“we should never be locked into that relationship by force of technological restriction or law. Software that enforces such restrictions is malware. Companies like Microsoft that push these restrictions also have a terrible track record when it comes to security, which makes their platitudes about restricting us for our own good both hollow and deceitful.”
Amen. That’s the way I see “Secure Boot”. M$ is welcome to nail shut its coffin from the inside but we don’t have to go there.
17406
12730
206
3
2
23839 
11829 
11681 
4613 
4236 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
“we should never be locked into that relationship by force of technological restriction or law. Software that enforces such restrictions is malware”
More pure Bushwah from the free software fascists.
LOL. Mr. Pogson, Canonical and Red Hat are already going into the direction you and your buddies from the FSF don’t want to go. And as Secure Boot can be disabled, what are you complaining about? Linus Torvalds has no problem with Secure Boot, either.
(Wouldn’t that be the perfect chance for companies to produce real Linux PCs, where Secure Boot is disabled by default?)
But anyway, it’s a pathetic showing from the FSF again. The real question is: where was Linux when UEFI was planned and discussed? Except for Canonical and Red Hat. Maybe it would’ve been a good idea to band together, join forces, and influence UEFI by the means of one unified voice. Where was the frakkin’ Linux foundation? You stand out there in the street, let the bus run you over, and complain afterwards that the bus has run you over.
Chris Weig wrote, “Secure Boot can be disabled”.
Wrong. M$ wants OEMs to ship “8″ on ARMed devices on which Secure Boot cannot be disabled.
oldman wrote, “More pure Bushwah from the free software fascists.”
More pure Bushwah from the Wintel sheeple.
Wrong. M$ wants OEMs to ship “8″ on ARMed devices on which Secure Boot cannot be disabled.
I know that, Mr. Pogson. But this shows precisely why you are gullible. Let me cite from the FSF’s report on Secure Boot:
We will fight Microsoft’s attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices.
The FSF, just like you, are unable to grasp a simple truth: if companies don’t market a smartphone or a tablet as a general purpose computer, it ain’t a general purpose computer for 99.9% of the public. 99.9% of the public will peruse these devices just like their makers want them to. Because for most of the public smartphones and PCs (with a screen and a mouse and a keyboard) are conceptually different things. That both are computers underneath, and that you theoretically could do with a smartphone what you can do with a PC, already requires a certain degree of abstraction in one’s thinking. And most people simply don’t think this way.
we don’t have to go there.
Of course not, Mr. Pogson, it is a free country, eh? You are free to avoid all the poor quality crap that the “sheeple”, as you call them, fall victim to having to endure. Leave them to their fate. There are doubtless enough cast off PCs on the world’s trash heaps to keep the Linuxers madly installing Debian until the end of time as we know it.
Chris Weig wrote, “if companies don’t market a smartphone or a tablet as a general purpose computer, it ain’t a general purpose computer for 99.9% of the public.”
You mean like Samsung pushes Galaxy SIII smart phones:
These gadgets are more general-purpose than an ATX PC. They can do the same stuff and so much more. Conversely, we could say that an ATX PC is quite limited by not knowing what you want to do, not allowing voice communication, and of course totally lacking in battery life-time while burdening the user with heat, noise, size and mass.
“More pure Bushwah from the Wintel sheeple.”
Sheeple? you should know better Robert Pogson. But then again you refuse to accept delivery on the notion that a professional can make his/her own decisions based on assessment of his/her software needs.
I had previously withdrawn the F word to describe the FSF because I thought it a the time over the top. I have since read in more detail on their philosophy that I am no longer inclined to do so.
From what I can see, the FSF would deprive me of my choice of what I have determined is the best software to perform the tasks that I need to perform. They would have me choose and use sub par solutions in the name of “software freedon” I reject that and consider their willing ness to shove free software down my throat regardless of its utility function and feature to be fascistic.
And that is not bushwah.
@ldman wrote, “More pure Bushwah from the free software fascists.”
Fascists because today is Monday. Tomorrow it will be communists, the complete opposite of fascism. @ldman doesn’t know if he’s coming or going. His words count for nothing. He is insignificant. Isn’t that right, sir.
.
