Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:its pobably less of a conspiracy. (Score 2) 225

by mcl630 (#49425605) Attached to: How Ubiquiti Networks Is Creatively Violating the GPL

- He links to a GPL'ed project named "u-boot". He then works from the assumption that this must be the same exact software as is used by Ubiquiti, who couldn't possibly have any in-house projects named "u-boot" that would boot a Ubiquiti device. No, that's just too far-fetched. Some proof of it even being the same software would be in order. Even if there's some documentation from Ubiquiti themselves, it would be something that would at least tie them together, rather than falling into the category of "strange coincidence".

So you think they wrote their own bootloader for their router, named it the same as a well known bootloader that's used in lots of other routers, and then when people request the source (including one of u-boot' copyright holders) they wouldn't just say "it's not *that* u-boot, it's are own proprietary bootloader and we're keeping it closed"? Grasping at straws much?

Comment: Re:Also, a company is != an individual (Score 1) 225

by mcl630 (#49425529) Attached to: How Ubiquiti Networks Is Creatively Violating the GPL

Your theory that one employee or one team screwed up might fit if this were just a case of a single customer requesting the source and the employee or team mistakenly saying no, but that's not the case here. This has been going on for months now, with multiple contacts to the company. Even the copyright holder of uboot sent them a letter last July threatening legal action if this doesn't get resolved, and they've ignored it for 9 months now. That's far beyond a single person or team making a mistake, or a miscommunication, now you're in the territory of a company willfully violating the licence.

Comment: Re:Interdasting... (Score 2) 155

by mcl630 (#49279699) Attached to: White House Proposal Urges All Federal Websites To Adopt HTTPS

While those things are possible, they are far from easy. Your garden variety script kiddie can't do that. Even far more skilled types would have to find a way to get malware onto your machine first, and have it go unnoticed. Realisticly, only governments can pull off these attacks. While that means https isn't perfect, it's far better to be vulnerable to a few than vulnerable to everyone.

Comment: Re:My LED bulb didn't last! (Score 1) 328

by mcl630 (#49279523) Attached to: New Crop of LED Filament Bulbs Look Almost Exactly Like Incandescents

Sure, they were more expensive in the past, but that's not relavent now unless you have a time machine. Same as far as dimmability, most today are dimmable. I'm sure early adopters paid a lot and were sometimes disappointed, but that goes for any new technology.

I remember in college in the mid-1990s, our dorm switched to early CFLs for our desk lamps. They were $30 apiece (which we'd have to pay for if we broke one), were odd-shaped so they fit the lamps poorly, and they had far more mercury in them than today's CFLs. I don't judge today's CFLs based on those.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.