baghira

Firefox works on Wayland now. So, unless you have redefined Firefox as a non-major browser, "is far from certain whether any of the major browsers will ever run on Wayland" is flatly wrong. Also: https://github.com/01org/ozone-wayland

And the obvious point is that turning ChromeOS into a full linux distribution defeats the point of ChromeOS itself: to have very few "moving parts", and only those necessary to launch Chrome. Also, the bulk of the work "for wayland" is not wayland itself: it is KMS/Mesa/glamor/libinput, which are already used by ChromeOS (except for libinput, I think).

The FSF's interpretation is valid for GPLv2 and LGPLv2 as well, since the line "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." is also in there (not everyone agrees with this interpreation, but that's beside the point). The anti-tivoization clauses are not considered to be the problem, generally, since app developers are not distributing tivoized hardware or tivoizing it with their software.

Also, the path for solving compliance problems for (L)GPLv3 is much more well defined, as opposed to the case of v2. That's a plus.

I don't think they'll change it anytime soon. I don't like it at all, and I agree that it is almost dangerous, even though I sort of understand the rationale seeing how non-technical users handle volumes.

It's also kinda of hard to expose in a GUI: a checkbox with "Flat Volumes" is not really self-explanatory. For now I've just added .config/pulse/daemon.conf the config files I drag from one installation to the next.

Yes, according to the config file `src/daemon/daemon.conf.in` in the tarball.

It is a rebuttal to the implication that the possibility of the community electing some nefarious personality should be considered valid ground for denying said community any representation. By the same token a bunch of corporations should be denied one. I didn't interpret the post as call for reformed governance, unless you consider

1. Deny individual representation

2. ???

3. Governance problems fixed!

a plan (yeah, I'm being snarky, sorry).

On the other hand we should expect nothing but good things from esteemed GPL violators such as Allwinner and WMWare, right? /s EDIT: I guess I should qualify the statement wrt WMWare as "supposed violator", since the case isn't over and I haven't looked at the source code.

No, the bug is in the kernel keyring facility, so if I'm not mistaken compiling with CONFIG_KEYS=n option should protect you (I haven't tested though). As for the /proc/kallsyms, I honestly don't know how come you only get zeroes.

EDIT: The obvious question I should have asked is which distro you are running. Also, as others have pointed out, hoping that the attacker can't read kallsyms from the machine he's attacking is not really a good defense plan.

That only hides the pid directories of others users, and indeed on my system remounting /proc with hidepid=2 I'm still able to see the same values for kallsyms. Maybe your kernel is compiled without the CONFIG_KEYS=y option? (I'm spitballing here).

According the lwn comments it should be sufficient (and the post by perception-point suggests that it would at least make things more difficult), but I haven't the hardware to test for myself.

If you have SMAP, i.e. an Haswell or newer Intel CPU, you should not be vulnerable, so that could be an explanation.

While the fact that since last fall grsecurity only ships the stable branch of the patchset for sponsors (because of persistent trademarks violations) doesn't help integration in smaller distributions (also Debian, I would guess), I am always baffled as to why grsecurity/Pax were never chosen by a distro like Suse to differentiate itself from Red Hat.

As others said, using a kernel with the Grsecurity patchset would prevent the issue (I believe the configuration of SElinux on Android should be sufficient, but the default config in RHEL7/Fedora is insufficiently strict).

Both in the case of Office 365 and that of Azure they are selling you their cashcow (office and windows), only in a software as service fashion. Moreover, neither is opensource, unlike cloud offering based on Xen or kvm, which are (at least to some extent). I fail to see how Sun fares worse in this comparison, if this was your point.

Fair enough, I don't judge the Surface machines as something bad per se, I simply don't pine for a world were the only decent hardware to run Windows is made by MS (which the too often abysmal quality of other OEMs may lead us to). Maybe I'm being a little paranoid, I guess.

FWIW, I would argue something similar wrt the Apple tv: abusive practices or not, I would not be happy to see one of the world's wealthiest corporation become a key player in yet another market (if anything because of Apple's sketchy history wrt to open formats).

That may be true, but there is clearly an argument against that premium manifacturer being the already giant corporation that licenses the os run on 95% of those machines. If it were startup I'd say 'more power to them', even if they only shipped machines with windows preinstalled.