“@ldman doesn’t know if he’s coming or going. His words count for nothing. He is insignificant. Isn’t that right, sir.”
My word count for more than yours twerp. Unlike yourself I actually know what I am doing.
Fascists and communists always seem very similar, so maybe the terms are interchangeable. When the jackboots stamp on your face, who cares if they are worn by the Red Army or the Schutzstaffel? The effect is the same.
The commies are motivated by love and friendship, it is said, so we should be pleased to be crushed by them, but strangely this is no comfort.
Pulling his satin hanky from his fluffy lacy sleeve and holding it to his powdered effete nose the pompous blowhard squealed in his high falsetto “Bushwah….Bushwah…..let them eat cake….those dirty common people! What do they know of life anyway? We, the moneyed elite MUST lead them for they know nothing!”
And so on it goes until the so called “elite” push things too far…..
……….I think we’ve just about reached “far”.
Chris Weig and others please be aware FSF also fights for the right to be able to flash you devices with own firmware.
“The FSF, just like you, are unable to grasp a simple truth: if companies don’t market a smartphone or a tablet as a general purpose computer, it ain’t a general purpose computer for 99.9% of the public. 99.9% of the public will peruse these devices just like their makers want them to.”
Neither were the first desktop machines. You are just not old enough. Like a C64 you cannot change the OS software on that because it stuck in a rom chip this was quite common for the first desktop machines. Future does not care what the devices now are marketed as it only cares what ends up being produced.
Just like desktop computing evolved to more general device so could phones and other things.
Developer models of android phones are very general purpose in design.
oldman really you are a sheep. FSF pushes for development of more software and more common standards. Ok this might mean they don’t agree with the software you use. But this is fine.
Really you need to think. Lets say all devices were locked down like the early c64 and so. So you need application so now you must buy multi devices. why because 1 application you need is on X device one you need is on Y and so on.
For an oldman your an idiot oldman. Ok in my work the software I use might not conform to FSF complete goal. But if we end up in a locked in world again its not fun. Basically been there done that don’t want todo that again. Remember having to buy particular Unix systems to run particular programs. Yes I am old really oldman. I remember having to put up with that crap. I don’t want that kind of crap to come back and stay.
Closed source always likes the idea of locked in. This include xbox 360s Playstation game consoles…. Basically lets have a huge lot of power eating crap in our houses. Locked in reduces competition.
Like a C64 you cannot change the OS software on that because it stuck in a rom chip this was quite common for the first desktop machines.
This is why you fail. Apparently you’re both not old enough and don’t know Stallman. Hate to break it to you, but the FSF is quite alright with firmware in ROMs, as long as nobody can change it. Here you go:
The phone network firmware comes pre-installed. If all it did was sit there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook pre-installed firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it’s a program rather than a circuit.
Source
And another, where a user exhibits critical thinking:
But later, Stallman said something that I found very surprising. He said that he has no problem with the firmware being burned into the hardware (via a ROM chip or the like). He said that he wanted a “black box”, and it’s obvious that he has no problem with proprietary firmware as long as it’s permanently embedded in the hardware rather than being loaded into it at boot time.
Source
Closed source always likes the idea of locked in. This include xbox 360s Playstation game consoles…. Basically lets have a huge lot of power eating crap in our houses. Locked in reduces competition.
What the hell are you crowing about? There’s no competition? So it’s not: PS3 vs. Xbox 360 vs. Wii vs. PC vs. Gaikai vs. Onlive? There are no exclusive games for this or that console or the PC by which the makers compete? Please do tell us how FLOSS would usher in more competition.
“let them eat cake”
Little known fact, these words (or rather “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”) were actually written by the French radical Jean-Jacques Rousseau some years before the French revolution, and later attributed to members of the French aristocracy in order to justify revolutionary terror in France (and elsewhere).
Chris Weig of course your comments are third part are out of context. And your RMS quote is taken out of context. Find the true RMS statement and it read very differently. Its not that he is alright with embedded roms he sees them as placing less of a barrier. What is correct.
Lot of loadable roms Linux kernel users to init hardware have to be extracted out of OS X, Windows and Android drivers. Also RMS statement covered flash on device as well.
