Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking

Why Anonymous Can't Take Down Amazon.com 392

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the can't-imagine dept.
suraj.sun writes "The website-attacking group 'Anonymous' tried and failed to take down Amazon.com on Thursday. The group's vengeance horde quickly found out something techies have known for years: Amazon, which has built one of the world's most invincible websites, is almost impossible to crash.... Anonymous quickly figured that out. Less than an hour after setting its sights on Amazon, the group's organizers called off the attempt. 'We don't have enough forces,' they tweeted."

+ - Open Source piracy?

Submitted by mjhuot
mjhuot (525749) writes "I've been involved with open source software for more than a decade, and most of that time I've been an active member of a project called OpenNMS. OpenNMS is a network management application platform that I use at my job, and although I contribute a lot of my time toward the project I do not get directly paid for it. I do it because I enjoy it, and I believe in the goals of free and open source software.

Today I was introduced to a product called RuggedNMS that is obviously a rebranded version of our own project. I can find no mention of OpenNMS let alone GPL licensing. Do I have a right to be angry when I see a company that looks like they are exploiting our work? I give my work freely to the community. The OpenNMS community's vitality is very important to me. I can imagine some within our community feeling betrayed if someone takes our work, does not contribute back, and no longer distributes it freely.

I talked with one of the OpenNMS admins, Tarus Balog, who blogged about the situation, and he stated that while at this time they might be in violation of the license, it will take some effort to know for sure.

I want to ask: while there is the letter of the law concerning a software license that must be obeyed, has anyone formalized the etiquette around when someone wants to use an open source project inside a commercial one? Has anyone working on a project been approached by a company saying "hey, heads up, we love what you're doing and plan to use it in our software"?

I think I would feel less angry if RuggedCom had contacted the community and let us know what they were planning to do with OpenNMS. If they were very open about it and demonstrated some knowledge of the GPL, I wouldn't be sitting here thinking the worst."

Comment: He's a Jerk (Score 1) 457

by fugl (#16103924) Attached to: Professor Sells Lectures Online
I don't know if there's anything wrong with what he's doing, legally speaking. Even less clear to me is whether it would be wrong for one student to buy them and then share them with the others (fair use).

One thing is for sure. He's a jerk. Let him do it and let the market forces play. Assuming those courses are taught by at least one other professor, word will get out and students will flock to the other(s). Unless there's something else that offsets the jerk factor.

Although I can't say he's doing anything wrong, per se, his attitude shows that he really doesn't get his profession, and that's a sad thing. Many students don't learn by going to class, they learn by absorbing and using the information taught. If you don't provide enough material for students to learn the basics on their own even if they miss class or fall asleep in class, (at least in the form of a decent recommended textbook) then you are failing your mission. If you believe for one minute that students learn more by frantically scribbling down useless notes that will be inconsistent, incomplete, illegible, and cause the student to miss out on the opportunity to digest and understand what the teacher is saying in class, then you are sorely deluded. I have learned far more in math/physics classes where I didn't have to take notes (because the teacher's provided notes or the book were sufficient). As a sophomore I noticed this effect and vowed not to become a slave to notes. I keep a notepad handy for the occasional gem or logistics, but I read the material (novel idea, I know) and go to class prepared, and then PAY ATTENTION. It's amazing how much more you learn when you're paying attention than when you're frantically scribbling whatever words are floating through the air.

PhD Student, 3.7 GPA

Comment: Re:Interesting Hypocrisy (Score 1) 1329

by althalus (#15695651) Attached to: Cutting out the Naughty Bits Ruled Illegal
Actually, not true. Airlines are a "different" regionality. Just like you regionality in your DVD player. The studios create edited versions just for airlines, but won't sell them outside that market. Even if there is demand (which has been expressed in the same areas that like to use these services) they dont' want to for reasons that are a different issue altogether. The important part here is the lengths they go to to not allow people who would want to watch even *the movie companies* edited versions to see them.

They distinctly are forcing a specific type of content to different parts of the world. You'll note that in region 0 (including USA) always includes the most graphic violence/sex/etc that these customers are trying to avoid. They are technologically blocked from avoiding it, and even accessing already published content. When a company tries offering exactly that service, they are sued out of existence.

Comment: Re:What's all the hype? (Score 1) 153

by ramannoodle (#13287516) Attached to: Fun Stuff at OSCON 2005
All of the languages listed above have no compile step in one form or another with their MVC frameworks. Most of them have very helpful mailing lists and friendly communities. Many of them have very small configurations - see the 30-line Wiki example above using Catalyst. I still don't get the hype, other than it's just bringing out people that have discovered the MVC model, which has been around for way longer than Rails.

Comment: Oh puhleeze (Score 5, Informative) 508

by tensai (#11853138) Attached to: Utah Considers Forcing ISPs to Filter Content
If you read the article you'll see that the proposed law only requires ISPs to provide a way for customers to opt-in to a filtering scheme. It does not require them to filter every packet. I don't think the bill is worth the time, but let's at least evaluate it for its real faults and merits, not some sensationalized bunch of baloney.

In the end, I doubt this law would do much. ISPs are being asked by their customers to provide content filtering. $$$ is a much more effective motivator than laws. And those who don't want to spend the money to implement it, don't have to but also will lose customers to those who do. Sounds fair to me.

No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.

Working...