The new beta for mozilla has been released... i hope they've added some more stuff.
Despite earlier claims that IP-violating code was not found in the kernel, only the periphery apps and components, SCO is now claiming that they have indeed code in the Linux kernel that violates their agreement with IBM. As usual, they refuse to cite examples.
Chief SCO jackass Darl McBride goes on to say, "We're finding ... cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code... We're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code - but it was."
Oh yes, of course it was. Nevermind the fact that both SystemV UNIX (which SCO owns) and Linux are BOTH derivitives of earlier versions of UNIX. Do you think it just might be possible that, somewhere along the line, a Linux developer came up with a similar idea for doing something as the SystemV developers?
"Note: OpenOffice.org 1.0.3 has a bug printing to a non-default printer. Please upgrade immediately to OpenOffice.org 188.8.131.52 if you are affected by this bug. A small patch to resolve this issue will be available shortly."
There's an interesting story on O'Reilly's ONLamp.com today about the importance of both Open Source and Open Standards in the software world. This is a counter to Jonathan Schwartz's argument that open standards are more important that open source, but it brings up several great points in addition to a rebuttal.
Robin Miller wrote a great little article on removing the splash screen that appears while OpenOffice (and StarOffice) loads. This is something that has frequently annoyed me, since it takes up the majority of the screen and cannot be pushed to the background, preventing you from doing any other work while waiting.
Read the full article below for all the details, but the short answer is to edit your global sofficerc file in Linux (soffice.ini in Windows), and change "Logo=1" to "Logo=0" in the [Bootstrap] section.
Thanks for the tip!
This article discusses the current market push to 64-bit computing, and how Linux's flexability and portability make it an ideal choice for whatever new hardware platform is chosen.
While the title emphasizes Linux, the article itself mainly delves into 64-bit computing, including the current players, the history and future directions of 64-bit computing, and a great comparison of the different 64-bit architectures available. If you haven't read much on this subject yet, this is a great intro.
The latest article on O'Reilly Network discusses one of the very few remaining enterprise components missing from Linux. In particular, the author discusses Linux's inability to interact with Microsoft's Active Directory services, as well as the lack of a good, uniform set of directory services available for Linux in general.
Now, I know most Linux advocates will say "Big deal, I can do everything I need with OpenLDAP." Well, the sad truth is, while you may be able to do everything you need with it, OpenLDAP, unfortunately, does not provide all of the features a business needs. My own company, for example, uses Active Directory to control all user authentication, permissions, remote shares, and much more. Being the good little Linux advocate that I am, I've been trying to get Linux in the door at my company. However, being able to logon and authorize against the directory service is an absolute must, and so far I've been unable to do so. Now, how in can I push for Linux on the desktop when I can't even login properly?
This is something that I really hope gets rectified soon. I'm sure the capability is there (for Active Directory authentication, at the very least), but it needs to be made much more accessible to the end user before it's useful to anyone. I know I'm anxiously looking forward to that day.
For more information, please read the full article.
Apparently Microsoft doesn't have too much faith in those who administrate MS boxes. Oh well, I guess they understand that a majority of NT, 2000, etc. admins don't know enough about their system to make it secure... but oh wait... they can't, they have to rely on patches from MS.
"Microsoft found that an overwhelming majority of the security breaches its customers have suffered resulted from configuration mistakes. These included unpatched systems and unprotected administrative accounts on servers, Stephenson said."
Geez, give them a break... I mean, if the admins had patches within the day for their problems... or easily appliable patches that don't break other things... maybe this wouldn't be such a big deal.
Now as for the unprotected admin accounts on servers... well... then that person shouldn't have a job.
Read the article here[Computerworld]