2009-05-06T00:08:17 *** Murmuria has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T00:37:08 *** kristoffer_ has quit IRC 2009-05-06T01:25:19 *** syslogd has quit IRC 2009-05-06T01:27:04 *** syslogd has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T02:39:35 *** klutometis has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T02:46:20 *** jrm8005 has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T03:05:16 *** jrm8005 has quit IRC 2009-05-06T04:45:56 *** Liquen has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T05:22:38 *** Liquen has quit IRC 2009-05-06T06:07:48 *** solidsnack has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T06:53:43 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T07:13:38 *** olegfink has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T07:55:18 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T07:55:33 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T08:49:17 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T08:58:46 *** kristoffer has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T09:02:45 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T09:52:09 *** sarguruuu has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T09:52:09 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T10:13:52 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T10:15:46 *** sarguruuu has quit IRC 2009-05-06T10:19:39 *** solidsnack has quit IRC 2009-05-06T10:33:59 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T10:50:56 *** jyujin_ has quit IRC 2009-05-06T11:50:28 *** olegfink has quit IRC 2009-05-06T11:51:04 *** olegfink has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T11:51:27 *** olegfink is now known as Guest22983 2009-05-06T11:52:14 *** Guest22983 is now known as olegfink 2009-05-06T12:23:19 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T12:35:47 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T13:24:49 *** mog has quit IRC 2009-05-06T14:19:26 *** sarguruuu has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T14:31:27 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T14:51:21 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T14:53:42 *** sarguruuu has quit IRC 2009-05-06T15:06:15 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T15:06:36 *** sarguru has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T15:37:00 *** sarguruuu has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T15:37:40 *** sarguru has quit IRC 2009-05-06T15:48:00 *** mog has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T15:49:09 *** olegfink has quit IRC 2009-05-06T16:39:05 *** sarguruuu has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:28:23 *** KillerX has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:40:47 *** ChanServ has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:47 *** syslogd has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:47 *** bittin__1 has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:47 *** dagle1 has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:47 *** mog has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:48 *** synchris_ has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:48 *** uriel has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:48 *** klutometis has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:40:48 *** phirox has quit IRC 2009-05-06T18:43:07 *** synchris_ has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:43:07 *** uriel has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:46:24 *** klutometis has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:46:31 *** dagle1 has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:46:52 *** mog has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:47:15 *** ChanServ has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:47:15 *** phirox has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:47:15 *** bittin__1 has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:47:15 *** syslogd has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T18:47:15 *** irc.freenode.net sets mode: +o ChanServ 2009-05-06T19:11:08 *** KillerX has quit IRC 2009-05-06T19:56:50 *** jrm8005 has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T20:20:02 *** jrm8005 has quit IRC 2009-05-06T21:26:04 *** jrm8005 has joined #glendix 2009-05-06T21:34:55 Murmuria: I think you should try reading up on the other side of the argument about patents. 2009-05-06T21:35:04 you seem brainwashed by GNU :-/ 2009-05-06T21:36:12 I have hardly read GNU's take on this much 2009-05-06T21:36:33 jrm8005, I am more coming from being anti-monopolistic in nature 2009-05-06T21:36:46 patents != monopolism 2009-05-06T21:36:47 but I dont deny my view may be one sided 2009-05-06T21:37:00 no I never made that equation 2009-05-06T21:37:22 I am mearly saying, I have reasons of my own to have joined this bandwagon 2009-05-06T21:37:32 ok, look at it this way. 2009-05-06T21:38:09 patents are there to protect entities that invest in research. 