Because, those icons in the tray and the desktop give the software visibility. The user will click on those pretty icons and play around with the software.
<OT>This is way Microsoft doesn't want to have icons from competing software preinstalled on the desktop; so the competing software doesn't get visibilty before the user is accustomed (sp?) to MS' software.</OT>
At least in Germany, it's not even legal to use the DSL service by the Telekom to connect your home lan to the internet, if more than one persone (e.g. your family) will use it.
And even if the behavior from the article were explicitly allowed, I don't think that it will work out that way in the long run. If more and more people start using the free wireless access points, prices will go up for the initial connection to the ISP and most people will close up their access point.
If you folks really want Vorbis everywhere, it's going to take a good integer implementation of the decoder.
I still doubt, that there will be Vorbis support in any consumer product.
See, they're trying to move the consumer to formats where DRM can be enforced, like WMA. The support for MP3 is only a relict, because of the huge user base that has MP3s. They don't want to lose this market AND they want to use this market to introduce other formats.
Now if Vorbis had such a huge user base as MP3, it might be supported. But I don't think it's going to happen. Ever.
Re:still the windows metaphor
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 1
DNA/Human genome proves evolution? How? Sure, living things adapt to their surroundings, that's been proven on a small scale, but where's the proof of adaptation into new species?
You mean the so-called missing links? Well, they're not missing, at least there are examples for the fish->reptile transition, for the reptile->bird transition (archeopteryx is most famous) and, IIRC, for the reptile->mammal transition. These are not transitions from a species to another (the species is the only real biological indicator of differences, because it forms the border of which animals can breed/have fertile descendants; all the other like race, family,... are artificial) but from different orders of animals. If such a transition is possible, why shouldn't the transition from species to species of the same family/order be possible?
Human history has shown some transistions from species to species, eg. wolf->dog, wild boar->domestic pig, etc. What more prove do you need?
Plus, the anthropology (Is that the right word? I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm also stoned right now.) of the human species is so well documented; the adaption of a new species should be obvious!
And I always thought that the canonical example of too long words in the German language was "Donauschiffahrtsgesellschaft", wait that's now spelled with triple-f.
Please do not take this as a flame, my good German friend, but you do not have the cultural foundation to partake in this discussion in an informed manner. You can memorize all the statistics that you want, but unless you have lived here for a while, you don't know jack about American culture, and that's what this debate is all about -- culture.
I hate to break it to you, but I lived for a whole year in the US. As a matter of fact, I spent my senior grade in the States, where I graduated (and then went on to have two more years of German high school).
And yes, you're right, I experienced a whole lot of things that (at first) seemed crazy, confusing, sometimes frightening and sometimes even disgusting. I spent evenings arguing with my host dad about all kinds of political issues, only to realize that he was amazingly unpolitical. I experienced driving through an all-black neighborhood with the doors looked shut.
I know that this discussion is about culture and that I have to respect the American way of doing things. But, I have every right -- especially when I naturally have a very different perspective -- to voice my opinion regarding this American way. And you, as an American, should be able to take good advice when you hear it and not just put it down as being from somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about.
do you really think that if someone wants to kill alot of people not having a gun will stop them?
The point is, that most gun victims don't die because the other one wanted to kill them in the first place.
You do realize that someone breaking into your house is not an excuse for you to kill him, don't you? So the following...
if someone were to break into my house they would be greatly slowed down by a bullet weather or not they had a gun. see how this works?
... gives me the perfect argument to prohibit guns. If someone breaks into your house, he deserves justice, not death. Pathetic argument, you might say? No, just idealistic.
you do realize that at one point in time britan controlled the us colonies and abused them to the point where they had to remove the british. here in the us we refer to that as the revolutionary war. to prevent the citizens from being rolled over by the government, the right to bear arms was written into our constitution. that is why i find it humorous when a person from britan comments on how we have an irrational desire to have the right to bear arms.
You know, the German Grundgesetz (our constitution) also says that it is our right to find anybody who is against the order laid out in the Grundgesetz including the government (Art. 20.4: Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist.) Still no reason for everybody to keep a dozen shotguns in his house let alone carry one along.
And, as another poster already said: Who are you going to fight with your shotgun? Right.
