Those that complain that they have experienced interrupted sleep (e.g. with kids, medical profession, etc.) and prefer uninterrupted sleep are missing the point.
The article talks about "segmented sleep", let's say you sleep 4 hours at night and 4 hours in the day.
In other words, you go to sleep and naturally wake up whenever your body feels like (nothing interrupted the sleep), then get active, the go to sleep again and naturally wake up again (nothing interrupted the sleep), then get active again. Rinse and repeat every day.
A car analogy (electric car):
Charge up the batteries do errands Charge up the batteries do more errands
This would guarantee that all errands are done at almost full power and speed.
If instead you: Charge the batteries Do lots of errands
The problem is that probably the last errands will be done with less power and speed as the batteries are almost drained.
"interrupted sleep" would be like losing power so can't fully charge the batteries in the above examples.
If a Free (as in Freedom) program (let's call it A) requires a proprietary (non-free) program (let's call it B) to run, then if we want to run a Free environment (operating system, applications, etc.) this is impossible unless we have a Free substitute for "B".
That's why the accomplishment of the 'gcj' and the GNU Classpath projects is important for the Free Software Community.
Usually, programs are written and documented in English, and use English at execution time for interacting with users. This is true not only from within GNU, but also in a great deal of commercial and free software. Using a common language is quite handy for communication between developers, maintainers and users from all countries. On the other hand, most people are less comfortable with English than with their own native language, and would rather be using their mother tongue for day to day's work, as far as possible. Many would simply love seeing their computer screen showing a lot less of English, and far more of their own language.
GNU `gettext' is an important step for the GNU Translation Project, as it is an asset on which we may build many other steps. This package offers to programmers, translators, and even users, a well integrated set of tools and documentation. Specifically, the GNU `gettext' utilities are a set of tools that provides a framework to help other GNU packages produce multi-lingual messages. These tools include a set of conventions about how programs should be written to support message catalogs, a directory and file naming organization for the message catalogs themselves, a runtime library supporting the retrieval of translated messages, and a few stand-alone programs to massage in various ways the sets of translatable strings, or already translated strings. A special GNU Emacs mode also helps interested parties in preparing these sets, or bringing them up to date.
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~matthias/TLS/ http://www.schemers.com/scm_bks.html
"The Little Schemer" introduces computing as an extension of arithmetic and algebra-things that everyone studies in grade school
and high school. It introduces programs as recursive functions and briefly discusses the limits of what computers can do. The
authors use the programming language Scheme and a menu of interesting foods to illustrate these abstract ideas.
GPLed software cannot be licensed for money and hence cannot be commercial. The disk it's on can be sold for money, and so can support, but the code itself cannot according to the terms of the GPL. It therefore is not commercial.
It is not a about "coolness" or a technical achievement.
The point is having a Free (as in free speech) operating system in a handheld.
The same advantages that give you to put a Free operating system in a desktop are valid in a handheld.
Re:The future of PDA's, and a possible cloud.
on
Cheap Linux PDAs
·
· Score: 1
The PDA's are tools just as knives, the use or misuse that the persons do of them is coming from the people, not from the tools themselves.
So, if you are concerned about this possible misuse, the solution would be in more generic laws against this kind of behaviour, not restrict it to PDA's.
"Mmm-hmm. And figuring out what you can and can't do with GPL'ed software is like having to name each angel after you've counted it."
huh?
If you are a user, you don't have to think on anything, just use the software and if you want to give a copy to your neighbor, do it.
If you are a developer and your interest is in developing more Free Software and protect it from being turned into proprietary software, you don't have to think anything, just use it.
You have to read and think about it if you are a developer and you want to release your software under a proprietary license or under another license, maybe because you don't care about maintaining the Freedom of your software, or maybe because you don't like the GPL.
So, I think that your comment is just to bash the GPL, without offering anything else.
Could you point out where did RMS said that everything should be GNU?
He wants the software to be free, not the software to be GNU.
"Having only one choice is never freedom, no matter how good you think that choice is."
There are more than one choice of licenses to make your software free. The GNU GPL helps keep that freedom in the future but if you don't like it there are other licenses that make your software free so I don't see your point.
This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially designated software packages--typically libraries--of the
Free Software Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too, but we suggest you first think carefully about
whether this license or the ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any particular case, based on the
explanations below.
Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
>It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy
You are confused, Richard Stallman is in the FREE SOFTWARE movement, not in the Open Source Movement.
These two movements have different goals, while Open Source fights for better code, Free Software fights for FREE (as in freedom) Software.
They share methods sometimes, but the goals are different.
>This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source.
Again, Open Source is one thing, and Free Software is another thing.
The Free Software movement is concerned about the values in the society, sometimes to protect those values it is needed to use a lower quality software while a FREE alternative is developed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the main point of my comment:
"you go to sleep and naturally wake up whenever your body feels like (nothing interrupted the sleep)"
Those that complain that they have experienced interrupted sleep (e.g. with kids, medical profession, etc.) and prefer uninterrupted sleep are missing the point.
The article talks about "segmented sleep", let's say you sleep 4 hours at night and 4 hours in the day.
In other words, you go to sleep and naturally wake up whenever your body feels like (nothing interrupted the sleep), then get active, the go to sleep again and naturally wake up again (nothing interrupted the sleep), then get active again. Rinse and repeat every day.
A car analogy (electric car):
Charge up the batteries
do errands
Charge up the batteries
do more errands
This would guarantee that all errands are done at almost full power and speed.
