Posts by Vic

> Let's be honest here.

That would be nice.

> The Linux user needs a respository if he is not up to the challenge

> of compiling from source and resolving any remaining issues.

This is not true.

There are many ways of obtaining software. The distro-supplied repo is inevitably the most convenient way, but far from the only one.

> There is no such thing as a universal repository that works across all Linux distributions.

Nor should there be. That would make all distributions homogenous - and that's exactly what we *don't* want.

There are, however, a couple of common formats, and tools to convert between them.

> There can and likely will be barriers to downloading and installing

> programs which aren't quite "free" enough to meet the geek's standard of purity.

Cobblers. That's simply untrue.

> The repository which offers the novice little more than a bare listing

> of applications and resources is pretty much useless.

I don't think any such repository exists. All the ones I've supply descriptions of each package in the metadata (which you necessarily get). Perhaps you'd like to give us an example of this mythical repo?

Vic.

> You try installing a Linux distro from the same era as the initial Win7 release.

I do that regularly.

> You'll get *lots* of patches offered

Indeed. And updating them really isn't a big deal.

> including kernel updates that require a reboot

Kernel updates are one of the few things that really *do*require a reboot, unless you're using ksplice (which I don't).

But Windows requires reboots for far more than kernel updates...

> only to be followed by fresh app updates now "unblocked" because the kernel has gone in

Got any references for that? Because it seems remarkably untrue, by my experience.

Vic.

> Further, -ii isn't appropriate pluralisation in any language of which I am aware

Radii?

Vic.

> he knew full well he was in violation of copyright law

Did he?

Which law, which section?

> People need to take personal responsibility for their actions.

Indeed they do. I wonder if the US authorities who are pushing for extradition will end up taking responsibility for theirs...

Vic.

> copyright infringement is not illegal, it's a civil matter.

That depends on the context. Read section 107.

> How many fcuking times.

Errr - precisely...

Vic.

> It's not a crime it's a civil matter.

It probably *is* a criminal matter.

I suspect - with no evidence whatsoever, of course - that that's what all the advertising revenue bollocks is all about.

Under the revolting section 107 of CDPA88[1], breaching copyright "in the course of business" is a criminal offence. Since they seem to be going for subsection 1(d)(iv), that carries a penalty of up to ten years inside.

However, I can't seem to find anything in that law which makes him guilty of an infringement of copyright; Chapter II covers infringement, and it all requires the infringer passing copies of the material, not just telling others where to find such copies.

Not that that's going to matter. Who cares if something is lawful? The yanks want their pound of flesh.

Vic.

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents . You should all read it.

> Not being tried for something, doesn't make you not guilty of it, just not tried for it.

Yes it does.

In this country, we are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

As he has not been proven guilty, he remains innocent.

Not that that matters to the Septics, of course :-(

Vic.

> Linux has a market share of about 1%

Reference?

Even Ballmer thinks[1] it's bigger than that.

Vic.

[1] See, for example, http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple

> So the Reg didn't carry an article recently where a white hat demonstrated

> at a conference how to make an ATM spit out money?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/28/atm_hacking_demo/

No, obviously they didn't.

> My eyes must have made it up.

Mine too. Do you think we can sue somebody?

Vic.

> there ought to be something in the linux kernel license that prevents

No. Absolutely not.

The whole point of Freedom is that you don't get to dictate to anyone else what Freedom means.

So although I would rather nobody ever kill anyone else, it is totally wrong to say that Linux cannot be used for military applications.

Vic.

> Err... Some sort of private network?

The flaw in your logic is that US-based military networks seem to be a bit thin on basic security.

Bradley Manning apparently helped himself to large amounts of secret data by taking a CD-RW into a "secure" area, erasing the audio he'd put on it, then re-writing it with the data he wanted.

There are at least three heinous security problems described in that last sentence. Someone high-up should be facing charges[1] for allowing that situation to develop.

Whilst that sort of laxity can still happen, it really doesn't matter how well you tie down your network access...

Vic.

[1] But they won't. They'll blame the guy who got caught, ignoring the fact that his actions should have been impossible.

> Is anyone else worried by that remark?

Yep. I was about to post the same.

They've got credential-stealing malware on the network, and they see it as both commonplace and unimportant?

Imagine the brouhaha if they had the same sort of security breach in their personnel...

Vic.