The Big Guys are not scared. After all, they're very successful in extending the copyright and thus their control over the content they provide. And it's still a long way to the point, where the masses are so upset with the situation that they'll speak up and the legislation acts appropriatelly. One can just hope [1] that we'll reach this point sooner than later.
[1] Well, one can also take action, like supporting the EFF or even do some lobbying oneself. Unfortunatelly, if you live in another country it's very difficult to have any influence on the American government.
Wasn't FrameMaker once ported to Linux? And, IIRC, Distiller does also exist in a Linux version. Also, could the behavior of Adobe be excused, if they had ported all their products over to Linux? I think not!
IMO, Adobe makes very decent software. I used PageMaker to typeset first my school newspaper and then my school yearbook and while I found the UI somewhat irritating, it produced great results. Photoship still kicks ass, and even on Linux I use PDF exclusivly when creating documents (with pdfTeX).
In the light of this, Adobe's attitude towards other companies or competition is very sad. (Kinda like Apple?)
It's normal that you can only send SMS in your own network. You are only able to send SMS to other networks, if your network has a gateway service to forward the SMS transparently. Granted, this is pretty usual in Germany, which is why I can SMS all my friends, whether the have D1, D2, E1, E2, and what-not.
However, my sister now has a cell phone provider from Moscow, and while my dad (a D2 customer) can send her an SMS, I (a E1 customer) cannot. Turns out that D2 gateways to my sister's provider and E1 does not.:(
Several hours of this sort of network debugging went on until 3:00 AM Sunday. By then we had called Cisco for help. They couldn't help us until they saw the switch config and got a chance to review it. We were spent. We had to go to bed and stay down for the night.
WTF?! There were Dave, Kurt, Hemos, Yazz, and possibly others. Not one person could stay up? They all were too tired? You couldn't take shifts?
Yeah right.
I mean, how could you even sleep, realizing that
not only Slashdot, but also NewsForge, freshmeat, OSDN.com, ThinkGeek, and QuestionExchange were down, along with our old -- but still popular -- MediaBuilder and AnmationFactory sites.
You're wrong. Not only can you not USE the code directly (copy-paste it into your app), but you also cannot even DYNAMICLY LINK your proprietary code with GPL'd code. In other words, I cannot load a GPL'd library unless all of my code is GPL'd. Thats lame.
Nope, you're the one that is wrong. I can use *any* GPLed code -- either by copying it verbatim or linking -- in any of my programs. Or, a better example: Microsoft could use *any* GPLed code in their programs, as long as they don't distribute these programs. If they use GCC in their own departments with some modifications they are under no obligation to GPL those modifications as long as they don't distribute the modified GCC.
The GPL talks about distribution only. To quote (emphasis mine):
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
[...]
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
In-house use is not covered by this. And use of GPLed programs is unrestricted by the GPL.
This is most certainly an interesting development- so far the Open Source/Free Software division has been the main one, but not [now?] we have a third branch.
C'mon Taco, what are you smoking?! Open Source and Free Software are the same thing except for the motivation or philosophical ideas behind them. Not only is the motivation for so-called Shared Source a completelly different one -- it doesn't even resemble Open Source/Free Software in any way!
Exactly where are the common roots for all three, so a branch would even be possible?
Your questions are answered in the bison info file (section conditions). Here's an excerpt:
[...] We didn't change the terms because of sympathy for people who want to
make software proprietary. *Software should be free.* But we
concluded that limiting Bison's use to free software was doing little to
encourage people to make other software free. So we decided to make the
practical conditions for using Bison match the practical conditions for
using the other GNU tools.
Using their SDK is not the same as incorporating code from their SDK.
But it is potentially the same!
Every software that contains a parser written in bison (GNU's yacc), contains code from bison, because it copies its own parser into the new one. bison is GPLed, so in theory every software that uses a parser by bison would have to be GPLed, since it uses a portion of bison's code. As of version 1.24 this is remeded by specifically allowing the use of bison in a non-GPL (and also non-free) program.
The EULA talks a lot about the use of components of the SDK (the Software) in your own software. Maybe, there's a similar condidition as with bison.
He was a bit vague on how the GPL is like Pac-Man.
That must be the/. understatement of the day. Are you British?
The article mentions the Pac-Man-like nature exactly twice and offers no explanation of this term anywhere.