Where the maker provides a rom for any OS to use is better than where the maker only provides it in a driver someone. On the device is less issue for a new OS loading. Why no need to install a device driver disc to have the device fire up.
Without the loadable firmware for lot of modern devices they are basically bricks. Why because lots of them are circuit programmed by the firmware. fpga chips and the like. So same circuit board different uploaded firmware different device.
Chris Weig if you going to quote RMS quote him directly. Otherwise you end up quoting people who don’t understand what was said.
Scale of trouble for people.
At the top for the worst.
1) OS Loaders that refuse all bar approved OS.(yep screwed trying to recycle this for another us in future)
2) firmware that is embed in drivers only provided for Limited OS’s.(these will not fire up until you can find the firmware to load into them)
3) devices with embedded firmware that cannot be upgraded or have to flash upgrade onto them and hope not to brick them(these will fire up to be diagnosed as a black box)
4) devices that provide loadable firmware images to fire up the device for everyone with open docs how to load the firmware. This is better because firmware can be used by everyone and it can be updated but this still suxs. Why does this still sux the device is still dead without driver. Lets say its the network card this is going to sux when you cannot download the driver you need.
5) devices with a on board starting firmware that support OS overloading with updated firmware. Best of both worlds the device will fire up and can be updated. Most important you cannot brick that hardware. Overloading is a form of temp flash when you power off the device returns to as if the overload was not applied. So if it that all important network card you need to use to get update at least it works and you can security update on fly.
6) Open spec hardware with like number 3 to 4. Not ideal but workable.
7) Open spec with number 5 configuration.
So yes there are 7 different levels. Its not just closed hardware vs open spec hardware. Best is the 7 level stuff. Ok is 6 level stuff. Reasonable 3-5. Hardware that is in 1-2 is the stuff that will come back and bite you in future for sure. Yes 2 is like those lexmark printers that you update your OS and they no longer work.
On those levels you really do want to stick to 3 or better. That gives you the hardware you do have a sporting chance of using when you upgrade. Closer to 7 the more likely the device will be usable to the day it dies. Not become non functional due to OS changes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman
“Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented.”
Chris Weig next paragraph says you miss quoted RMS. Yes the next paragraph says the paragraph you pulled defined a malicious circuit.
Quote both paragraphs as one and it has a completely different context. Lets just say RMS is not a good news paper writer. He is a long report writer and it shows.
This is the big problems with trolls like you Chris Weig you don’t read the full thing so you miss quote badly. This is why you don’t have a leg to stand on.
oiaohm wrote, “trolls like you Chris Weig you don’t read the full thing so you miss quote badly.”
Oh, they read the whole thing but figure fans of freedom will be demoralized and give up when they quote out of context like that. Where the trolls fail is in realizing that RMS has no motivation to do evil because his cause is just and resonates with the reader. A lot of humanity is based on the truth that sharing is good. Every mother and child knows that.
“Where the trolls fail is in realizing that RMS has no motivation to do evil because his cause is just and resonates with the reader.”
What case Robert Pogson? The cause of getting something for nothing? The cause of coercing all content creators into a commune? Having access to a pile of code of potentially dubious quality is not going to make up for the financial loss of having to give up ones creation to the group.
As far as I and others RMS and the FSF cause has nothing to do with justice, it has to do IMHO with a narrow geek childish insistence that RMS and others have a right to someone else s work.
Software does not NEED to be free. That is why Open source exists.
“A lot of humanity is based on the truth that sharing is good. Every mother and child knows that.”
Al lot of humanity also knows that you don’t get something for nothing robert pogson. They also know that it is wrong to insist that you have some inalienable right to help yourself to someone else s work without paying them.
oldman wrote, ” you don’t get something for nothing “.
That is not correct. I get air and water far below the cost of production.
oldman wrote, “to insist that you have some inalienable right to help yourself to someone else s work without paying them.”
