Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Slashback: OpenSSH, Falwell, OpenDRM

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Apr 19, 2006 06:59 PM
from the calling-it-open-makes-it-cool dept.
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including the Supreme Court declines Falwell's appeal, GP2X now shipping in the US, a new version of Systrace released, Lessig and Stallman look back at Sun's OpenDRM, NASA jumps on the anti-matter propulsion bandwagon, GoDaddy donates $10,000 to OpenSSH, Ellison explains why he would NOT acquire Novell or Red Hat, and pictures of the Ball State wireless 'sculpture' -- Read on for details.

The Supreme Court declines Falwell's Appeal. yEvb0 writes "The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of Jerry Falwell, who claims that "gripe site" http://www.fallwell.com/ infringes on his trademark by luring surfers away from his own site. Despite winning a case in federal court, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Falwell last year and said that operator Christopher Lamparello was free to operate his site about Falwell's views on gays because he 'clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.'"

GP2X now shipping in the US. An anonymous reader writes "The Gamepark GP2X, a Linux-based handheld gaming platform that runs native and emulated games, is now shipping in the US, according to LinuxDevices. The device can reportedly run more than a thousand classic arcade games, through open-source console game emulators such as MAME, SNES, Genesis, and PC Engine. It has a 3.5-inch QVGA (320x240) color TFT LCD screen, and includes a media player supporting MPEG, JPEG, and MP3 formats."

New version of Systrace released. Niels writes "I just recently released a new version of Systrace that runs on Linux without requiring any kernel patches. I termed it the Phoenix release because it has been almost three years since I did any work on Systrace. However, I finally had the need to do some sandboxing on Linux without being able to change the kernel. So, voila, after a few late nights, here we go: Systrace for Linux using a ptrace back end."

Lessig and Stallman look back at Sun's OpenDRM. H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "The Register has an excellent article featuring Lessig and Stallman on 'Open Source' DRM. The spark for the article came from comments made about Sun's 'OpenDRM' by Lessig which were not wholly negative and were interpreted by some as an endorsement. Lessig clarifies: 'There's no disagreement about where we should end up - No DRM.'"

NASA jumps on the anti-matter propulsion bandwagon. steveo777 writes "NASA has an interesting read about creating yet another form of rocket propulsion. They plan on using Anti-electrons (positrons) combine with normal electrons to release enough energy to fuel the way to Mars and back. Its byproduct will be lower energy gamma radiation. From the article, '"Our advanced designs, like the gas core and the ablative engine concepts, could take astronauts to Mars in half that time, and perhaps even in as little as 45 days," said Kirby Meyer, an engineer with Positronics Research on the study.'"

GoDaddy donates $10,000 to OpenSSH. wcbrown writes "Go Daddy has donated $10,000 to the OpenSSH project, which is apparently used extensively within the company." This is another great donation in what hopefully will continue to be a trend within the community. No word on when the blinking will stop.

Ellison explains why he would NOT acquire Novell or Red Hat. Robert writes to tell us CBROnline is reporting that a recent statement by Larry Ellison covered so extensively in the news regarding speculation about why Oracle might be "planning to buy Novell or Red Hat" may have been a little off base. The full transcript of his interview with the FT is illuminating precisely because it reveals why the company would NOT acquire either Novell or Red Hat, and - apparently - why the company did not buy JBoss.

Pictures of the Ball State Wireless 'sculpture'. popeguilty writes "Slashdot readers may recall the story about the Wireless 'Sculpture' at Ball State University. The artwork is up and running, and I've got a few pictures posted for general consumption."

