Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment He's right. (Score 1) 55

Reading his rant I could identify with many of the problems. But the solution lies with the foundation itself and the board of directors. The board of directors needs to be ran by the president in a professional, transparent, ethical manner, that follows its rules especially as it might relate to conflicts of interest. I suggest finding a way to invoke parliamentary procedure to the board even if they need to hire a professional parliamentarian for meetings. Rewrite the bylaws as necessary to correct the deficiencies.

So you need a sympathetic president, and enough like minded members to constitute a majority. Then you start voting. Get the new bylaws approved. Then the board needs to gain control of the entire project head to toe. Find a way to raise *some money* to hire an attorney. You may need to step on some toes. Get rid of the frenemy gatekeepers at that time.

Then it becomes about money. Wikipedia manages to fundraise. Wikipedia sucked forever until it got a critical mass to start hiring programmers, and this project might need to follow the same path. Until you can hire on programmers, look for free help from college programming departments and others who could glean something for doing so. I'm not sure what would be best route for fund raising, but as an idea maybe the Pokemon guys might be interested in buying custom mapping or data (just as an example). Eventually you will formally need to hire a programmer. You need to chop up the project in smaller individual chunks. You need to create an easy to use standard for data transfer to make the data you do have easy to use and the different chunks of the project to interact with and standardize around. The interface needs to be dead drop easy to use with no command line knowledge necessary. Over time, you will get more users who might be willing to donate that $3 to the project when asked. Again, you might want to look at Wikipedia's successes and its mistakes (hard to use editing interface) and learn from them.

Eventually you will succeed in overcoming the things mentioned in the rant. But the very beginning starts with cleaning up the board of directors first that run the foundation before the project itself can be cleaned up.

At least that's how I'd do it. I'd love to hear other's opinions.

Comment Simple solution (Score 2) 84

Get all passwords and documents you care about off the pc so there is nothing for spectre to read. The spectre attacks are not detectable so antivirus programs likely will not detect them. Running a secure Linux rather than Windows still might be the best hope, but not for attacks taking place through the browser. Perhaps have an "empty" machine with just a browser for internet connectivity and browsing/surfing.

Comment Bastardizing the GNU (Score 2) 61

So they are using the Linux Kernel, but yet their license looks nothing like the GNU license?

If I wanted to be locked-in with an OS and other services, I'd buy Apple products. They do a much better job it seems and are not a search company trying to get all my data so they can mine personal information about me then sell it.

Comment Re:errrr no (Score 5, Insightful) 143

The horror stories surrounding paypal are legion (search for Paypal warning - there could be some old slashdot posts around too). I still hold my breath when doing a transaction with them. They found ways to hold up sellers' money countless times and it would often just disappear. I even felt guilty using Paypal just knowing their sordid past.

This is a smart move by ebay and you can bet there are boatloads of people who are ready to jump ship.

There really seems to be a lot of karma in this, and don't forget that everyone's hero Elon Musk made his money from "horrible" Paypal.

Comment Send in the.....robots (Score 1) 305

The first communities should be robotic that can do all the hard work that humans would normally do. There is no reason to send humans there. Robots are going to replace the workforce on earth, so why should astronauts be exempt from that?

Even then it would be a waste of resources. It makes more sense to try and mine an asteroid for something, because then at least you're extracting a resource.

Comment Finally (Score 4, Interesting) 344

The ISS mission has exceeded it's original goals and it's far past time to recognize that. To say that it's invaluable to science is nonsense. To say that it is also invaluable to a human mars mission (something that I always thought was kind of stupid any way considering the countless failures we have had sending other spaceships there) is not much better than nonsense. This all has *got* to be a big open secret at NASA.

NASA can finally be unhindered to develope the next generation of propulsion technologies that will be required for any space mission rather than worry about what flavor of bubble gum a handful of Astronauts will need as they check off another orbit done.

I am truly glad that the Trump administration can see that.

Rather than a human mars mission, I much, much rather see us be able to find a way to send another spacecraft to Pluto and have it only need a year to get there.

Comment Re:There are options (Score 1) 507

I understand that. But there still needs to be a formalized and verifiable method in place that the software is not malicious in nature from whatever sources it originates from.

It's the same reason that there are ISO certifications for factories (e.g. ISO 9001) to notify others that certain manufacturing methods and standards are being met, even though those same factories could have been meeting those standards before they were ISO certified.

Comment There are options (Score 1) 507

Rather than trying to fix that which increasingly seems to be unfixable at the microcode level, perhaps a different tact is needed.

The two attack vectors are through executing malicious javascript code through a web browser and the other would be downloading malicious programs and/or having physical access to the computer. The latter problem might be tackled by allowing only "certified" known programs that are not malicious to be executed on the computer. Which would mean controlling the program from origination to delivery perhaps with a "Linux registry". You would be right to roll your eyes, but the situation we are in is not exactly pretty either. There could be a specific control program to turn off this feature for those who would wish, such as those compiling their own code. Plus, it would not need to be executed on computers that do not have the faulty CPUs.

To counter the former (attack via web browser), Intel's patch could be enabled while the web browser was operating (as that generally will be less performance critical imho). Perhaps eventually the browser could examine a trusted certificate before letting a web page load.

It would be trivial to granulate these further and offer a combination of the two as they are needed. In a sense, you are "locking down" which programs are allowed to run in user space. I certainly agree that these options are quite ugly, but they are options nonetheless. But as I see it, that's where we are at.

Who knows though - this might could be seen as an opportunity. If Linux is the only operating system that can offer a solution such as this, maybe its desktop market share might grow rapidly. Maybe at one point it might could bring about "The Year of the Linux Desktop".

Slashdot Top Deals

We cannot command nature except by obeying her. -- Sir Francis Bacon