2009-05-06T21:38:30 if you spend billions of dollars paying people to come up with a novel algorithm, I think it's fair to reward that investment. 2009-05-06T21:38:33 for which the argument is that Copyrights are good enough... 2009-05-06T21:38:47 not really. 2009-05-06T21:38:56 depends on what is developeed 2009-05-06T21:39:15 its not like that... its like, you spent money doing some research 2009-05-06T21:39:23 someone else came up with some ideas 2009-05-06T21:39:31 without in contact with you or your research 2009-05-06T21:39:39 you sue him for doing what he is doing 2009-05-06T21:39:53 even if it is not the exact replica of what you are trying to achieve 2009-05-06T21:40:25 Murmuria: yes. And that person has to show that whatever they came up with is 'obvious' 2009-05-06T21:40:44 copyright does not cover technical things. 2009-05-06T21:40:56 a copyright covers implementation, a patent covers ideas and processes. 2009-05-06T21:41:06 and like it or not, an algorithm is a process. 2009-05-06T21:41:14 no , the person who is getting sued, is violating the patent, whether or not he can prove anything 2009-05-06T21:41:18 thats the problem 2009-05-06T21:41:33 Murmuria: the person is only violating the patent if the patent is valid. 2009-05-06T21:41:43 they can challenge the patent. 2009-05-06T21:41:47 I know an algorithm is covered only by the patents and not by copyrights 2009-05-06T21:41:59 I'm not saying that the system doesn't need an overhaul. 2009-05-06T21:42:19 but copyright doesn't cut it, and it is /fair/ to let companies prosper from their investments. 2009-05-06T21:42:30 I'm an author and I'm really glad there is copyright. 2009-05-06T21:42:37 see, I know M$ has a patent for the X button on the top right corner in your window 2009-05-06T21:42:42 I know they did not invent it 2009-05-06T21:42:46 I know it is bullshit 2009-05-06T21:42:59 so you can get it thrown out, or, in this case, it's unenforceable. 2009-05-06T21:43:01 and I know they dont describe it so trivially 2009-05-06T21:43:39 Murmuria: it's trivial to show that it is an 'obvious' process/layout based on existing research not done by MS. 2009-05-06T21:43:50 therefore, you can challenge the patent, and then countersue for damages. 2009-05-06T21:44:11 the nice thing about the US is that it is usually good about covering the defender if the plaintiff is wrong. 2009-05-06T21:44:16 I know this firsthand. 2009-05-06T21:44:30 hmm 2009-05-06T21:44:33 my father was involved in a lawsuit where the plaintiffs made a false claim, and we destroyed them. 2009-05-06T21:45:11 I have not considered this angle... I think the problem here is that you Vs a mega-multi national company is like slaying the goliath 2009-05-06T21:45:28 Murmuria: that's a problem with the legal system, not patents. 2009-05-06T21:46:31 may be, it can be contested... but I am still not convinced about the patents... I dont see how it benefits 2009-05-06T21:46:38 it only stops research and development 2009-05-06T21:46:43 Murmuria: no, it doesn't. 2009-05-06T21:46:49 if it did, nothing would be getting done. 2009-05-06T21:46:55 and that is clearly not true. 2009-05-06T21:46:58 look at it this way. 2009-05-06T21:47:03 you win the lottery tomorrow. 2009-05-06T21:47:08 50 million bucks. 2009-05-06T21:47:26 you pay me and Anant 25 million dollars to come up with a novel routing algorithm. 2009-05-06T21:47:38 you've just lost half your fortune! 2009-05-06T21:48:00 if you can't prosper from it for a little while, you'll be pissed. 2009-05-06T21:48:22 I agree that patents (and copyright, even though I'm an author) should expire much sooner than they do. 2009-05-06T21:48:32 but they are not 'evil' and should not be eliminated. 2009-05-06T21:49:12 well, I am not sure if I want to refute the above... 2009-05-06T21:49:17 all the points are right 2009-05-06T21:49:31 but this is how ideally it should happen 2009-05-06T21:49:37 yes, 2009-05-06T21:49:39 but again. 2009-05-06T21:49:45 this does not mean GET RID OF PATENTS. 2009-05-06T21:49:52 it means *reform* the current system. 2009-05-06T21:49:53 I have seen patents being used only for negetive purposes so far 2009-05-06T21:50:10 by people like Microsoft and AT&T 2009-05-06T21:50:11 same with guns, cars, drugs, 2009-05-06T21:50:22 that's part of being alive, dude. everything can be used for negative purposes. 2009-05-06T21:50:33 that does not mean they should be done away with. 2009-05-06T21:51:33 well, whatever the case, I am iterested in Government policies, and in Patents and Copyright laws and stuff 2009-05-06T21:52:03 Murmuria: it definitely needs reform. 2009-05-06T21:52:06 and I am very very against companies lke AT&T who work their ass off to stop technology 2009-05-06T21:52:06 look at copyright now. 2009-05-06T21:52:11 100s of years, right? 2009-05-06T21:52:15 I 2009-05-06T21:52:29 'm trying to get published (so I should like that, right? more money for me) 2009-05-06T21:52:33 but I think it's bad. 2009-05-06T21:52:59 we should go back to the 1780s copyright: 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14 when the first term expires. 