+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hardware: Sculpture to Reflect Campus Wireless Traffic 84 comments
prostoalex writes "Ball State University, the top unwired school in the nation according to Intel survey, is set to unveil a sculpture that will reflect the wireless traffic on the campus network. From the article: 'Beginning Tuesday night at 8 p.m., as people log onto the Internet via Ball State's network, their online activity will appear as sound, color, patterns and images projected onto giant screens set up around the base of Shafer Tower, located in the middle of campus on McKinley Avenue.'"
[+] Linux: Red Hat to Acquire JBoss 159 comments
tecker writes "Redhat.com has a banner and press release that states that it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle as previously thought. The press release states "the world's leading provider of open source solutions to the enterprise, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire JBoss, the global leader in open source middleware. By acquiring JBoss, Red Hat expects to accelerate the shift to service-oriented architectures (SOA), by enabling the next generation of web-enabled applications running on a low-cost, open source platform." Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge?"
[+] Mobile: GP2X Surpasses Expectations 195 comments
Harry Trotter writes "Gameparks GP2X Linux Based Console had a lot to live up to with Some amusing boasts from Gamepark, but it has lived up to its pre-billing rather well with great ports of commercial games and emulators such as Mame, Vice (Commodore 64), NeoGeo CD, Duke Nukem 3D, ScummVM and another 150 more releases so far, all of which can be followed at GP2X News & GP32 Xtreme. The Open Source Development of this console has ensured a following that will keep the console alive for years to come."
[+] Linux: IBM to Oracle - You Can't Buy Open Source 102 comments
mrops writes "CNET has up a short article about IBM's reaction to Oracle's recent acquisitions. From the article: 'Handy was responding to comments made by Oracle CEO Ellison to the Financial Times, where he said that he wanted Oracle to control a 'full stack' of software, including the Linux operating system. If Oracle did try to buy a Linux distributor, such as Red Hat or Novell, Handy said 'we'd stick to our strategy of having two or more independent distributors and have to wait and see what happens.'" It should be pointed out, as noted in yesterday's Slashback, that Ellison has no intentions of purchasing Red Hat.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So, maybe we are already stockpiling positrons.
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:06PM (#15161484)
    Contestant: I'll take "Hole Truth" for $100, Alex.
    Trebek: OpenSSH, Falwell, OpenDRM
    Contestant: What are plugged, ass, and analog?
    Trebek: Congratulations, all are examples of different types of holes!
  • Space is the Place (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:21PM (#15161543) Homepage Journal
    According to TFA, positrons cost $25B:g to produce, though they project the cost will decrease with more R&D (more money). The Mars mission needs 10mg. The amount of energy, not dollars, required to produce the antimatter is not specified, but it's certainly larger than the amount that winds up in the produced antimatter. The antimatter will be produced at the Earth's surface, submerged in our atmosphere, where it can annihilate in contact with any of that matter it comes in contact with.

    This is a perfect project to perform in space. The base lab should be on the Moon, using the vast incoming solar energy for power, lasered past the far side to power the reactor creating the antimatter. The antimatter industry is anticipating a large scale anyway, which justifies launching whatever equipment and personnel to the Moon is necessary. That should be small, because the Moon is made of materials useable for the project, including that abundant energy. And the minimization of risk of catastrophic antimatter "pollution" on (in) Earth is priceless. The launch of a new chapter in human industry in space, with specific immediate benefits including environmental protection and energy freedom, can transform our entire society for the better.
    • eerrr (Score:2, Informative)

      "A rough estimate to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million dollars using technology that is currently under development,"

      • Your point? Or are you just melting down?
        • My point is 250 million dollars is a lot less then the 25Bn dollars you claim.

          My apologies for being to obtuse for you.

          • I said "According to TFA, positrons cost $25B:g" and "The Mars mission needs 10mg." At $25B:g, 10mg costs $250M.

            My apologies for using the ":" character, commonly understood to mean a ratio [wikipedia.org]. You do understand the distinction between the "M" and "m" characters I used, right?
    • You can't have antimatter pollution. All you get is an explosion, of whatever size. Energy is released (and might kill some people), but there's no residual 'pollution' whatsoever.

      With reasonable care, it's not really any different than any other kind of explosives plant. Probably less dangerous, since there are no noxious chemicals involved, which CAN pollute the environment.

      Antimatter has so little weight per energy unit that it doesn't matter much where it's made. We need only ten milligrams to go to
  • The donation from godaddy came out of which department within the company? If I had to guess, I would say it came our of Marketing... not that there's anything wrong with that.

    For-profit companies don't donate out of alturism.
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:26PM (#15161565) Homepage
    http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html [squarefree.com]

    'zap cheap effects' *bliss*

    I also like zap colors, zap plugins, restore context menu, and restore selecting. Lots of nice bookmarklets there. I put a small folder menu of those on my toolbar for easy access for dumb sites.
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:30PM (#15161585) Homepage
    "he 'clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.'"

    Customers? Sounds more like a store to me than a church. I say cede the domain to Fallwell and start taxing the bejeezus out of him. :)
  • Has any one played with or written anything for the GP2X? What do you think?

    I like playing and writing games. I think I might get one.

    -geekd
    • by vga_init (589198) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @08:04PM (#15161723) Journal
      I've owned one since they were first released, and it's a wonderful little handheld. It works well, is very programmable, and has an active development community.

      It's not without its issues; you can learn more by checking out the wiki [gp2x.org] and also visiting #gp2xdev and #gp2x on EFNet.

    • I've had one for a few months now, and I love it. The various emulator projects are coming along very nicely (MAME especially), and there's a fairly decent library of homebrew titles. If you like 2D shooters, there's more than a few of those :).