Get over yourself, oldman. I don’t want anything M$ produces. I do want software that creators share with the world. I am a part of the world and just as entitled to breathe free software as free air. The world needs software and can make its own. We don’t need a monopoly to produce it when a cooperative effort works so well. Programmers get paid one way or another. How they get paid is between them and their employers/customers. So many businesses provide one service for $0 and get paid for doing something else, that I am surprised oldman doesn’t accept that as valid business. In the 1950s, I could walk into almost any corner store and buy a bottle of CokeTM, chilled, for seven cents. Did I pay for the chilling? No. That was a free service supplied by the owner of the establishment to encourage me to return. I did. The fact that some fraction of the price probably did pay for the chilling is irrelevant. It might have been paid by Coca-Cola as well in advertising/promotion. It’s so hot these days sweating scarcely helps and I still remember that cooler. It was advertising well-spent. So is FLOSS. IBM and RedHat and Suse earn huge points with humanity providing some free services while charging for others. It’s good business even in software.
oldman wrote, “Having access to a pile of code of potentially dubious quality is not going to make up for the financial loss of having to give up ones creation to the group.”
That is something individual developers can weigh for themselves. You have no right to coerce them into using another model. Linus said it best, ” It sounds unfair: get nine hours of work for doing one hour. But it obviously is not.”
“I am a part of the world and just as entitled to breathe free software as free air.”
You may have been gifted with software by a community as a side benefit of their efforts for themselves, but you are no more entitled to it than you are entitled to live in the home you have without paying for it.
What the world can do is irrelevant to what the world will do. You need only look at the likes of microsoft, adobe, Oracle and quite a few commercial software companies to see the listing of overseas offices. Commercial software is as much a world wide phenomenon as FOSS. Business world wide use all sorts of commercial software to perform business tasks, including closed source that is implemented under the more permissive Open source licenses.
So in the end IMHO it is you who need to “get over it” Robert Pogson.
“So many businesses provide one service for $0 and get paid for doing something else, that I am surprised oldman doesn’t accept that as valid business.”
I’ve heard of it Pog, its called a “come-on”. and it something that business do to drum up customers or build/maintain a market. The most famous version of this occurred in the 19th century saloons in NYC, which provided free lunches to all comers. Of course the foods provided were salty and thirst producing, and of course the bars were more than willing to sell those now thirsty free lunch consumers all the beer that they needed to slake that thirst.
In case you haven’t figured it out, this is the origin of the saying
“there is no such thing as a free lunch”
“You have no right to coerce them into using another model.”
ROFLMAO!
I am coercing people to reap the benefits of their own creative work!
Do you understand how stupid what you said can sound, Pog?
Oh, they read the whole thing but figure fans of freedom will be demoralized and give up when they quote out of context like that.
Good one!
Mr. Pogson, your blog couldn’t exist, if you and your little friends wouldn’t constantly either misquote or quote out of context. To that one can add your inclination to spin everything which has to do with Microsoft, in the process deliberately distorting the original source and the original meaning. What you present here are merely your biased opinions, but 99.9% of the time the facts — even those which you deliberately quote — don’t support your opinions.
I guess Physics was easier. Even you couldn’t ignore its laws. But God forbid if you would’ve had to use Microsoft back then. You never could have finished your thesis, because all the data would’ve been in your mind untrustworthy due to the usage of a Microsoft OS.
Chris Weig wrote:
“To that one can add your inclination to spin everything which has to do with Microsoft, in the process deliberately distorting the original source and the original meaning.”
Chris, what are you doing writing opinions? You’ve discredited yourself numerous times. Your opinion is worth nothing. Your recall of “facts” suspicious. Find someplace else where you can bamboozle the locals. You are dead air.
Linux Apostate wrote:
“Fascists and communists always seem very similar…”
Well, I guess you could say so but only if you are an idiot. Really LA, they are simply at polar ends of the political spectrum. They make Republicans and Democrats look like Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
The Cult of Microsoft has this clueless fascination with making Fascist and Communist to be essentially the same. Why? Call me a Fascist, I don’t give a rats ass. Call me a Communist, I still don’t give a rats ass. Call me a Fascist and a Communist and you have proven yourself to be an idiot once again.
If you really want to call me a Communist and a Fascist then go ahead. Educated people will laugh at you.
oldman
“I am coercing people to reap the benefits of their own creative work!”
This is fine on one hand. What happens when the device or software is abandoned by its creator. So its no longer getting updates.
There is a point of fair balance here. Companies like ID I don’t have problems with. As they give up on taking care of programs they release the source code so others can take up the work load of taking care of that program.