If instead you:
Charge the batteries
Do lots of errands
The problem is that probably the last errands will be done with less power and speed as the batteries are almost drained.
"interrupted sleep" would be like losing power so can't fully charge the batteries in the above examples.
If a Free (as in Freedom) program (let's call it A) requires a proprietary (non-free) program (let's call it B) to run, then if we want to run a Free environment (operating system, applications, etc.) this is impossible unless we have a Free substitute for "B".
That's why the accomplishment of the 'gcj' and the GNU Classpath projects is important for the Free Software Community.
GNU Phantom.Security
Usually, programs are written and documented in English, and use English at execution time for interacting with users. This is true not only from within GNU, but also in a great deal of commercial and free software. Using a common language is quite handy for communication between developers, maintainers and users from all countries. On the other hand, most people are less comfortable with English than with their own native language, and would rather be using their mother tongue for day to day's work, as far as possible. Many would simply love seeing their computer screen showing a lot less of English, and far more of their own language.
GNU `gettext' is an important step for the GNU Translation Project, as it is an asset on which we may build many other steps. This package offers to programmers, translators, and even users, a well integrated set of tools and documentation. Specifically, the GNU `gettext' utilities are a set of tools that provides a framework to help other GNU packages produce multi-lingual messages. These tools include a set of conventions about how programs should be written to support message catalogs, a directory and file naming organization for the message catalogs themselves, a runtime library supporting the retrieval of translated messages, and a few stand-alone programs to massage in various ways the sets of translatable strings, or already translated strings. A special GNU Emacs mode also helps interested parties in preparing these sets, or bringing them up to date.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/gettext.html
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~matthias/TLS/
http://www.schemers.com/scm_bks.html
"The Little Schemer" introduces computing as an extension of arithmetic and algebra-things that everyone studies in grade school and high school. It introduces programs as recursive functions and briefly discusses the limits of what computers can do. The authors use the programming language Scheme and a menu of interesting foods to illustrate these abstract ideas.
What about setting up an NIS map for the known_hosts file?
From:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.
It is not a "cool" factor, it is about running a FREE (as in freedom) operating system.
If you don't value your freedom that much, then I see why you think it is ridiculous.
This is the second time I see this question in this same thread, why people can't see the implications of running proprietary operating systems?
The point is having a Free (as in free speech) operating system in a handheld.
The same advantages that give you to put a Free operating system in a desktop are valid in a handheld.
So, if you are concerned about this possible misuse, the solution would be in more generic laws against this kind of behaviour, not restrict it to PDA's.
I agree.
huh?
If you are a user, you don't have to think on anything, just use the software and if you want to give a copy to your neighbor, do it.
If you are a developer and your interest is in developing more Free Software and protect it from being turned into proprietary software, you don't have to think anything, just use it.
You have to read and think about it if you are a developer and you want to release your software under a proprietary license or under another license, maybe because you don't care about maintaining the Freedom of your software, or maybe because you don't like the GPL.
So, I think that your comment is just to bash the GPL, without offering anything else.
http://www.openhardware.net
http://www.openhardware.org
Why people can't first research then do any statements?
He is the president of the Free Software Foundation, and his "work" is to promote and defend the Free Software Movement.
"Now RMS, where does a bussiness get the money to pay them? hmmm. Ahh thats why software is not free."
The Free Software Foundation gets money from donations and from selling distributions of GNU software (Free Software).
"Lets see what happens after his company stops paying him and gives all his life's work away."
He created the FSF :)
"Stop complaining or work for free."
He has never said that you should work for free, he certainly doesn't work for free.
" Either one. Yor a hypocrite if you take money from a company and make non free software and then blast other companes doing the same practice."
Cool!, you just hit the big button, RMS is not a hypocrite because he doesn't take the money from making non-free software.
So, do some research before making your statements.
This is not true, he also cares about technology, usefulness and utility.
The difference with other people is that he weights the impact that software has on the society.
And promotes the development of software in a way that benefits the society as a whole.
huh?
Could you point out what is he doing to accomplish that??
Even if you can point that out, I don't know how he could take away that right from you, from me or from whoever.
If we were in a society where Free Software was the vast majority, with only a few, very few proprietary software, maybe we wouldn't need the GNU GPL.
It is like saying that if we lived in a society where there were no robbers, we shouldn't need door locks, and anti-theft devices for the cars.
Because we don't live in a society like that we need the GNU GPL and the door locks and anti-theft devices.
He wants the software to be free, not the software to be GNU.
"Having only one choice is never freedom, no matter how good you think that choice is."
There are more than one choice of licenses to make your software free. The GNU GPL helps keep that freedom in the future but if you don't like it there are other licenses that make your software free so I don't see your point.
I am not saying it is better or worse, but at least ClearCase is not the only guy in the block.
http://www.continuus.com
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html& lt;/a>
This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially designated software packages--typically libraries--of the Free Software Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too, but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any particular case, based on the explanations below.
Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/wh y-n ot-lgpl.html
Useful resources: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/li cen se-list.html
You are confused, Richard Stallman is in the FREE SOFTWARE movement, not in the Open Source Movement.
These two movements have different goals, while Open Source fights for better code, Free Software fights for FREE (as in freedom) Software.
They share methods sometimes, but the goals are different.
>This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source.
Again, Open Source is one thing, and Free Software is another thing.
The Free Software movement is concerned about the values in the society, sometimes to protect those values it is needed to use a lower quality software while a FREE alternative is developed.
So, you are comparing apples with oranges.