> IANAL, but is copyright not automatically assigned for "the work"

It is now, but that was not always the case under US law.

You'd have to look up what the controlling legislation was in the late '60s...

Vic.

> This is called the "Agile" program management method

No it isn't.

Agile development keeps the coupling tight, but doesn't have one coder to one tester to one PM. *That's* what I find unusual. Of course, it might just be an inaccuracy...

Vic.

> GUI can be provided by the web browser (e.g. rendering output of CGI on the screen

I'm not sure that's the right way to introduce people to programming; CGI inherently uses one language (e.g. PHP or perl) to write another (HTML / JS). That's a complexity I think we should avoid at this level.

But something like Glade / GtkBuilder gives an easy way to do GUIs without an excessive amount of farting around. You have to know a bit about a GUI environment, of course, but the idea of linking stimuli to even handlers ought to be a fairly basic concept to anyone heading in that direction...

Vic.

> And here's me thinking it was to make Britain great again

Britain won't be great again, because everyone holding the purse strings has such an excessively short-term view of enterprise...

Vic.

> he's a sh*t actor!

That last word was somewhat superfluous...

Vic.

> Practically anyone but the educationally subnormal can program.

I don't think I agree with that.

Practically anyone can write something that executes. But to catch all the corner-cases requires an attention to detail that I find largely lacking in most people I meet.

The practical upshot of all this is that practically anyone can write crap, but it takes a really *pedantic* class of coder to write something defensive...

Vic.

> It's funny how some folks dream up the most absurd scenarios to rationalize their beliefs

Sadly, those scenarios are entirely possible within the proposed law.

If they are so absurd, why is this possible? Doe it not smack of an ill-framed piece of legislation?

> SOPA is not the end of the universe ferchrissakes.

It is, however, a ridiculously dangerous law. It sparks the end of due process. That, of itself, is grounds to get worked up.

> society would not need to continuously make new laws to punish these criminals

Society *does not* need to make up new laws. It already has laws that punish wrongdoing. Copyright infringement is unlawful just about everywhere in the world, and can be criminal in certain jurisdictions (such as the UK, under s.107 of CDPA88).

SOPA is all about removing the need to prove a case before punishing the defendant. And that is wrong.

Vic.

> Dunno if you were talking to me

I thought he was addressing the same AC you took on.

The threading isn't all that wonderful on this forum software...

Vic.

> Fair Use means if you buy the rights to use a digital works, you must

> use it only as allowed by copyright law, not any way you please.

Whilst what you say is technically correct, it makes a very false implication.

"Fair use" is very permissive under US law, under which it is enshrined. You can use stuff pretty much any way you please, so long as you don't take the piss.

UK law is somewhat more restrictive, but even here we have the right to use copyrighted material in many ways without breaching the law.

Vic.

> a jury would still have to convict

No, they wouldn't.

A jury is within its rights to decide that someone is not guilty, even if the facts are extraordinarily blatant. It's called Jury Nullification, and it is real.

One of the things I like about the UK justice system is that no-one can ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did; if a jury decides to acquit a defendant even in the face of overwhelming evidence, that is their right (although the prosecution now has certain appeal rights).

Vic.

> Finally there's one other kind of show I torrent. Those I just can't get in the UK.

I waited for 23 years to get hold of a DVD of Chelmsford 123. In the meantime, I did watch a very poor-quality torrent that had been recorded from UKGold onto VHS before being digitised...

Whilst my actions were unlawful, I think there would have been reasonable mitigation should I have been caught; the DVDs had been promised so many times, but never delivered...

Vic.

> I have been on a jury, and their remit is severely limitted.

Not a limited as you might imply. If a judge misleads a jury into thinking they have less leeway than they do, that is of itself grounds for appeal.

> If the case is proven that someone is guilty, the jury must find them guilty.

Go and read up on "jury nullification".

Vic.

> There is nothing wrong with making recovery disks for a user and charging a fee.

That's pretty much the argument Psystar used.

Trouble is - it's wrong.

You may not copy copyrighted software without a licence from the copyright holder.

Windows users who have a Windows licence have that licence to copy as necessary (including the CDPA section 50A exemptions). But no-one has the right to do that on their behalf, nor may they make copies for other people - that right is not transferable.

> Starbucks does that all the time

No they don't. Coffee is not copyrighted.

Vic.