baghira

The FSF's interpretation is valid for GPLv2 and LGPLv2 as well, since the line "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." is also in there (not everyone agrees with this interpreation, but that's beside the point). The anti-tivoization clauses are not considered to be the problem, generally, since app developers are not distributing tivoized hardware or tivoizing it with their software.

Also, the path for solving compliance problems for (L)GPLv3 is much more well defined, as opposed to the case of v2. That's a plus.

I don't think they'll change it anytime soon. I don't like it at all, and I agree that it is almost dangerous, even though I sort of understand the rationale seeing how non-technical users handle volumes.

It's also kinda of hard to expose in a GUI: a checkbox with "Flat Volumes" is not really self-explanatory. For now I've just added .config/pulse/daemon.conf the config files I drag from one installation to the next.

Yes, according to the config file `src/daemon/daemon.conf.in` in the tarball.

It is a rebuttal to the implication that the possibility of the community electing some nefarious personality should be considered valid ground for denying said community any representation. By the same token a bunch of corporations should be denied one. I didn't interpret the post as call for reformed governance, unless you consider

1. Deny individual representation

2. ???

3. Governance problems fixed!

a plan (yeah, I'm being snarky, sorry).

On the other hand we should expect nothing but good things from esteemed GPL violators such as Allwinner and WMWare, right? /s EDIT: I guess I should qualify the statement wrt WMWare as "supposed violator", since the case isn't over and I haven't looked at the source code.

No, the bug is in the kernel keyring facility, so if I'm not mistaken compiling with CONFIG_KEYS=n option should protect you (I haven't tested though). As for the /proc/kallsyms, I honestly don't know how come you only get zeroes.

EDIT: The obvious question I should have asked is which distro you are running. Also, as others have pointed out, hoping that the attacker can't read kallsyms from the machine he's attacking is not really a good defense plan.

That only hides the pid directories of others users, and indeed on my system remounting /proc with hidepid=2 I'm still able to see the same values for kallsyms. Maybe your kernel is compiled without the CONFIG_KEYS=y option? (I'm spitballing here).

According the lwn comments it should be sufficient (and the post by perception-point suggests that it would at least make things more difficult), but I haven't the hardware to test for myself.

If you have SMAP, i.e. an Haswell or newer Intel CPU, you should not be vulnerable, so that could be an explanation.

While the fact that since last fall grsecurity only ships the stable branch of the patchset for sponsors (because of persistent trademarks violations) doesn't help integration in smaller distributions (also Debian, I would guess), I am always baffled as to why grsecurity/Pax were never chosen by a distro like Suse to differentiate itself from Red Hat.

As others said, using a kernel with the Grsecurity patchset would prevent the issue (I believe the configuration of SElinux on Android should be sufficient, but the default config in RHEL7/Fedora is insufficiently strict).

Both in the case of Office 365 and that of Azure they are selling you their cashcow (office and windows), only in a software as service fashion. Moreover, neither is opensource, unlike cloud offering based on Xen or kvm, which are (at least to some extent). I fail to see how Sun fares worse in this comparison, if this was your point.

Fair enough, I don't judge the Surface machines as something bad per se, I simply don't pine for a world were the only decent hardware to run Windows is made by MS (which the too often abysmal quality of other OEMs may lead us to). Maybe I'm being a little paranoid, I guess.

FWIW, I would argue something similar wrt the Apple tv: abusive practices or not, I would not be happy to see one of the world's wealthiest corporation become a key player in yet another market (if anything because of Apple's sketchy history wrt to open formats).