Code becomes a major security problem because its not maintained or there is no option to maintain it.
I don’t 100 percent agree with FSF. There does need to be rules for software companies have given up maintainer-ship on. Yes it one thing to profit from your creative work is another to leave you creative work with flaws that attackers are exploiting.
oldman so who liability is it really for those flaws. Its not like the end user in a closed source program has the source code to fix it. I would really love to see the limited liability clauses over turned for Closed Source because end users cannot fix it themselves. This way closed source makers would have to take responsibility for what they are creating.
How many end users are able to fix code themselves? Your constant ignorance of the fact that source code merely represents a potential is amusing.
BTW, I’m waiting for information. You haven’t told me for which shows you did VFX. And I need a link to your demo reel.
Chris Weig wrote, “Your constant ignorance of the fact that source code merely represents a potential is amusing.”
Your constant harping that the availability of source code doesn’t matter suggests it does. If it didn’t matter we would not be having this conversation. Wintel depends upon source code being unavailable. That’s how M$ makes its money, hiding source code. They even list the possibility of source code being revealed in SEC filings:
“We may not be able to protect our source code from copying if there is an unauthorized disclosure of source code. Source code, the detailed program commands for our operating systems and other software programs, is critical to our business. Although we license portions of our application and operating system source code to a number of licensees, we take significant measures to protect the secrecy of large portions of our source code. If an unauthorized disclosure of a significant portion of our source code occurs, we could potentially lose future trade secret protection for that source code. This could make it easier for third parties to compete with our products by copying functionality, which could adversely affect our revenue and operating margins. Unauthorized disclosure of source code also could increase the security risks described in the next paragraph.”
Silly M$, thinking source-code matters. (sarcasm)
Even if only ~1% of users ever refer to source code, it matters because it is one of the 4 pillars of FLOSS, that the source code may be examined. This is the key ingredient to make sure FLOSS does not become non-free software. Distribution in binary-only is a barrier to re-use of the code. It’s not an insurmountable barrier but it really reduced the usefulness of code to a programmer when it is compiled instead of visible as text.
I’m well aware that fascism and communism have different philosophies. My point was that they are the same from the perspective of ordinary people, which I should think would be evident to anyone who had read any history. There is no difference between living in a fascist state and a communist state.
The analogy with the FSF is this: they can be like communists and like fascists at the same time, because communists *are* like fascists, and fascists *are* like communists.
The canonical example might be Stalin. I choose him because in my experience modern communists typically despise him (and rightly so). Was he a communist, or a fascist? Or… both?
Chris Weig
“How many end users are able to fix code themselves? Your constant ignorance of the fact that source code merely represents a potential is amusing.”
Quake, Doom engine repairs are examples that it can happen.
History you don’t have to look far. To see source code and end of life taken over and supported by companies still using it.
There are a long list of applications that have gone end of life that are now maintained by there users funding developers to take care of them.
Blender is classic because NaN was shutting up shop. Not they did not have customers they just wanted to retire. As the last thing they placed the source code for sale. It was acquired by the companies that wished on keeping on using it and they maintaining it.
I don’t say that a end of life product source code should have to be giving away for free. But offer to allow the ones still using it to buy and take over should exist. Really I would make this a legal requirement. If you are not going to be extracting profit from the program any more you should be required to attempt sell it. Really lot of ways not selling it off is ripping of your companies share holders.
History says if the potent-ional is giving the ones who need that program will maintain it. Now if no one needs that program any more it will bit rot away into nothingness.
VFX is not just for shows and moves Chris Weig.
it matters because it is one of the 4 pillars of FLOSS, that the source code may be examined.
Wow, Mr. Pogson, that is an incredible example of getting the cart before the horse as we old guys put it! If its main purpose is satisfying Stallman’s ego to make you F(LOSS)anatics dance to his tune, it becomes very hard to make much of a case.
You are also not correct in thinking that Microsoft holds on all that tightly to its source. Source is continually released, along with checked builds of ongoing Windows version developement, to partners who have agreed to keep it confidential and who need it for developing their own dependent Windows products, for example Symantec, McAfee, Computer Associates, Oracle, and many others. Of course these ISVs are not in the OS business and the benefits from this association are mutual, such as you once suggested is the case for FLOSS project participants.