      A few complaints:
      • It can be sometimes be difficult doing firmware upgrades with just the FW file itself. While people end up writing installers to solve this, the GP2X can be very picky about which SD card you're using and how it's formatted. But if you're p
  • Put this in your userContent.css file:
    blink {
      text-decoration: none !important;
    }
  • by Anonymous Coward
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311 [zdnet.com]

    What app made the graphics in the above story. They display all the systems calls in a graphical map like format that are used during the process of serving a web page.

  • Respect for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wall0159 (881759) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:58PM (#15161700)
    I know it's kinda cool to be oh-so-cynical and mock Stallman, but he's really an incredibly important person. Sure, he's a stickler for details, and I'm not sure I'd want him at a dinner party - but we really need people like him. They can remind us of the potential consequences of decisions - consequences that we are typically *very* bad at predicting.

    I think this issue is similar to trade-unions. Sure, they can be corrupt (and full of nepotism), but criticising the _concept_ based on the _implementation_ is crazy. People died fighting for workers rights, and now we are notchalently throwing them away.

    Similarly (though not to quite the same extreme) people have sacrificed lots of time to produce free (libre) software tools for everybody. Yes, it's an idealistic goal. Yes, Stallman is an idealist, and can be a PITA. But freedom is lost incrementally. Just look at Naz...

    Oops! Almost did a Godwin! ;-)

    Anyway Ritchie, I've got a lot of respect for you - please keep being a stickler on our behalf! :-)

    Cheers.
    • Just look at Naz...

      That's a strange way to write "the Soviet Union."

    • Movements always need a strong leader or they fail. In the free software group it is a god send to have one or two (or three) people that, while people don't always agree with/die listening to via boredom, toe a very specific and non changing line; they provide focus and direction. So for all of the horror of hardcore idealist dullness and jokes I will happily lay on RMS (and the like) I still hold a great deal of respect for him and as a member of the movement roughly follow his guidance on issues. ...Ke
  • Straight from the home office in Redwood Shores, CA here's the top 5 reasons why Larry won't buy RedHat or Novell [sfgate.com]:

    5. RedHat won't take an I.O.U.
    4. To pay for Novell he'd have to have "Golden Palace" tattooed on his face.
    3. "Buy an island near Japan? Shit, get two."
    2. Excessive ATM fees finally broke him.
    1. Just blew $100k on that shirt from Brokeback Mountain

  • Falwell?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eclectro (227083) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @08:09PM (#15161742)
    Why wasn't the guy who owned PETA.org (people eating tasty animals) allowed to keep his domain? Mr. Falwell, you have bad attorneys that don't know how to railroad the little guy. I'd ask for your money back.
    • Re:Falwell?? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darby (84953) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @10:52PM (#15162398)
      Why wasn't the guy who owned PETA.org (people eating tasty animals) allowed to keep his domain?

      Because Jerry Fallwell is a hate mongering bigot who likes to tell people how to live their lives and PETA is...uhhh....

      Hmmmm, good question.

  • by Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @08:22PM (#15161805) Homepage
    For a second I thought you were talking about Harlan, and we were in for an explitive-filled tirade about how he hates computers and would never buy a software company, capped with a threat to sue anyone that reprinted, quoted, or even linked to said tirade.

    • by koweja (922288) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:12PM (#15161507)
      The difference is that fallwell.com is not cyber-squating, it is a critizism of Falwell. Squatters take a site and fill it with ads and/or attempt to sell it to the person they are squatting for rediculous amounts of money. The owner of fallwell.com maintains his site, has actual content, and is not trying to sell it to Falwell.
    • by techno-vampire (666512) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:19PM (#15161534) Homepage
      How many mis-spelling "trap sites" have a link to the real site right at the top of the home page? That's what makes the difference. The owner of fallwell.com isn't trying to steal customers from falwell.com and isn't looking to offend them, either. He makes it plain that his site is devoted to showing why Rev. Falwell's position on gays and lesbians is wrong, and points those who agree with the reverend to the site they were looking for in the first place. If you'd bothered to click on the link in TFA, you'd have seen that, as I did.
          • by Locke2005 (849178) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @07:49PM (#15161660)
            How is the author profiting? He is profiting by tricking good, God-fearing, heterosexual into "coming over to his side" and accepting homosexuals as valid human beings! This abomination has got to stop! If we don't constantly treat homosexuals as second-class citizens, if we fail to keep insisting that there is something "wrong" with the way God created them -- then God will get pissed off and smite us! You don't want to get smitten, do you? At any rate, "profit" doesn't necessarily have to be monetary. If Falwell honestly beleives mistakenly going to this site is going to change any of his followers' minds, well, then, their faith must be on pretty shakey foundations to begin with!
    • but really, how is this "fallwell.com" site any different from any other "cyber-misspelling" trap sites?

