At work, we have set up a linux gateway that has NO DHCP, so both linux and windows clients that we connect have to be setup with a static IP, plus the internal DNS and gateway IP. However, I just hooked on the Eee pc for the first time and it found the gateway and got an IP, PLUS it found the INTERNAL DNS and could access internal machines by name. How is that possible, it is exactly what DHCP is supposed to do, however we don't have DHCP. It probably uses Avahi to implement Zero Configuration Networking.
Re:Anything else out there?
on
The State of X.Org
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I remember when X.org started one of the things they promised was that the code base would be modularized allowing for new developers to tackle bite-sized portions of the stack without being overwhelmed. Anyone care to comment on whether this was done? It was done when they moved from X.org 6.x to 7.
There are replacements to Exchange, but in order to use them you have to replace more than just Exchange, which is why they are not gaining traction. The combination of Windows+ActiveDirectory+Exchange+Outlook can be entirely replaced with open-source software. The problem is that you can't replace just one, because some portion of the others won't work with anything else.
Which, to my mind, is kind of annoying. I would dearly like to see ISOs for the MSI Wind that I plan on buying, or the eeePC that my wife might wind up getting. So you'll burn the ISO onto a CD and then pop it into the....oh yeah. That's why they're not useful.
They are not free to add their own code to your code and distribute that the way they want. By building their own code on top of your code, your GPL license restricts they way they can distribute their code. Again no, it only limits how they can distribute your code. They are still free to distribute their code under any license they wish, so long as they're not distributing any part of your code or any binary derived from your code.
This is most definitely a way in which GPL is not-free: it restricts the freedom to take advantage of someone else's code. Again, you can use GPL code any way that you want. The GPL only places limits on how you can distribute GPL code and resulting binaries.
And that's freedom that the GPL quite explicitly wants to restrict. It wants to be viral, so everybody who bases their code on someone else's code has to use GPL for their code. The GPL is a license, and therefore has no wants and desires. The authors of the GPL, and the developers who choose it, do want it to be viral, yes. And if someone wants to let you use their code under such a license, that's their option. The GPL is a more selfish license than the BSD, but not necessarily less free.
So what measures are the open source community taking to ensure that nobody host bad versions of their software? You set up trusted repositories by adding their public key to your trust list. The repo maintainers then sign all of their packages with their private key. If the package you download doesn't have a valid signature, it doesn't get installed.
Usually you trust your distro's repositories, and maybe a small handful of others.
he questions are usually copyrighted so you need someone to write a new set of questions, get them certified by the education department, get the app written, the app certified by the education department and so on. Yes, if only the school system had a mass of people qualified to write educational questions, willing to work long hours for bad pay while dealing with children all day long. If only.
But, if I already decided I'm all about the GPL and issued my code under the GPL, then by accepting their code under the GPL I haven't become any more encumbered/fettered than I already was. Technically (and legally) you have, you just wouldn't care that you lost an option you didn't have any intention in taking. You might care later, though, if your app becomes wildly popular and you want to take it proprietary to become the next Bill Gates.
I'm not arguing that I gain copyright over their code, just that it doesn't cost me anything I haven't already given up to use their code as well. Up until the point that you accepted their code under the GPL, you had the option to release future versions of your code under any license you wanted, even proprietary, so it did cost you something you hadn't legally given up yet.
Of course, the key to the whole thing, both BSD and GPL, is that we choose what we want to do with our code when we release it, and other people can either choose to accept or reject our terms. If they don't like our rules, they can make their own code and stfu instead of stealing/cheating then acting indignant when they get called out on it. On this, we agree completely.
That license then gives me unfettered access to their changes to my code It doesn't even do that, as you don't get copyright over their code. If you take their changes into your code, that means you can only distribute those changes under the GPL. If your product is dual-licensed GPL+Proprietary, then you can't distribute their changes in your proprietary version, only your GPL version.
But by creating the need for "license compatibility," I have already exercised control over their code -- I have dictated the terms of the license. No, you are exercising control of the distribution of your code, not their code. They are free to distribute their code however the want, but if they want to distribute your code, they have to do so by your rules. The BSD license is not any different in this regard, they just have fewer rules.
That license then gives me unfettered access to their changes to my code, which I can accept or reject. That is another flexing of control. No, it only gives you access to their code if they distribute to you. If they don't give you a binary, they don't have to give you the source.
The article provides a nice explanation. Free is Freedom , but not for users (or second party developers), but for Software. The software is free to be developed without restrictions. It is freedom for users, but specifically freedom for other users, not necessarily you. The only thing the GPL prevents you from doing is giving downstream users of GPL code less freedom than you were given by that GPL code.
You can use GPL code however you want, it explicitly states it is not a usage license. What you can't do is distribute GPL code in a manner that gives those who receive it less freedom that it gave you.
BSD gives you the right to give, GPL gives you the right to receiving.
Not only that, but he used the settlements of lawsuits from GPLv2 code to demonstrate what GPLv3 is doing to businesses. He also went on to imply that provisions of the Affero GPL were provisions of the GPL itself. Nothing in this article could be described as informed.
It was basically "I heard some things about the new GPL, and that there were some lawsuits about open-source code, so I'm going to write a definitive article explaining all the nuances and traps that businesses should be afraid of."
Probably an API emulation layer, instead of a virtualized OS, would be a better solution. I believe this is how Rosetta works on Macs. Perhaps Microsoft will just include Wine?
Slashdot Mirror
Because that worked out so well last time....
I'm pretty sure that calling the voters shallow and lazy isn't the kind of internet promotion the McCain campaign was hoping for.
Please leave the humor to the professionals.
Did they now? I certainly hadn't heard that. If that's the case, then I do expect many new and existing open source projects to support that protocol.
Unless of course this was released under one of those MS licenses that isn't compatible with open source licenses.
I'm not saying it's Microsoft's problem, I'm saying it's Microsoft's fault.
There are replacements to Exchange, but in order to use them you have to replace more than just Exchange, which is why they are not gaining traction. The combination of Windows+ActiveDirectory+Exchange+Outlook can be entirely replaced with open-source software. The problem is that you can't replace just one, because some portion of the others won't work with anything else.
There are plenty of Exchange replacements, the problem is that Outlook doesn't work with them.
LinkedIn is a social network with a focus on business users.
They should use Windows, because nobody likes a toilet that runs all day.
Usually you trust your distro's repositories, and maybe a small handful of others.
This is Slashdot, we use '\n's.
Wubi
Or pay some other developers to make an open-source version of the software.
The GPL just makes their code license-compatible with your code, it doesn't give you any control over it.
You can use GPL code however you want, it explicitly states it is not a usage license. What you can't do is distribute GPL code in a manner that gives those who receive it less freedom that it gave you.
BSD gives you the right to give, GPL gives you the right to receiving.
Not only that, but he used the settlements of lawsuits from GPLv2 code to demonstrate what GPLv3 is doing to businesses. He also went on to imply that provisions of the Affero GPL were provisions of the GPL itself. Nothing in this article could be described as informed.
It was basically "I heard some things about the new GPL, and that there were some lawsuits about open-source code, so I'm going to write a definitive article explaining all the nuances and traps that businesses should be afraid of."
Wine is LGPL'd, so they'd only have to give away changes to the current code. They can link their own binary DLL's without issue.
Probably an API emulation layer, instead of a virtualized OS, would be a better solution. I believe this is how Rosetta works on Macs. Perhaps Microsoft will just include Wine?