No, it isn't. In the case of Novell/Redhat/Mandrake writing a open voting software system, the cost of the underlying OS is zero. The already have LOBs working on the underlying OS, the incremental cost of using that in a new LOB is $0
While interesting, you would have to have a bunch of clauses in how that right can (and eventually, in the case of death, must) be transfered to a different individual, or orginaztion.
This would complicate the GPL, potentialy making it no longer international in nature. At the very least it would make it more difficult to understand for "normal people" which is, I think, a quality of the current revision(s).
It is more-or-less this scenario that explains why some projects (usualy those sponsored by a commercial entity which also makes a closed version (Hula/Novell comes to mind)), requires transfer of copyright to that project, rather then just submsion of code under the GPL. In other words this problem can be (and frequently is) solved outside of the GPL proper.
There was a paper on X11 memory usage a few days ago concerning FF and tabs. It seems that FF never releases X11 server memory when it closes tabs... That could be the cause of what your talking about, Im not sure. I think this has been resolved with 1.5.
All that said, I use FF on Windows and Linux a lot, and I notice no diference in tab switching - or much of anything realy - between the two.
On day 0 he thought that MS/SBS was, uh, lighter then Debian. 18 months later he set up Ubuntu. Debian/Ubuntu and MS/SBS might not have change in 18 months, but the GP almost definitly did. His post diddnt make a comparision of the relative abilities of Debian and Ubuntu - his comments about them were from different points in time.
True, but when the US Congress gets around to changing the number of days in a week to reduce the dependence on forign oil, you friend will only have to upgrade the server, not a bazillion web browsers out there.
List price for Zenworks for desktops is $69/device, which is $.99 less then Ghost (at least, according to what their respective websites show). And, Zen can do a hell of a lot more then relativly simple/stupid bare metal imaging.
While true, you miss that an election campaign as a replacement for a armed rebellion would, assumably, would smack upside the head of all these apathetic voters. OTOH, if they are so lazy as to not even vote, what makes you think that they will be even remotely usefull as militants?
The reason why the police wont pull you over if your going 119km/h, is because of the errors in both radar guns and car spedometers. Combined, its about 20%, therefor anything less then 120 has "reasonable doubt" written all over it. If they raised the limit to 120km/h, then police wouldnt bother pulling anyone over unless they were going >145km/h.
And they definitly do not work at less then that critical mass, unless you tell them. Unless the GP mails Sony and tells them why he did not purchase on of their cameras, they likely wont even notice the lost sale. If they do at all, its just statistical noise...
Well, if you have a bunch of ISPs, then true, you dont have a monopoly. But if they all have the same policy of 1 IPv6 addr per customer, then what you have is a cartel, at least in the context of IP space. And in that context that the cartel exists, from the customers standpoint, that cartel acts exactly like a monopoly, i.e. the price is fixed.
What kind of long term viability does one/should one desire in an employer? Conventional wisdom is that these days one is going to have many employers over their working life. If you accept that, then does it matter if you leave a place after 4 years because its simply time to move on, or if you leave a place after 4 years because it no longer exists? And if you are working on OSS projects, does your exact employer matter, if that project lives on and someone else picks up developement (and developers)?
There are some OSS projects that are very large and have (paid) developers from many companies (the Linux kernel being the biggest example), I suppose if you were a very valuable kernel hacker and your employer went belly up, one might easily find work - the exact same work - with someone else. OTOH, there are OSS projects that are dominated by one company (JBoss comes to mind) where it might take a fairly long time for the project to recover if its one major commercial sponsor evaporates, let alone another financial benafactor to materialize. Then there are companies who simply use OSS, and if you were an OSS developer there, you might never contribute anything large to any one project, or possibly anything at all that was accepted upstreem, as you would be responsible for little fixes for a wide range of projects.
How is Mono related to GNOME?
In a number of ways. This project was born out of the need of providing improved tools for the GNOME community, and will use existing components that have been developed for GNOME when they are available. For example, we plan to use Gtk+ and Libart to implement Winforms and the Drawing2D API and are considering GObject support. Mono team members work actively on the Gtk# (http://gtk-sharp.sf.net/ project: a binding of the GNOME class libraries for.NET and Mono.