      Er, because actual "cyber-misspelling" trap sites don't have disclaimers in bold red lettering right at the top of the page with a link to the correctly-spelled site?

    • by Anonymous Coward
      "Is yet another example of constant persecution of Christians in the United States by the atheist, socialist left-wing types that currently govern our country. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!"

      Err... so the Republican Party are atheist, socialist left-wing types?

      I hope I never meet any *real* right-wingers then!
      • Its about teh godless democrats who are influencing the liberal media and trying to take god out of Jesus's chosen country. Infact these liberals even go farther claiming the founders were not even fundalmentalist christians!

        Repent!

      • by techno-vampire (666512) on Wednesday April 19 2006, @08:02PM (#15161713) Homepage
        I hope I never meet any *real* right-wingers then!

        I used to think I was a conservative. Then I worked for one. He was trying to put together a cable channel devoted to Conservatives. After getting to know him and a few of his friends, I realized that not only wasn't I a conservative, I was glad of it.

        Now, I realize that I'm a moderate, slightly right of center.

    • Why TF would a gay person want to be part of christianity?

      Religion is chosen. Homosexuality is not. And only the looniest christian churches condemn people just because "they're gay" and try to threaten them with hell to convert.

      An example of a homosexual christian is this guy [beyondgay.com].

          • People mean different things when they say homosexual. You see to be saying homosexuality is the attraction to members of the sane sex. The definition most often used by churchs is sexual acts between members of the same sex.

            I can see why someone who is a homosexual by the first definition would want to be a Christian. It's no different from someone who has a tendancy towards alchoholism, or gambling, or heterosexual infidelity. But that's very different from the homosexual who engages in sexual acts with
              • If I felt attraction towards males (which I do not, btw), I'd be immediately expelled or called to repent - for something that I have not done at all. A common question homosexuals ask (at least those I have met on the internet) is "why does God condemn me for being homosexual if he made me that way?"

                You wouldn't at the church I attend - although you'd probably encounter some social ostracism. But that's more a social thing than a theological thing. It's more or less inevitable in our society at the mome
                • More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.

                  Curiosity? You think people become homosexual because they are "curious" about other mens genitals? Because they wonder what it would be like to sleep with a sweaty, hairy man? I think someone here is in denial. I'm quite serious.

                  Some people are homosexual. They are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and desire sex and relationships with them. This isn't some kind of choice, although like anything, one does have to choose to go out and find a partner. Homosexuals will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex no matter how much they try and repress their feelings, "turn heterosexual", or go along with the precepts of some religion.

                  No one should have to do this. Homosexuality isn't wrong. They shouldn't have to try and become heterosexual or try not to act on their desires. In fact, this would be a terrible things as it would simply lead to greater problems down the line. Homosexuals should act on their desires and form relationships with people of the opposite sex.

                  Here are the facts, which I'm going to lay out to you, plain and simple. Why do religions, societies and individuals constantly protest and rail against homosexuals, ostrasise them, punish them even kill them? Why do so many come up with such flawed arguments as you have been setting forth in this thread? Why are homosexuals so hated?

                  The answer simply goes back to adolesent insecurity. While developing, homophobes felt tremendously insecure in their sexuality. They derided homosexuality and lauded heterosexuality as a part of the teenage instinct to conform. They created in their minds the mythos of the homosexual fall from grace, so that they, no matter how far they fell would always be above those who "chose" homosexuality. Even many homosexuals come to believe in this flawed adolesent hierarchy, to their own detreiment.

                  Some people never grow out of this. They panic at the thought that anyone might think they are homosexual and fear homosexuals will try and "make them gay". This fallacy extends to such ridiculous proportions that someone who is raped by a member of the same sex is often assummed to have been "converted" into a homosexual. This is where such juvinile thinking leads.

                  Of course, many of these people are in fact homosexual, yet consistantly deny this fact. Like a priest who condenms an attractive young woman from "tempting men", they blame homosexuals for their unbidden, yet natural thoughts, and thus accuse them of trying to convert people to homosexuality. In reality of course, just like the priest, these thoughts come from within, and are only "wrong" in the mind of the thinker.

                  Such people will probably live an unhappy lie for the rest of their lives. Occassionally they will make the odd freudian slip as you did above when you spoke of homosexuality "starting out" as "curiosity". As a heterosexual, I can tell you that curiosity is most certainly not a motivator for sexual attraction. As I mentioned, the thought of a a hairy, sweaty man with a five o'clock shadow is not a titillating image. I'm not going to go on a crusade against it, and in fact I would encourage homosexual people to form relationships, but the act of homosexual intercourse itself is about as sexually stimulating as the thought of parental intercourse.

