Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday February 10 2020, @07:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the lots-of-new-and-shiny dept.

www.phoronix.com

This kernel is simply huge: there is so many new and improved features with this particular release that it's mind-boggling. I'm having difficulty remembering such a time a kernel release was so large.

The quick summary of Linux 5.6 changes include: WireGuard, USB4, open-source NVIDIA RTX 2000 series support, AMD Pollock enablement, lots of new hardware support, a lot of file-system / storage work, multi-path TCP bits are finally going mainline, Year 2038 work beginning to wrap-up for 32-bit systems, the new AMD TEE driver for tapping the Secure Processor, the first signs of AMD Zen 3, better AMD Zen/Zen2 thermal and power reporting under Linux, at long last having an in-kernel SATA drive temperature for HWMON, and a lot of other kernel infrastructure improvements.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Pino P on Tuesday February 11 2020, @04:27AM (10 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday February 11 2020, @04:27AM (#956724) Journal

    Motif, LessTif, GTK, FLTK, Qt, XForms, and Winelib are distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). This license doesn't require the publisher of an application to disclose any source code other than that of the library. I'm aware of other reasons that some publishers may not be able to accept the LGPL, especially version 3 with its anti-anti-circumvention provision and its Installation Information provision for software that runs on consumer products. In that case, there are still a few permissively licensed X11 toolkits:

    • X Athena Widgets [wikipedia.org]: X11 License (MIT License with explicit non-grant of trademark rights)
    • Dear ImGui [wikipedia.org]: MIT License
    • Tk [wikipedia.org]: custom permissive license
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by pvanhoof on Tuesday February 11 2020, @06:14PM (1 child)

    by pvanhoof (4638) on Tuesday February 11 2020, @06:14PM (#956915) Homepage

    Qt's Wayland compositor [doc.qt.io] is GPL, or LGPL 3 not LGPL 2. If you want a commercial license then you can find information about that . [doc.qt.io]

    For a lot of modern (embedded) UI development in QML you need Qt's Wayland compositor.

    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday February 12 2020, @12:30AM

      by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday February 12 2020, @12:30AM (#957022) Journal

      Unless you're trying to lock down your device the same way a TiVo DVR or a video game console is locked down, using an LGPLv3 library in an otherwise proprietary application is fine. That's what LGPL is made for: mixing copylefted and proprietary software in one process.

  • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday February 11 2020, @06:32PM (7 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday February 11 2020, @06:32PM (#956923) Journal

    Thank you. I was unaware of the LGPL license for Qt's c++ stack, I only learned about it here from one of the other replies; that's very useful to know. I'm deeply familiar with the coding side of Qt.

    Tk: I've used Tk in the past, and felt that it wasn't ready for prime-time then. Presumably it's better now. The others I am not familiar with at all.

    The underlying problem here is the lack of an in-place standard, something included in the OS itself, ready to use, looks the same to everyone out of the box, no license issues, no lawyers required, no impositions on the developer, etc.

    Qt seems like the best option right now because it is decently cross-platform (OS X, Windows and Linux), so (C++) apps can be built for any combination of the markets. C++ is my language of choice for serious work.

    --
    Note: I may be without a clue because it's morning,
    Monday, or really any day after the year 2000

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday February 11 2020, @08:13PM (6 children)

      by edIII (791) on Tuesday February 11 2020, @08:13PM (#956947)

      You bring up some good points, but unfortunately, you're also stuck in the past. If you want your code running on my machine, for whatever reason, you ARE going to disclose it. That paradigm only grows stronger everyday because we suffer the massive costs of poor security, security through obscurity, .etc.

      We're going to move towards some form of secure computing, or we're going to accept the massive inefficiency, cities under ransom or their processes fail, corporate as well as malicious data exfiltration, and wide scale consumer abuse using said exfiltrated data. Not to mention stolen elections and the destruction of democracies, which have already been accomplished.

      I'm very interested in your code and contributions, and how to incentivize you through compensation, but NEVER at the expense of security. Security can ONLY be obtained from the "ground up", and security is instantly vaporized and relegated to permanent doubt when there is obfuscated code at any level.

      No blobs, no binaries, no proprietary code. That's the future, it's inevitable, and it's the only method that is suited to survive. This idea of controlling information and code is something humanity just needs to get the fuck over. You want to keep your secrets, but still want me to use your code? That's mutually exclusive with the goals of security, and every reasonable person knows this is not in our best interests. It's just something we didn't have a choice in for so long.

      Seriously, the only way I would ever let your obfuscated code into my system is if you were licensed, BONDED, and HEAVILY INSURED. The moment malware hits me and it was something in your code, I want to be able to file a claim against your insurance policy and be made whole again. I want legal guarantees and money held up in bonds with well established legal procedures in the favor of the consumer, not you. Remember, consumer laws are just getting started, and the FINES are just getting started too. I have to be able to demonstrate I did everything I could, but it's hard to say that with a straight face if I let in obfuscated and non-security-reviewed code into my infrastructure. I'm going to pass damages onto my vendors that are responsible, and I want the backing of law to do it.