The commercial world does cooperate, Mr. Pogson, even if they continue to insist on charging license fees for those who get beneficial use from their products.
Linux Apostate wrote:
“My point was that they are the same from the perspective of ordinary people, which I should think would be evident to anyone who had read any history.”
Oh dear, here we go with another one. “My point was that…” You were not making that point until this very comment. No LA you cannot slough off your ignorance on other people. This is by-the-book Cult of Microsoft. Sometimes it’s a word that takes the blame for an ignorant or arrogant statement. You wish to speak for “ordinary people” now? So that’s the ticket. Well, it’s taken you a while to get around to that.
It looks like you did some research to back up your statement that Communists and Fascists are essentially the same and discovered that I was right all along. Then you needed someone or something to take the blame for your own ignorance so you came up with the “ordinary people” tack.
You were speaking for yourself and defending @ldman too. Ordinary people didn’t come in until later. What a weasel you are LA. You can’t even make a simple admission of error. That is another Cult of Microsoft trait. You wear it well LA.
Hmm, the first thing I said was:
“When the jackboots stamp on your face, who cares if they are worn by the Red Army or the Schutzstaffel? The effect is the same.”
Which is very much “they are the same from the perspective of ordinary people”. Or maybe you have some other interpretation?
Your persistent, childish name-calling has been noted. But I am late for my Microsoftology meeting, and this is already way off topic, so let us leave it there. I’m getting free Kool-aid and a copy of Windows 8 today, and obviously I don’t want to miss that.
Blender is classic because NaN was shutting up shop. Not they did not have customers they just wanted to retire. As the last thing they placed the source code for sale. It was acquired by the companies that wished on keeping on using it and they maintaining it.
Then your history is very fuzzy. Retiring? When? Where? NaN was founded to sell Blender. And when they couldn’t SELL enough of it, they went bankrupt. Then Roosendaal asked the “community” for help, as he was in dire need of 100,000 Euros to buy back the rights to the software from his investors. It wasn’t about companies wanting to maintain Blender because they used it. So from this perspective — a commercial perspective — Blender was a failure.
Chris Weig wrote, “So from this perspective — a commercial perspective — Blender was a failure.”
From that perspective, M$ is a failure, too, because Zune, Vista, Phoney “7″ and their web-advertising thing failed. If the failure of a business to accomplish something transfers to the product, it works both ways. Why equate the failure of NaN with a failure of Blender? Obviously, Blender is quite successful at “blending”.
“Last Friday, May 11, 2012, Mixamo, Inc. has nominated “Vanguard” a Blender-made game character as the winner of the “Space Battle Character Contest.” It could mean that the game studios no longer need to rely on some of the expensive software to create top-notch game characters and props.”
see also Chronograph by Eduard Härkönen
Why equate the failure of NaN with a failure of Blender? Obviously, Blender is quite successful at “blending”.
Blender / NaN is no longer competing on the commercial market. So terms like success aren’t really applicable any longer, as Blender is not really striving for success in such a sense. I’m not dissing the software, I’m merely stating the obvious fact that NaN tried to sell the software for four years and wasn’t successful enough to survive. Obviously there was NO market for it. There is obviously a market for it now that it’s free. But only because it’s free. Feature-wise it’s not playing with the big boys. And if you’re opting for a job in the industry, you will quickly abandon Blender (or rather be forced to), as most of the industry still requires you to work with standard industry software like Maya or Houdini.
Strictly speaking, FLOSS shouldn’t care about success. Success is absolutely irrelevant for FLOSS. But you always do care about FLOSS’s success. Strange … that people for whom success should be no category at all, constantly feel the need to defend FLOSS in terms of “success”.
Chris Weig wrote, “Obviously there was NO market for it.”
That’s not obvious at all. People need software that does what Blender does. Obviously the way to make money distributing Blender is to provide training for $. Did NaN do that? Did they advertise? Did they distribute to schools? A business likely could improve on what Blender.org does.
Microsoft that push these restrictions also have a terrible track record when it comes to security
And what about the leap second? It seams to me that this bug known from 2008, but fixed only when it was to late, is taking its heavy toll on Linux?
