Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:That one was fully justified (Score 1) 728

by Sun (#47547289) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

I think Linus should respect the community. Just because Linus thought a certain compromise was okay doesn't mean he is allowed to make that compromise in the name of the entire community.

Tridge owed Linus nothing, and Linus' entitled response was arrogant and out of place.

I have no idea why you brought the GPL into it. It doesn't matter which free software license the Linux revision control would be under, so long as it is free software. Going proprietary for such infrastructure opens the community up for precisely the sort of danger that actually did end up happening. You cannot yank your software if it's free, regardless of what license it's under.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Like China och USSR (Score 1) 511

How do you know?

I don't. I'm guessing, based on the fact that I am doing something I'm presuming is similar, and based on the fact that, were I a student today, I'd be joining in.

Mind you, the anti-Israel crowed is similarly motivated. The people spewing party lines accusing Israel of everything and anything (can be seen here on Slashdot whenever the word "Israel" is mentioned) aren't given instructions or coordinated by some central entity. They are giving us their honest opinion, misguided though it is.

This is similar to all of the above, but it being done with a political rather than an economic agenda. I don't think I know a word for organized political rants over the internet. This doesn't mean they don't happen, and aren't even rather common. But spam isn't the right word.

How about "freedom of speech"?

Someone suggested the word is "propaganda". This word has a severe negative context, because propaganda usually involves lies. At its core, however, the word merely means actively working to spread an idea (see definition no. 2). I definitely consider what I'm doing to match that narrow meaning.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Surprise, surprise... (Score 1) 728

by Sun (#47546917) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

Yes. That's the one I mean.

Linus's decision to go with a proprietary solution for such a central free software project was wrong to begin with. Linus took a huge presumption, agreeing to a EULA on behalf of the entire community. As such, it was Linus's own mess he had to clean up. I think the passage of time only shows that more clearly.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Surprise, surprise... (Score 0) 728

by Sun (#47544645) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

Not that discussion again....

Linus blowing up at Andrew Tridgdell for "reverse engineering" the bitkeeper protocol comes to mind.

I will agree that this time around, the complaints are grounded. It does, indeed, seem like a compiler bug. Whether that is a reason to be so critical of gcc 4.9.0, I don't know. It's obvious a serious problem for the kernel.

Shachar

Comment: Re:not likely (Score 1) 200

by Sun (#47537045) Attached to: Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs

Yes, it is what I'm saying. However, I don't think even if the balance turned out to be positive on Akamai's side, even that would count as "asking ISP to pay for access".

Imagine a small ISP. Not a lot of hosted content. In order to boost local content, this ISP provides co-location services at lower than usual costs. Due to the same considerations, the ISP pays a lot of peering costs (mostly incoming traffic, not a lot of outgoing traffic).

And then this ISP has an idea: I'll contact Akamai. The Akamai network accounts for over 25% of web traffic. If I have a local Akamai presence, this will greatly reduce my peering costs. Akamai's sales people are aware of this equation, of course. As a result, the deal finally negotiated mean that the ISP is paying Akamai for the privilege of hosting Akamai servers!

And the ISP is ecstatic. Yes, they are hosting a commercial server for free AND paying for the privilege, but they are saving a bundle on their peering costs. This is a straight bandwidth for bandwidth money-equivalent transaction. If Akamai started asking for too much, the ISP could tell them to take a hike. Presumably, for that to happen Akamai would have to ask more than the bandwidth costs it is saving!

Should Akamai choose to play dirty (as far as I know, they never do), they would be in a stronger position than Netflix. After all, you can get Netflix content elsewhere. Conversely, you cannot get to, e.g., apple.com without going through an Akamai server. If Akamai isn't doing it, I don't think there is any danger of Netflix doing it.

Shachar

Comment: Re:not likely (Score 1) 200

by Sun (#47536785) Attached to: Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs

To be fair, Akamai does charge some ISPs for its service. At least according to someone who actually went over the financial reports, Akamai doesn't get actual money from this, but rather a reduction in the cost to co-locate the servers.