      Just what contractual language would you use with me today? Would any of it absolve you of damages that I incur using your code? You really think, given the alternatives today, that I would choose your insecure (all proprietary code must be considered so) code that expose me and my customer base to risk, while legally absolving you of responsibility? That's fucking crazy man. Figure out how to make money on your code without trying to keep any control over it, or secrets. You may be Mother Teresa, but that doesn't mean we can allow anything but full and utter transparency with your contributions. Otherwise, your code will be crazy expensive after factoring in bonds, licenses, and insurance so that we both can survive with malware uses a bug in your code to fuck us.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday February 12 2020, @12:43AM (1 child)

        by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday February 12 2020, @12:43AM (#957029) Journal

        If you want your code running on my machine, for whatever reason, you ARE going to disclose it.

        Say a software publisher offers a non-free application for license and discloses source code of its application under non-disclosure agreement to all paying licensees. I'm interested in how you suggest to deter licensees from violating their license by redistributing the source code to third parties. On the other hand:

        No blobs, no binaries, no proprietary code.

        Did you further intend to require license terms that allow free redistribution? If so, I'm interested in how you suggest to feed and house professional developers of a video game, a streaming player for rented motion pictures, or an income tax return preparation tool.

        On that note: Have you tried the GNU LibreJS extension [gnu.org] for the IceCat and Firefox web browsers? Its functionality aligns somewhat with your views.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday February 13 2020, @09:53PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday February 13 2020, @09:53PM (#957866)

          Say a software publisher offers a non-free application for license and discloses source code of its application under non-disclosure agreement to all paying licensees. I'm interested in how you suggest to deter licensees from violating their license by redistributing the source code to third parties. On the other hand:

          I don't suggest any forms of determent beyond the legal ones, and all of those are in court using FULL due process. The DMCA needs to be destroyed, and in fact, I would make a Constitutional Amendment to the United States making it a full right that we get to inspect all source code in our homes and property, and that all forms of determent are 100% illegal. Meaning, that it's not legal to be running code in somebody else's property that infringes upon their privacy or their rights of peaceful enjoyment of property.

          The NDA is a perfectly acceptable way to keep code private, while at the same time allowing inspection of the code to verify security issues. However, I don't believe that would stand a chance in a FOSS market because of the number of eyes on the code. A corporation of 500 software engineers is still less than an entire world of software engineers.

          So this would highly depend on the code. I would never, ever, purchase any security code such as encryption under these circumstances. It's just as bad as homegrown crypto. Anything related to security must contain code developed from open reference implementations of open and free security code.

          Did you further intend to require license terms that allow free redistribution? If so, I'm interested in how you suggest to feed and house professional developers of a video game, a streaming player for rented motion pictures, or an income tax return preparation tool.

          I don't think it's required that I allow free redistribution at all. I'm not entirely sure how to house and feed developers. As I said, I'm very interested in doing so, and not just for developers of video games.

          You're missing the primary, and most fundamental point here. It has nothing to do with licensing, or compensating developers, but everything to do with security. Whether you like it or not, security is impossible to create in the shadows. Period. Full Stop.

          The future is 100% open code, or no code. It can't be hidden anymore. Anything hidden, is something that cannot be vetted. It cannot be peer reviewed. It cannot be tested beyond tests for proper function, which doesn't allow for an analysis of bugs or implementation issues in encryption algorithms. Proprietary code is a logical fail at this point, and you cannot claim levels of security and be taken seriously. If you're a sysadmin or developer worth your salt, you know this is actually true. How many severe issues have arisen in the blobs and binaries in our hardware?

          Heck, guess what the CIA front was offering all those nation states? Proprietary code that couldn't be reviewed.

          I'm very interested in systems of compensation and incentivization, but I believe in the concept of the Public Domain more than anything else. Copyrights and patents (not trademarks) are temporary rights that have been heavily abused, and by those that don't believe the Public Domain should exist at all.

          We cannot allow systems of compensation, existing or proposed, to abridge our rights of privacy, peaceful enjoyment of property, or act oppressively against expression and innovation. By all means, share some ideas. In the meantime however, practical and fundamental security considerations preclude all proprietary and/or obfuscated code.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday February 12 2020, @08:22PM (3 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday February 12 2020, @08:22PM (#957365) Journal

        If you want your code running on my machine, for whatever reason

        Oh, I don't, have no fear. Carry on.

        --
        After my girl turned vegan, it was
        like I'd never seen herbivore.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:05PM (2 children)

          by edIII (791) on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:05PM (#957905)

          Yes, you do. If you code for a living, you want me to use your code because it compensates you in some way. The only way I would buy your code is if it was completely non obfuscated, which is a wholly reasonable position at this point.

          I responded to the wrong post though, still :)

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday February 14 2020, @02:27AM (1 child)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Friday February 14 2020, @02:27AM (#958021) Journal

            Yes, you do.

            No, I don't. I really don't.

            If you code for a living, you want me to use your code because it compensates you in some way.

            I'll let 'ol Will answer that one:

            There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

            --Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:06AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2020, @05:06AM (#959796)

              Lol, fyngyrz I get you, but he'd never get a license let alone figure out your frequencies, to drop your signal to noise the way he is here.

              But I wanted to let you know *someone* gets you, hamming it up with Hamlet. :)