I could imagine that he'd gone completely bonkers because of playing to much Pac-Man, which is also why he was made to resign as MS' CEO. Now he sees Pac-Mans everywhere!
I was actually trying to say, that you can't even pick you architecture with CML1 or CML2. This is not configurable with any of the config tools, you'll have to edit the Makefile directly to do this. You also need to change some symlinks, and possibly more, but I've never cross-compiled a kernel, so I don't really know.
At any rate, it will be sweet when there is logic checking in the kernel and it won't be possible to start compilation of an invalid configuration - the idea is that with this logic, whatever you make will _boot_.
No, that's not correct. First of all, CML2 won't check your hardware. If you compile a Pentium kernel to run on a 386 it will not boot. Likewise, if you compile a PPC kernel to boot on a 386 I doubt that it'll boot either.
Secondly, even kernel compiled with CML1 (the oldstyle config, menuconfig, xconfig, that's now in place) will make sure that your kernel boots up if you get the architecture right. What CML2 does for you, is preventing you from compiling a kernel with a Gigabit ethernet card, but without the PCI bus support, you'll definatelly gonna need.
So, with CML2, if you've compiled support for most if the cards and other peripheri you've got, then CML2 makes sure, that you're not lacking some basic support for a bus or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, those icons in the tray and the desktop give the software visibility. The user will click on those pretty icons and play around with the software.
<OT>This is way Microsoft doesn't want to have icons from competing software preinstalled on the desktop; so the competing software doesn't get visibilty before the user is accustomed (sp?) to MS' software.</OT>
At least in Germany, it's not even legal to use the DSL service by the Telekom to connect your home lan to the internet, if more than one persone (e.g. your family) will use it.
And even if the behavior from the article were explicitly allowed, I don't think that it will work out that way in the long run. If more and more people start using the free wireless access points, prices will go up for the initial connection to the ISP and most people will close up their access point.
I am still doubtful about ogg vorbis support in any consumer product, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong. The links you give are promising though.
Crap! This would disable tab-completion, and we would have a shell that is as dumb as COMMAND.COM. No way.
I still doubt, that there will be Vorbis support in any consumer product.
See, they're trying to move the consumer to formats where DRM can be enforced, like WMA. The support for MP3 is only a relict, because of the huge user base that has MP3s. They don't want to lose this market AND they want to use this market to introduce other formats.
Now if Vorbis had such a huge user base as MP3, it might be supported. But I don't think it's going to happen. Ever.
Windows MyAss
You mean the so-called missing links? Well, they're not missing, at least there are examples for the fish->reptile transition, for the reptile->bird transition (archeopteryx is most famous) and, IIRC, for the reptile->mammal transition. These are not transitions from a species to another (the species is the only real biological indicator of differences, because it forms the border of which animals can breed/have fertile descendants; all the other like race, family, ... are artificial) but from different orders of animals. If such a transition is possible, why shouldn't the transition from species to species of the same family/order be possible?
Human history has shown some transistions from species to species, eg. wolf->dog, wild boar->domestic pig, etc. What more prove do you need?
Plus, the anthropology (Is that the right word? I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm also stoned right now.) of the human species is so well documented; the adaption of a new species should be obvious!
Ouch! This is really hurting. "Haftung" means "liability" in this context. Society with limited liability.
And I always thought that the canonical example of too long words in the German language was "Donauschiffahrtsgesellschaft", wait that's now spelled with triple-f.
I hate to break it to you, but I lived for a whole year in the US. As a matter of fact, I spent my senior grade in the States, where I graduated (and then went on to have two more years of German high school).
And yes, you're right, I experienced a whole lot of things that (at first) seemed crazy, confusing, sometimes frightening and sometimes even disgusting. I spent evenings arguing with my host dad about all kinds of political issues, only to realize that he was amazingly unpolitical. I experienced driving through an all-black neighborhood with the doors looked shut.
I know that this discussion is about culture and that I have to respect the American way of doing things. But, I have every right -- especially when I naturally have a very different perspective -- to voice my opinion regarding this American way. And you, as an American, should be able to take good advice when you hear it and not just put it down as being from somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about.
The point is, that most gun victims don't die because the other one wanted to kill them in the first place.
You do realize that someone breaking into your house is not an excuse for you to kill him, don't you? So the following ...
