Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 ... Last
[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 10:25:30 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Not only was Caldera founded out of Novell, but when they renamed themselves to "The SCO Group" they also spun off the original SCO people into a different company.

See also: Canopy Group

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 10:59:53 EST from Stefan @ Uncensored

Subject: fluxflux

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Sa Jan 02 2010 19:21:45 EST von Omeron @ Uncensored
Has anyone put Slackware on a Netbook? I think I will have to make a special version, since I need software speech synthesis, a screen-reader, etc. Fun times.

fluxflux is a slackware based netbook distro. So far it's running well on my eee701.



[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 13:45:00 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well yeah, OpenSSH was designed to run on OpenBSD, so it's not exactly

expecting a robust operating system architecture to exist underneath it


Right. It would have to be completely paranoid about the infrastructure underneath it, if it were designed by deraadt and his goon squad.

Oh, and it would have to refuse to use portable libc functions, in favor of their paranoid alternatives...

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 15:18:06 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, they kind of do both, which is why they have "native" OpenSSH (which runs on OpenBSD) and "portable OpenSSH" (which runs everywhere else). Or in their words:

"OpenSSH is developed by two teams. One team does strictly OpenBSD-based development, aiming to produce code that is as clean, simple, and secure as possible. We believe that simplicity without the portability "goop" allows for better code quality control and easier review. The other team then takes the clean version and makes it portable (adding the "goop") to make it run on many operating systems -- the so-called -p releases, ie "OpenSSH 5.3p1"."

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's not *that* hard to write portable code if you work at it.

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 15:34:21 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

well, if your portability list contains openbsd, solaris, linux, cygwin, you're already on a good path to cryfty code.



[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 15:57:07 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Seems to be supporting two sets of code defeats the purpose of trying to build a simple system.
Of course since I'm not a terribly big fan of shared libraries and no two systems have a portable working libc and especially because in this case, is worked and saved me a lot of reconfiguring/installing/building/buying hardware, I'm kinda happy that these nutcases go out of their way.
I'm not sure I see the point of the openbsd specific version, but hey, whatever, keeps them off the streets at night.

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 18:06:44 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm sure the OpenBSD team considers the portable version to be a "backport" since the rest of the world doesn't have those nifty sooper-secure system calls. It's their perogative to maintain it that way if they want to, but it seems like an awful lot of extra work to port every single version from OpenBSD to unix instead of autoconfing it like everyone else does.

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 21:20:05 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I'll bet that OpenBSD's team still doesn't even use modern techniques like test coverage analysis. They are still heavily invested in the concept of the programmer as deity, much as djb is.

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 21:29:14 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

simple, and secure as possible. We believe that simplicity without the

portability "goop" allows for better code quality control and easier
review. The other team then takes the clean version and makes it

A pathetic excuse. A well-designed system just doesn't have portability issues. Java for instance has managed to cleanly encapsulate all the POSIX functions that are necessary to build a portable program, with full async I/O and whatnot. If you do things the right way, you should have to do #ifdef on the same HAVE_WHATEVER symbol more than once in your entire codebase.

The reality is that deraadt and his goon squad don't play well with others, and are interested in creating artificial barriers to the adoption of their patches by the original source providers. This is a prime example.

[#] Mon Jan 04 2010 22:16:58 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You meant "should not have to do" right?

The thing about java encapsulating... well.... I dont' know how all the java libraries are ported between systems, but it can't be all that pretty.

[#] Tue Jan 05 2010 05:17:35 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mo Jan 04 2010 21:29:14 EST von LoanShark @ Uncensored
simple, and secure as possible. We believe that simplicity without the

portability "goop" allows for better code quality control and easier
review. The other team then takes the clean version and makes it

A pathetic excuse. A well-designed system just doesn't have portability issues. Java for instance has managed to cleanly encapsulate all the POSIX functions that are necessary to build a portable program, with full async I/O and whatnot. If you do things the right way, you should have to do #ifdef on the same HAVE_WHATEVER symbol more than once in your entire codebase.

The reality is that deraadt and his goon squad don't play well with others, and are interested in creating artificial barriers to the adoption of their patches by the original source providers. This is a prime example.

well, creating a portable interpreter is a whole different thing than coding portable in C. I guess the typical java interpreter in fact is coded in C and contains lots of #ifdefs to encapsulate all that to its users.

even that enables you to write windows only java programms by using resources or path names just windows can offer. I've seen that. It can even be that for example you've got a mysql backed, in which in fact due to the braindead NTFS and FAT tablenames are case insensitive, and in *nix they're _not_ so most probably the mysql dump from the wintendo won't work when put back in on a *nix mysql.

Deraadt and others... yes, he could have commented why the patch the debian guy submitted was bad instead of just ignoring it. So, this thing you all still know could at least have been prevented by him.



[#] Tue Jan 05 2010 09:52:29 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

LS: I was trying to be erudite and reasonable, but yeah, I agree with you, they're a bunch of uncooperative troublemakers. :)

[#] Wed Jan 06 2010 09:46:39 EST from cellofellow @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, for all its flaws, OpenSSH is still a terrific program. Secure, versatile, and (relatively) easy to use.

[#] Wed Jan 06 2010 12:04:00 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Not sure where to post this, but it's worth pondering.

Word on the street is that Yahoo is getting ready to sell off the Zimbra business unit. The buyer is supposedly VMware.

Kudos to Yahoo for unloading the Zimbra albatross while it's still worth something. I'm not sure it's really going to be all that valuable as a going concern. Yes, their web user interface is quite slick, but I've looked at the architecture of this product in detail and the underpinnings are quite ugly.

It's interesting that VMware is the buyer, because Zimbra seems to always have been featured quite prominently in their "virtual appliance marketplace."
Perhaps that is indeed the sweet spot for delivery of this application.

I've always found it quite curious that they seem to focus quite heavily on going head-to-head with Exchange in the "enterprise" market, while other market sectors seem to be a better opportunity because Microsoft continues to neglect them. Citadel is popular, for example, in small businesses and non-profit organizations without a large IT staff due to its easy installation and low maintenance.
I think Zimbra's biggest opportunities would have been service providers and universities, but they've been quite focused on "the enterprise" instead.

Naturally, as a Zimbra competitor I'm not afraid of saying that I hope they crash and burn. I also happen to know that they do quite a bit of astroturfing so I'll add that they *deserve* to crash and burn.

[#] Wed Jan 06 2010 13:12:15 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Zimbra is, at least at the moment, different from Zombo.com, I think.

http://zombo.com/

[#] Wed Jan 06 2010 16:12:34 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oh yeah, Zombo has always had far superior technology.

[#] Fri Jan 08 2010 08:18:44 EST from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

...so, the "ximian Brats" are leaving novel.



[#] Fri Jan 08 2010 10:10:36 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Cite?

[#] Fri Jan 08 2010 15:05:59 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ah. Just Nat? Not Miguel? Nat is mentioning this on his blog: http://nat.org/blog/2010/01/hitting-the-road/

So he's leaving Novell and will do something else later. It's sickening that this dipshit is independently well-off enough to do that.

Go to page: First ... 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 ... Last