                  You may feel that I am degenerating the debate by somehow accusing you of having homosexual desire or being homosexual. That is not my intent. However, I felt it important to clarify the situation with regard to the source of much of your arguments, and to refute your own misunderstandings with regard to the source of homosexuality, and indeed, sexuality in general. I cannot tell someones sexual orientation from a few post on Slashdot. In any case, you are applying a different logic to the sexual development of homosexuals than is applied to hetrosexuals.
    • by VE3MTM (635378) on Thursday April 20 2006, @12:23AM (#15162763)
      I don't normally feed trolls, but here goes.

      The justification Christian churches use when they declare homosexuality to be a sin is from Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination". Sounds fair. That means Homosexuality is bad, doesn't it?

      Well, what about Leviticus 21:5, "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh"? That means shaving is a sin. Similarly, other passages from this book prohibit tattoos, eating of shellfish and pork, clothes made of more than one fabric, and other common activities.

      Since these other passages are commonly ignored by Christians out of convenience, all a gay Christian has to do is ignore one more, 18:22, and they're in the clear. It's extremely hypocritical for Christian churches to pick and choose parts of this book to obey or disobey. If you're going to consider Leviticus holy, abide by the whole thing. If you're going to ignore it, ignore the whole damned book. You can't have it both ways.
      • With Christ's death and resurrection the ceremonial law was abolished - this covers the shaving and the foods. This does **not** cover homosexuality. Leviticus 21 is prefixed "Speak to the priests and Aaron" ... this is directed towards the levites, this is ceremonial law. Leviticus 18 says "Speak to the Israelites." This is religious law that we are still bound to, to this day.

        • Oh, yeah, don't get me started on people who say, "how can you have morals when you don't believe in God?" :)

          If the only reason you act morally is the threat of supernatural fury and eternal damnation, then you are not a moral person. A truly moral person is one who behaves ethically for entirely internal reasons. External reasons, such as threat of punishment, etc. are not a good basis for a moral code.
        • The problem is that you can't pick and choose what you want to follow. There is no maybe about it. If the bible says do something you do it, or you're disobeying the word of god. It's all or nothing affair even if it means performing multiple nonsense and possibly contradictory practices at once. If the bible says no shaving of beards then it's no shaving of beards or you are not following the word of god. No ifs or buts.

          For the Falwells of the world to focus on one thing and ignore the others exposes the

      • Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business.

        Indeed. Here in the US, the UU (Unitarian-Universalist) and UCC (United Church of Christ) are both openly welcoming to and supportive of homosexuals. Many American Episcopal (i.e., Anglican) churches are also gay-friendly, though the official policy may not make much of a big deal of this, so if you like Catholic-style ritual, this might be the church for you.

        At the other extreme, some Christian sects have been openly hostile to even "straight" sex.
    • If DRM adds trust and the industry does not trust us, then why should we trust the people who create DRM?

      "If they don't trust you, why should you trust them?" [youtube.com]
    • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

      DRM is not evil. It is JUST a technology.

      Sure, its a technology. It uses crypto, but...

      Lets go back to basics. Crypto means A wants to send a message to B, and C is not allowed to read it. A, B, and C are different. A and B can share keys (say, using RSA).

      No problems.

      DRM means A wants to send a message to B, and B is not allowed to read it. Really. This is NOT a typo.

      How to do this? B is given information by A, locked into hardware, that B doesn't have access to. Really. This is NOT a typo.

      Go figure. A doesn't trust B, and yet B is the receiver of the message. A wants to control B at a level that B has no say over.

      It may only be a technology, but *I* don't want to deal with a paranoid like A. And, if I buy something, I want to use it for MY benefit, and not have it reserved for someone elses.

      Ratboy.
    • Encryption keeps information secret, the very thing stallman is against, yet GnuPG is an official GNU project.

      He's not against keeping information secret. He's against selling people only partial access to information.

      DRM simply adds different layers of trust, more than just the two that you have with encryption. You can have partial or full trust with DRM. You only get two options with plain old encryption.

      Partial trust...like the kind you have when you give someone a binary without source?

      I don't thin

    • So the situation with antiprotons is slightly more complex than the article suggests, and the stated reasoning for preferring positrons overly simplistic.

      You seem to be just showing off here. Whatever the details of the reaction, if the end result inncludes uncontrollable high energy gamma rays, it's pretty useless for propelling astronauts.