Yes, you can run Mono under KDE. Yes, Novell could get strong KDE bindings into Mono. But Novell develops apps for Mono, and Mono plays better under Gnome on Linux.
The announcement does not mean that Novell is stopping the support of KDE on the desktop, it means that Gnome is the default on the desktop. One could speculate that it is also (implicit) permission for the Novell application developers to stop caring about KDE, but I dont think they ever did.
Your reasoning is flawed. Users dont realy care about their "desktop enviroment", at least not explicityly. They care about applications. Novell applications are written for Gnome, or Mono, which has strong bindings for Gnome. SLES and NLD must default to something, so the question is: do you default to something that makes their applications sub-optimal, or do you default to something that their applications all use?
The copyright holder most definitly can be screwed because they have placed the agreement they have with their users under the power of a third party.
The license can become less restrictive, and you dont want it to: Maybe vN+1 will simply be a copy of the BSD license; if you dont want your code to be reused, closed, then you just got screwed because a third party made that allowance for you. Maybe it will have a clause that allows for using the code if they make a donation to The Human Fund in the authors name.
vN+1 could be more restrictive; these restrictions could be ignored by continuing to use vN, true. But these new restrictions might be unacceptable to you, to the point that you no longer want to be associated with the FSF at all. Lets say that vN+1 has a clause that the software isnt allowed to be used in, say, abortion clinics; you're pro-choice, an in a legal sense, it doesnt matter as the clinics can continue to use vN; but in a moral sense it does; your pro-choice friends stop inviting you to parties because you are associated with the enemy. You cant argue "but thats not what I sigined on for" because it is, you said "or later" and those two little words makes you a religious nut job with no respect for women.
Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Yes. Possible to get screwed? Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Taking a simple plastic pen and thrusting the pointy end very hard into your weakest links neck seems easier to me.
No, it isn't. In the case of Novell/Redhat/Mandrake writing a open voting software system, the cost of the underlying OS is zero. The already have LOBs working on the underlying OS, the incremental cost of using that in a new LOB is $0
Julienne Potatos, but that would be offensive to Jodie Foster fans.
Two words: Network effect.
While interesting, you would have to have a bunch of clauses in how that right can (and eventually, in the case of death, must) be transfered to a different individual, or orginaztion.
This would complicate the GPL, potentialy making it no longer international in nature. At the very least it would make it more difficult to understand for "normal people" which is, I think, a quality of the current revision(s).
It is more-or-less this scenario that explains why some projects (usualy those sponsored by a commercial entity which also makes a closed version (Hula/Novell comes to mind)), requires transfer of copyright to that project, rather then just submsion of code under the GPL. In other words this problem can be (and frequently is) solved outside of the GPL proper.
There was a paper on X11 memory usage a few days ago concerning FF and tabs. It seems that FF never releases X11 server memory when it closes tabs... That could be the cause of what your talking about, Im not sure. I think this has been resolved with 1.5.
All that said, I use FF on Windows and Linux a lot, and I notice no diference in tab switching - or much of anything realy - between the two.
On day 0 he thought that MS/SBS was, uh, lighter then Debian. 18 months later he set up Ubuntu. Debian/Ubuntu and MS/SBS might not have change in 18 months, but the GP almost definitly did. His post diddnt make a comparision of the relative abilities of Debian and Ubuntu - his comments about them were from different points in time.
True, but when the US Congress gets around to changing the number of days in a week to reduce the dependence on forign oil, you friend will only have to upgrade the server, not a bazillion web browsers out there.
It isnt the British who use "u" a lot, its just non-Americans, my silly neighbour to the south.
List price for Zenworks for desktops is $69/device, which is $.99 less then Ghost (at least, according to what their respective websites show). And, Zen can do a hell of a lot more then relativly simple/stupid bare metal imaging.
Your population is about 2x that of my country. Im live in satans neighbour to the North. Note the correct spelling of neighbour.