Leap second bug cripples Linux servers at airlines, Reddit, LinkedIn
‘Leap Second’ Bug Wreaks Havoc Across Web:
Others complained of issues with Linux servers, and according to BuzzFeed, Foursquare, Yelp, LinkedIn, Gawker, and StumbleUpon were also felled by the leap second bug.
Linux is culprit in leap-second lapses: Cassandra exec
Many had found that resetting the application did not restore the server to normal operation. They could, however, remedy the issue by resetting the system clock or rebooting the server.
re-re-rebooting? On Linux? Nice to hear it
Linux Apostate wrote:
“Hmm, the first thing I said was:
“When the jackboots stamp on your face, who cares if they are worn by the Red Army or the Schutzstaffel? The effect is the same.””
Um, not true.
“Fascists and communists always seem very similar, so maybe the terms are interchangeable. When the jackboots stamp on your face, who cares if they are worn by the Red Army or the Schutzstaffel? The effect is the same.”
Fascists and Communists are interchangeable to you. And that you said first.
Now you are a lier and a weasel who is afraid to make a little admission of error. You are pathetic LA.
Yes, let’s move on to what’s important but why waste time exchanging words with you. You lie and you have demonstrated to have little in the way of ethics. Sort of like your beloved Microsoft. The two of you make a good pair.
iLia wrote, “re-re-rebooting? On Linux? Nice to hear it”
Of course re-booting once every few years does little harm and may be useful for cleaning out the spiders’ webs. All software has bugs and leap-seconds are rare. Particular installations, like all of mine, had no problem with the leap-second. Google, which has a lot of servers, invented the leap-second-smear to minimize the impact. That makes a lot more sense than a leap-second anyway. In my case, I synchronize all my machines from the router and it did the right thing.
Chris Weig wrote, “Blender / NaN is no longer competing on the commercial market.”
The purpose of IT is not to enrich corporations but to get things done. Blender is doing a lot in the world, a lot of commercial things.
As I said, I’m not going to argue about that any more, since you are clearly uninterested in engaging with what I (or others) say. There can be no argument if you do not read your opponent’s posts, and instead imagine that they say things that they do not.
Furthermore, this puerile “Cult of Microsoft” name-calling confirms your total disrespect for anyone who disagrees with you. What sort of person cannot cope with a difference of opinion without going into all-out attack mode? (A fascist? A communist? Somebody with really terrible social skills? Hey, why not all three.)
Actually, I think you are probably a Linux Hater, doing a somewhat effective parody of a free software user. You have dialed it up all the way to maximum FLOSSologist, and then you’ve pushed it a few steps further, mixing in a few bad behaviours often associated with the basement dwellers. If so, good work… it will be fun to see how long you can carry on doing this before Pogson catches on and bans you.
Chris Weig NaN when it shut up shop was still making profit. When Tom asked for 100 000 EURO he got it in from the current users in 7 weeks. Really the response from current users has been lot larger to host those short movie projects. Those are not cheap things todo.
In fact NaN never once tried to sell off blender. Due to being lead developer Tom got given a chance to buy it and do what ever he wanted with it when the company was shutting down.
iLia to fix the leapsecond bug you don’t need to reboot. Just tap the clock again. date -s “`date`”
There is a catch of course. Not user rebooting the systems. Lot of networks have load monitoring and the auto systems saw leapsecond bug extra load as a possible exploited server and automatically took corrective action “terminate the sucker”.
So rebooting them is not requires user to trigger in Linux clusters. The bug has been fixed for quite some time.
Please note MS Windows servers have also gone down due to leapsecond errors. Worse leapday errors.
http://www.information-age.com/channels/the-cloud-and-virtualization/news/2089623/azure-outage-triggered-by-leap-day-microsoft-thinks.thtml
This was the first major leapsecond push out. Linux kernel 3.4 had the patch. Problem is most distributions were not using that. There is a lot of backporting going on.
The issue is a true one off. Google tested and worked out there was a problem and did a different solution. We have known leapsecond was coming for over 6 months. testing it would have been a very good idea. All the ones that failed did no prep.
Lot of mine were set to auto retap the date. If those companies can fall for leapsecond what other quality controls are they not doing.
