mentally impaired, it just ain't necessarily so. I've worked with several who are clearly brilliant -- perhaps even genius-level.
Those who rent these e-books should, by law, make an accommodation for you. Though they may not be in business long enough for this to happen. The market rejected DivX and will probably reject time-limited books as well.
Everyone experiences a movie in the same amount of time. But readers read at all different speeds. And it's wonderful to savor a book... read particularly good passages over a few times... refer back to the book later. In short, one of the greatest virtues of books is that they are not time-limited.
Many people who have dyslexia, learning disabilities, or impaired vision might not be able to read the book as quickly as those with normal vision, reading speed, and reading comprehension. Also, what about the blind? Few screen readers can talk as fast as a normal reader can scan a book. This could be considered to be discrimination under the ADA.
Also note that the README file in question, at http://www.jp.netbsd.org/ja/JP/Documentation/Packa ges/list/audio/ac3dec/README.html, states that the code has security problems and recommends removing it. Why on Earth would Dolby sue NetBSD for linking to a page that suggests removal of the controversial software?
Furthermore, it is inappropriate for you -- or government (whose force the GPL enlists via the copyright laws) to dictate the business model that programmers use to sell their work.
Running a dive shop -- which fills tanks with air -- can, in fact, be a very profitable business. This is a good example of a business that adds value to something that is freely available. Developers should be able to do the same by building upon open source software and licensing the improved version. It works well with BSD... which may, in fact, be the salvation of Apple Computer.Basically, what McAfee has here is a patent on doing nearly any sort of update or repair to a system via a Java applet. Since Sun itself advocated the use of Java for this and similar purposes, there is clearly much prior art. Just look at any of Sun's own papers or marketing literature about what client-side Java is supposed to be good for.
The above is an exact copy of my posting at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/08/03/23372 55&cid=43 under someone else's name.
You write:
Nor can it if it is released under a truly free license, such as the BSD license. An author who creates a derivative work can choose not to give away his changes, but the original is still available to the public.The difference is that, under the GPL, the code bears a "poison pill" that specifically hurts commercial developers. This discrimination is, as Stallman himself says, "the principle and the purpose."
I'm surprised that Lineo paid to license this patent. There's prior art -- for example, Intel's real-time kernel that ran beneath Windows 3.1. They were showing this off in the late 80's-early 90's, as I recall, at the Embedded Systems Conference.
Look at the spite, malice, nastiness, and anger in the above message. (Not to mention the poster's misinterpretation of Brian's words.... This person is so blinded by anger that he cannot read objectively.) This is a destructive force that must be stopped.
Look at the spite, malice, nastiness, and anger in the above message. This is a destructive force that must be stopped.
The BSD License is fair because it recognizes this fundamental arithmetic. The GPL is not, because it throws a needless impediment in programmers' way -- forcing them to waste their time re-coding the wheel. If you attempt to prevent your colleagues from using code which has no market value, you are being spiteful -- as can be seen from the tone of your message above. To paraphrase Brian Reid, programmers should stand on one another's shoulders -- not one another's feet.
(Nightingale being the firm that has stepped in to liquidate the company.) By shutting off the service before the auction on August 16th, Nightingale has destroyed whatever goodwill the company might have had left and has prevented the auction of part or all of the network as a "going concern," as claimed at http://www.metricom.com/auctioninfo/. It has also sabotaged WWC's chances of being able to sell the services provided by a buyer. WWC has been hurt by this. It should sue.
The best source for Ricochet modems for use in peer-to-peer networking is eBay. Many former customers sell their equipment there.
WWC, of all the Metricom resellers, is apparently the one that's fighting hardest to keep the system alive. They may, in fact, sue to prevent the network from being turned off on August 8th.
Alex Belits, a true Metricom packet radio fan, has lots of information on this at http://phobos.illtel.denver.co.us/~abelits/metrico m/.
I have mixed feelings about the demise of Metricom, myself. Properly used, the technology could have had great benefits. However, the company was arrogant and poorly managed. At one time, K N Energy (the local gas company) announced that they were going to deploy Metricom in our town. Neither they nor Metricom had given consideration to the fact that a wireless WAN serving many community organizations and some of the schools ran on the same frequency band. (The Metricom equipment -- dozens of transmitters running at the maximum legal output -- would have blown the other users right off the air.) The existing users made a reasonable request before the City Council: If Metricom was going to monopolize a public resource -- the 900 MHz band -- they should pay at least some of the cost of moving the schools and small business users to another band. But Ralph Derrickson of Metricom (the CEO until the bankruptcy) arrogantly refused to make any such concession. Fortunately, K N Energy's management was not so coldhearted, and agreed to help the community network move to another band if Ricochet was to be deployed in our city. (The network was never deployed, however, as K N Energy dropped its Ricochet franchise shortly thereafter.) The story is at http://www.lariat.org/metricom.html.
It may have been a similar lack of consideration for others (prices too high for the market; poor customer service) that led to Metricom's recent economic problems. $80 per month for 128 Kbps or less simply wasn't competitive with DSL, and there are not enough mobile users to support such a system by themselves. $29.95 per month would be more like it.
--Brett Glass
Sorry, but I think you have seriously missed something. It is not equitable to release the code so that anyone can use it in the way that benefits him or her the most... except for the commercial software developer. This is not only inequitable but discriminatory. And it's intentional. As Stallman himself says, "discrimination is the principle and the purpose." He announces, openly, that he wants to destroy all commercial software companies and programmers. This is the purpose of the GPL, and it is a destructive and spiteful agenda that programmers -- out of respect for their own profession -- should reject.
Then, a few days ago, Metricom announced that it hoped to sell off part or all of the company (perhaps city by city?) "as a going concern."
Well, OK. Maybe they couldn't restructure their debts or get out of all of their commitments. At least the network would be worth pennies on the dollar to a willing buyer -- like Iridium.
Then, just today, Metricom announces that it is terminating service as of August 8, 2001 -- a week before the auction!
At this point, the excuses no longer hold water. How can one sell a company as a going concern if it is no longer "going?" Who will buy the infrastructure and customer base in a city after those customers have already been cut off for more than a week, have lost faith in the company, and are seeking other options?
It appears -- and the stockholders and creditors should be outraged at this -- that whoever is running the show here is more interested in killing the company than in actually selling its assets for the greatest possible return. Could it be that Worldcom wants to see Metricom dead because it represents competition? Or that there are other skeletons hidden in the closets that would make any takeover of the company infeasible? The answers are unclear, but one thing is: Contrary to the court's order, whoever is in charge of the liquidation seems intent upon minimizing, rather than maximizing, the value of the company's assets. And ought to be held responsible for doing so.
I can see it now:
Haha! First post!
Uh, BSD is dying and Natalie Portman is the most gorgeous creature
ever to have given a Wookiee a
SCREEEEEE...... [SMASH][CRASH][TinkleTinkle][KABOOM!]
Oops.