Still, this is not the same thing as TFA. The thing that Akamai charges ISPs for is the peering traffic saved, not access to the content. If an ISP says "no", then no local Akamai cache, and the service is as good as the ISP's bandwidth to other providers that do have an Akamai presence. Neither availability nor performance are hindered by refusing to do business with Akamai, except losing the obvious advantage of a local cache.

Disclaimer:
I (currently) works for Akamai. This post, however, is not affiliated with Akamai in any way or form. The opinions do not represent those of my employer, nor does the information employed come from any data not publicly available.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Heck, we probably already fund them (Score 1) 125

by Sun (#47536751) Attached to: The NSA's New Partner In Spying: Saudi Arabia's Brutal State Police

Israel is a racist, fascist little hole, promoting genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I always wonder about people who say that. Can you, please, explain, if Israel is after genocide, how come there are so few Palestinian casualties? I mean, the number, while indeed extremely high for warfare, don't even begin to threaten even natural growth.

Either Israel is completely incompetent at performing genocide, or genocide was never the intention, and you (and your ilk) just made it up to make Israel sound bad.

Shachar

+ - France Bans Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations->

Submitted by Sun
Sun (104778) writes "Citing the violence these demonstrations deteriorate into, the French government has placed a ban on all pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The step is receiving criticism from all sides of this particular conflict.

One has to wonder whether more traditional means of crowd control wouldn't be more appropriate, such as limiting the number of participants or assigning locations not next to Jewish centers."

Link to Original Source

+ - Netflix pay us. Verizon keeps throttling.

Submitted by Chas
Chas (5144) writes "Even though Netflix caved to Verizon's demands and is now paying protection money to them to ensure better service, Netflix performance still has not improved on the Verizon network.

This is the problem with giving in to extortion like this. Sure, Comcast at least made a token effort to improve performance for end-users. Verizon just treated it as a payday, and maintained status quo, continuing to blame Netflix."

Comment: Re:Subject bait (Score 2, Insightful) 379

by Sun (#47441325) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

Because:
A. No place in Israel is truely safe.
During the second Lebanon war, the most safe place was around where I live (maximal distance from both Gaza and Lebanon). I live 5 Kilometers from the green line. If the Palestinians around my area decide to join in, my house will be in more danger than Dotan's.

B. Not living in Israel is not really an option.
Obviously, for some, it is. Long term, however, history showed that Jews don't fare well when not under self government. Thankfully, antisemitism suffered a major blow back after the Nazies lost WWII, and so people who grew up in western countries don't think of it as something real. It is illegitimate, and still fairly rare. That is a good thing. Sadly, it is also very far from non-existing. Jews in many western European countries don't wear external religious signs, and if they do, experience daily harassement. What's more, the current trends are not promising.

Maintaining Israel is a survival need. The fact that Israel's current strength pushes the danger back quite a bit is proof that the need is real, not vice versa.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Sue them for all they're worth (Score 1) 495

by Sun (#47365791) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Indeed. They claim, and you have to agree that there is some substance to that claim, that giving the victims prior notice will allow them to delete the pirated software from their computer, thus destroying evidence.

I hate the BSA and their way of operation, but within the framework they work in, I cannot refute that claim.

This is irrelevant to this case.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Sue them for all they're worth (Score 2, Insightful) 495

by Sun (#47358701) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

Ex parte petitions should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances and there should be a high burden of proof before a court grants them.

Again, IANAL.

Still, how can you have a high burden of proof? In an adverserial system, the only things you can prove need two opposing parties to present their case. As such, an ex-parte request does not contain proof at all (how can it?)

Instead, it contains claims backed by sworn testimony. The judge examines these claims in the light most favorable to the non-present party, but otherwise within the context of the claims presented by the moving party.

In other words, you cannot second guess the judge's decision without looking at what MS actually wrote in its TRO request. If (as likely happened) MS wrote that no-ip do not remove the offending domains, and that these domains are used on a daily basis to cause huge harm, then a reasonable judge (who, I might remind you, is not technically savvy, and may not realize the implications of granting this order are disrupting no-ip's business) might conclude that granting this Temporary Restraining Order is reasonable.

So, once again, I think MS were acting like douches. I have no idea whether the judge acted reasonably, and cannot know without looking at MS's petition.

Shachar

"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths

Working...