Chris Weig NaN when it shut up shop was still making profit.
No, they were not. That’s why the investors deciced to pull the plug and let the company go bankrupt. They then agreed to open sourcing it to get some money back from the 100,000 Euro needed.
Don’t try to rewrite history. I was actively following Blender from when NeoGeo shut down and when it was first released to the public. I even gave money for their campaign.
I’m well aware that fascism and communism have different philosophies.
Absolutely true.
My point was that they are the same from the perspective of ordinary people, which I should think would be evident to anyone who had read any history. There is no difference between living in a fascist state and a communist state.
No not the same, commies are much, much more bloody. Compare Hitler and Stalin.
Check this link and pay attention to the photo on the right.
Don’t mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, his head will assplode.
Chris Weig
“No, they were not. That’s why the investors deciced to pull the plug and let the company go bankrupt. They then agreed to open sourcing it to get some money back from the 100,000 Euro needed.”
It is you who is rewriting history. NaN from 1998 to 2002 balance sheets were profits no debt at all. A well managed company to ride out storms.
“Sadly, due to disappointing sales and the ongoing difficult economic climate, the NaN investors decided to shut down all operations early 2002.”
Sales were still larger than operational costs. Disappointing from point of view of not being a huge win fall that could save some of the investors from going bankrupt due to other investments that were not paying.
Other things had happened to the investors in NaN. Not blenders fault. A few of them went under.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_downturn_of_2002 Yes caught up in this is what took NaN out.
NaN goes from a very happy company Jan 2002 to a very unhappy company by Mar 2002. That is nothing todo with NaN operations.
Margin calls basically took a few of the investors out they were over extended. Blender just was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Ton the lead developer of blender has been in 2 companies and one organisation.
Ton Roosendaal co-founded the Dutch animation studio NeoGeo
1998, Ton founded a new company called Not a Number (NaN)
And is the boss of the Blender Foundation.
Not one of those companies or organisation has been badly financially managed. His choice of backers over the years have not been the best. Its the backers own caused trouble caused them to pull out. Then its having enough money to pay the investors out without damaging the company critically.
What happened to blender could happen to any small company you are depending on software from.
Really if all Microsoft share holders wanted there money back at the same time Microsoft would be in trouble as well.
Chris Weig really if idiots you want to call NaN failed because then you don’t have to admit a company that is supplying you with software could go splat if enough of there share holders pull out not due to any other operational problem.
So not seeing the importance of source code being released in case of company death. This allows a new company or org to form with a more stable money base.
Linux Apostate wrote:
“As I said, I’m not going to argue about that any more,…”
Then he writes:
“Don’t mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, his head will assplode.”
You really don’t know how to just do as you say you will do. But that’s okay, the more you write, the better I look.
That wasn’t an argument, that was abuse.
NaN from 1998 to 2002 balance sheets were profits no debt at all. A well managed company to ride out storms.
Right, could you present us with those balance sheets? There was zero evidence back then that NaN shut down despite being profitable. You don’t seem to realize that they already went bankrupt before NaN shut down. That was in 2001, and the result of that bankruptcy was a big restructuring out of which came Blender Publisher, which was a horrible product and had not a bit of success on the market. Then they went bankrupt for a second time, this time for good. Ton’s original message from 2001:
Dear Blender community,
Yes, the rumours are true. We ran out of money and couldn’t find a new investor willing to support us. Last friday the company went officially bankrupt. However, this doesn’t mean an end to the company or Blender. There are too many enthousiast employees and enthousiast investors and companies that still believe in what we did the last 3 years.
Several rescue plans are being developed now that might result in a restart of NaN within days. A restart most likely will be based on a smaller company which makes less expenses.
Personally, this whole situation has caused me a lot of pain and sadness. We have tried to play the game last year and we’ve lost. Right now it means fighting for my little baby, do the utmost to ensure a new and secure future for Blender and the community around this.
As soon as there’s news you can expect a statement about it.
-Ton-
NaN’s demise was a direct result from the restructuring, a direct result from putting a product like “Blender Publisher” on the market which didn’t sell. But perhaps Ton saying that they “ran out of money” and that no investors were interested in pouring even more money into the company is still too ambiguous for you.
Well, dream on.