2009-05-06T21:53:15 copyright does not hurt, it slike if the work is a verbatum copy without attribution, then its a violation 2009-05-06T21:53:16 28 years of total control over it, then it becomes public domain. 2009-05-06T21:53:27 Murmuria: no, 100s of years for copyright is bad. 2009-05-06T21:53:50 the old system would need to be augmented to deal with changing rights for films, etc. 2009-05-06T21:53:50 but it would be much better. 2009-05-06T21:54:02 I think patents should be a 5-15 year thing. 2009-05-06T21:54:12 depending on the rate of growth of the industry. 2009-05-06T21:54:19 (computing obviously being one of the faster ones) 2009-05-06T21:54:28 anyway, I have to go. 2009-05-06T21:54:33 I like 28 years, it sounds saner, but can you give me an instance where you wanted to write something and were not allowed to because someone else wrote something years ago? 2009-05-06T21:54:35 I don't like circle-jerking about politics. 2009-05-06T21:54:42 heh 2009-05-06T21:54:54 Murmuria: you can't use Mickey Mouse, an american icon, in any promotion, without being sued. 2009-05-06T21:55:06 you can't make a fan film and sell it. 2009-05-06T21:55:13 it's bullshit. 2009-05-06T21:55:20 and thats copyright law? 2009-05-06T21:55:20 anyhow, food for thought. 2009-05-06T21:55:22 yep 2009-05-06T21:55:28 think about it... I'll ttyl 2009-05-06T22:35:35 jrm8005: You earlier wrote "< jrm8005> stu8ball: and getting rid of root and suid". Why is root bad? 2009-05-06T22:36:51 When some users have more privileges than others, the possibility of privilege escalation exists, is one thing. 2009-05-06T22:37:13 Reading or writing other users' files against the permissions they've chosen is another crappy thing. 2009-05-06T22:37:44 And re suid, "are you root or not root?" isn't a very good security model. 2009-05-06T22:39:06 It breaks it down to "you can do anything at all" or "you can do almost nothing", capabilities-based security allows the middle ground to exist first of all, and it also allows you to choose what capabilities are actually used in said middle ground. 2009-05-06T22:40:19 Just having finer control is one thing about capability-based security (as in Plan 9), but there are others nice things; for example, it's more secure due to a capability only being allowed to be used once, then it's expired. You have to ask for a new one each time. 2009-05-06T22:41:15 There are probably alot more reasons on both the "capabilities are good" side and "root is bad" side. 2009-05-06T22:41:54 Wow, I never thought this way. Obviously, Linux-way does not sound that secure and reliable. 2009-05-06T22:42:02 Thanks for taking the time for explaining it. :) 2009-05-06T22:42:22 doc.cat-v.org will have stuff about factotum etc being good, I'm not sure what it has about root being bad though, apart from the "good bad ugly" paper. 2009-05-06T22:42:38 Great, I'll take a look at it. 2009-05-06T22:42:38 cat-v.org is priceless is you like reading stuff btw ;-) 2009-05-06T22:42:50 :) 2009-05-06T22:43:12 Ah, I know that site. 2009-05-06T22:43:19 uriel's site 2009-05-06T22:43:35 They also talked about the 9P C compiler ported to Linux. 2009-05-06T22:44:04 s/9P/Plan 9/ 2009-05-06T22:44:05 (I am still looking for a lightweight GCC replacement/alternative) 2009-05-06T22:44:11 Yep, sorry. 2009-05-06T22:44:14 (or at least s/9P/plan9/) 2009-05-06T22:45:27 Uhm, I have seen both spellings. How is it correct Plan 9 or Plan9/plan9? 2009-05-06T22:46:02 syslogd: the correct name: Plan 9 From Bell Labs. 2009-05-06T22:46:04 pick your abbreviation. 2009-05-06T23:51:39 jrm8005, uriel, what do you think is the main use in current senario of Plan 9 and eventually Glendix... I plan on talking about my /net project and related Plan 9 ideas with my OS proffs here 2009-05-06T23:51:59 maybe they know all about Plan 9, may be they dont, I am not aware of it yet 2009-05-06T23:52:41 but where is Plan 9 being used right now? 2009-05-06T23:52:55 that server farm in Bell Labs? and at IBM? 2009-05-06T23:54:07 Coraid is another one. I'd rather answer your first question though. 2009-05-06T23:55:23 For me the main cool thing about Glendix will be the possibility of there being wrappers to trick all the legacy Linux apps into using Glendix's plan9-compatible subsystem. Then you get alot of what's nice in Plan 9, the scalability and simplicity and all. 2009-05-06T23:57:33 Another question: What about performance of Plan 9 applications under Linux? Aren't there any regressions due to the extra compatibility layer. 2009-05-06T23:58:13 syslogd, the whole point of us doing this is to have no compatibility layer... as I understand 2009-05-06T23:58:38 the difference in performance will arise from running on Plan 9 kernel Vs Linux kernel 2009-05-06T23:59:11 but in the sense of support, we are implementing system calls, and providing binary compatibility in kernel 2009-05-06T23:59:40 so Plan 9 must be native in Glendix by the end of this initiative, and coexist with other linux apps 2009-05-06T23:59:55 s/Plan 9/Plan 9 Apps/