According to the developer the bug was present only in the 1.1 series, which is just a few months old (it was pre-released at debconf 2015, and is not in Jessie if i'm not mistaken).

It works fine under konsole 15.08.

Windows will not boot in UEFI mode if the partition table is of MBR kind. One must manually enable the BIOS legacy mode, hence the comment on modern Windows systems (younger than 4 years, say).

Problem is, as an mp3 (flac really) player the interface is terrible: for running or biking you really want a player that is small and has physical buttons to click, or alternatively your actual phone so you get communications and statistics. Carrying a poor player that is not you actual phone makes little sense to me.

Yes and no: the part clarifying what happens when one does not comply with the GPL is "objectively better"¹, since it clarifies a legal situation otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. Similarly the clarifications with regard to software distribution, which are enhanced compared to a license written in 1991.

I'd say that "most parts" of the GPLv3 are clearer than the GPLv2: of course one is free to argue that the patent clause and the anti-tivoization clause offset these improvements, but I'd still give credit for the rest.

1. I'm using objectively in a sense that I hope is colloquially understandable, if philosophically wrong.

We really don't need yet another license. What's more, all those changes would probably result in a new license that is again incompatible with GPLv2. The fact is that the "anti-tivoization" clause is, for most free software projects, a smaller problem (if a problem at all) compared to the simple fact that the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2. I fear there is simply no way of creating a "new" GPL license that is compatible with the GPLv2, short of adding an exception like MPLv2 does.

People running Nexuses have root on their smartphone, even better, they can replace the copy of android with a modified one (which is really what you want, not people running around with /sbin/su in their smartphone). Granted, there are blob everywhere and running a more recent kernel is hard (impossible?), and there isn't a sensible mechanism like secureboot on x86 to add the users key to the bootloader, but it's not that bad a situation. The problem is the rest of the Android ecosystem, and Microsoft phones, and of course Apple.

Besides, if free software can't provide security, people won't run free software. End of story.

Ubuntu Mate has a PPC version which seems to be pretty popular. Unfortunately the G5 power consumption and fan noise (unless you have the liquid-cooled version, maybe) are high, so trying to reanimate a G5 is not really a compelling proposition for me (besides the fact that I ended up stuck somewhere in openfirmware-land last time I tried).

A more apt reference would probably be Rorschach from Watchmen. At least this sort of stuff should deter Hollywood from any plan of a RMS biopic, so all in all it may be good thing.

I can't recall a sack of Rome by Odoacer, nor can I find after a quick search, but my memory may be lasping here. FWIW, Odoacer did escape to Ravenna to escape Theoderic and the siege lasted circa 3 years, so it did prove to be a reasonable location from that point of view.

Trouble is, there was no San Marino at the time. While I have no idea whether or not this was the inspiration for Tolkien, some element sort of match, from the capital being moved to the following reconquest of Ravenna under Byzantine rule, and also the presence of marshes to the north of the city (if Middle Earth map is oriented North-top South-bottom, which I'm not sure).

That's not Ravenna, that's the castle atop mount Titano in San Marino.

exgrv's commment, the way I read it, was arguing for something less radical: "simply" insourcing the work of the journal publishers, and having it done by scientists (maybe allocating more resources to scientists so that the workload remains sane).

What you are proposing (arxiv.org + PageRank) is quite a shakeup. My impression is that while pretty good at using the position in the graph to establish relevance, such a model is much less effective at gauging quality (which is the problem, if you want to use bibliometric scores as a way to establish whose careers are to advance). In other term, the outcome of a search for "cloud computing" is certainly pertinent with the subject. That is not how you would choose which cloud service to use.

Of course, it may well be possible that the human judgment component is codifiable in a few hundred/thousand of heustics (sounds like a hard problem, but it's not my field), thus allowing the construction of a good model.

Yes, but the editorial board is not the only cost component of a journal. I'm somewhat skeptical of how much the model in which "the scientists" do all the work of publishing a journal can scale, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

I'll admit my comment was influenced by some proposed models (e.g. in the UK), arguing for the allocation of taxpayer resources to "buy" open access for research.