You know, the German Grundgesetz (our constitution) also says that it is our right to find anybody who is against the order laid out in the Grundgesetz including the government (Art. 20.4: Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist.) Still no reason for everybody to keep a dozen shotguns in his house let alone carry one along.
And, as another poster already said: Who are you going to fight with your shotgun? Right.
Umm, that's why you're supposed to wear a helmet, right? Oh, your post was ironic. I see.
[1] Well, one can also take action, like supporting the EFF or even do some lobbying oneself. Unfortunatelly, if you live in another country it's very difficult to have any influence on the American government.
I hear there is a new version out?
Wasn't FrameMaker once ported to Linux? And, IIRC, Distiller does also exist in a Linux version. Also, could the behavior of Adobe be excused, if they had ported all their products over to Linux? I think not!
IMO, Adobe makes very decent software. I used PageMaker to typeset first my school newspaper and then my school yearbook and while I found the UI somewhat irritating, it produced great results. Photoship still kicks ass, and even on Linux I use PDF exclusivly when creating documents (with pdfTeX).
In the light of this, Adobe's attitude towards other companies or competition is very sad. (Kinda like Apple?)
However, my sister now has a cell phone provider from Moscow, and while my dad (a D2 customer) can send her an SMS, I (a E1 customer) cannot. Turns out that D2 gateways to my sister's provider and E1 does not. :(
WTF?! There were Dave, Kurt, Hemos, Yazz, and possibly others. Not one person could stay up? They all were too tired? You couldn't take shifts?
Yeah right.
I mean, how could you even sleep, realizing that
As it's been said before, this is deliberate:
Please read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html where it's all explained.
Nope, you're the one that is wrong. I can use *any* GPLed code -- either by copying it verbatim or linking -- in any of my programs. Or, a better example: Microsoft could use *any* GPLed code in their programs, as long as they don't distribute these programs. If they use GCC in their own departments with some modifications they are under no obligation to GPL those modifications as long as they don't distribute the modified GCC.
The GPL talks about distribution only. To quote (emphasis mine):
In-house use is not covered by this. And use of GPLed programs is unrestricted by the GPL.
C'mon Taco, what are you smoking?! Open Source and Free Software are the same thing except for the motivation or philosophical ideas behind them. Not only is the motivation for so-called Shared Source a completelly different one -- it doesn't even resemble Open Source/Free Software in any way!
Exactly where are the common roots for all three, so a branch would even be possible?
Your questions are answered in the bison info file (section conditions). Here's an excerpt:
But it is potentially the same!
Every software that contains a parser written in bison (GNU's yacc), contains code from bison, because it copies its own parser into the new one. bison is GPLed, so in theory every software that uses a parser by bison would have to be GPLed, since it uses a portion of bison's code. As of version 1.24 this is remeded by specifically allowing the use of bison in a non-GPL (and also non-free) program.
The EULA talks a lot about the use of components of the SDK (the Software) in your own software. Maybe, there's a similar condidition as with bison.
That must be the /. understatement of the day. Are you British?
The article mentions the Pac-Man-like nature exactly twice and offers no explanation of this term anywhere.
I could imagine that he'd gone completely bonkers because of playing to much Pac-Man, which is also why he was made to resign as MS' CEO. Now he sees Pac-Mans everywhere!
Talk about what video games can do to you, eh?
I was actually trying to say, that you can't even pick you architecture with CML1 or CML2. This is not configurable with any of the config tools, you'll have to edit the Makefile directly to do this. You also need to change some symlinks, and possibly more, but I've never cross-compiled a kernel, so I don't really know.
No, that's not correct. First of all, CML2 won't check your hardware. If you compile a Pentium kernel to run on a 386 it will not boot. Likewise, if you compile a PPC kernel to boot on a 386 I doubt that it'll boot either.
Secondly, even kernel compiled with CML1 (the oldstyle config, menuconfig, xconfig, that's now in place) will make sure that your kernel boots up if you get the architecture right. What CML2 does for you, is preventing you from compiling a kernel with a Gigabit ethernet card, but without the PCI bus support, you'll definatelly gonna need.
So, with CML2, if you've compiled support for most if the cards and other peripheri you've got, then CML2 makes sure, that you're not lacking some basic support for a bus or so.