While true, you miss that an election campaign as a replacement for a armed rebellion would, assumably, would smack upside the head of all these apathetic voters. OTOH, if they are so lazy as to not even vote, what makes you think that they will be even remotely usefull as militants?
The reason why the police wont pull you over if your going 119km/h, is because of the errors in both radar guns and car spedometers. Combined, its about 20%, therefor anything less then 120 has "reasonable doubt" written all over it. If they raised the limit to 120km/h, then police wouldnt bother pulling anyone over unless they were going >145km/h.
And they definitly do not work at less then that critical mass, unless you tell them. Unless the GP mails Sony and tells them why he did not purchase on of their cameras, they likely wont even notice the lost sale. If they do at all, its just statistical noise...
Someone who likes getting a cheque every two weeks, and have it clear.
Well, if you have a bunch of ISPs, then true, you dont have a monopoly. But if they all have the same policy of 1 IPv6 addr per customer, then what you have is a cartel, at least in the context of IP space. And in that context that the cartel exists, from the customers standpoint, that cartel acts exactly like a monopoly, i.e. the price is fixed.
The point is that such a departure is normal, and should be expected. Being normal and expected, it could be planned for, and thus, no big deal.
Its a picture of holes.. So that makes it porn for straight male geeks, or lesbian female geeks.
What kind of long term viability does one/should one desire in an employer? Conventional wisdom is that these days one is going to have many employers over their working life. If you accept that, then does it matter if you leave a place after 4 years because its simply time to move on, or if you leave a place after 4 years because it no longer exists? And if you are working on OSS projects, does your exact employer matter, if that project lives on and someone else picks up developement (and developers)?
There are some OSS projects that are very large and have (paid) developers from many companies (the Linux kernel being the biggest example), I suppose if you were a very valuable kernel hacker and your employer went belly up, one might easily find work - the exact same work - with someone else. OTOH, there are OSS projects that are dominated by one company (JBoss comes to mind) where it might take a fairly long time for the project to recover if its one major commercial sponsor evaporates, let alone another financial benafactor to materialize. Then there are companies who simply use OSS, and if you were an OSS developer there, you might never contribute anything large to any one project, or possibly anything at all that was accepted upstreem, as you would be responsible for little fixes for a wide range of projects.
When they forget their coversheets have you and 10 of your management buddies to kindly offer to resend the memo.
Yes, you can run Mono under KDE. Yes, Novell could get strong KDE bindings into Mono. But Novell develops apps for Mono, and Mono plays better under Gnome on Linux.
The announcement does not mean that Novell is stopping the support of KDE on the desktop, it means that Gnome is the default on the desktop. One could speculate that it is also (implicit) permission for the Novell application developers to stop caring about KDE, but I dont think they ever did.
Your reasoning is flawed. Users dont realy care about their "desktop enviroment", at least not explicityly. They care about applications. Novell applications are written for Gnome, or Mono, which has strong bindings for Gnome. SLES and NLD must default to something, so the question is: do you default to something that makes their applications sub-optimal, or do you default to something that their applications all use?
Read over COPYING in some GPLd package, it details out how to use the GPL and that this is allowed.
The copyright holder most definitly can be screwed because they have placed the agreement they have with their users under the power of a third party.
The license can become less restrictive, and you dont want it to: Maybe vN+1 will simply be a copy of the BSD license; if you dont want your code to be reused, closed, then you just got screwed because a third party made that allowance for you. Maybe it will have a clause that allows for using the code if they make a donation to The Human Fund in the authors name.
vN+1 could be more restrictive; these restrictions could be ignored by continuing to use vN, true. But these new restrictions might be unacceptable to you, to the point that you no longer want to be associated with the FSF at all. Lets say that vN+1 has a clause that the software isnt allowed to be used in, say, abortion clinics; you're pro-choice, an in a legal sense, it doesnt matter as the clinics can continue to use vN; but in a moral sense it does; your pro-choice friends stop inviting you to parties because you are associated with the enemy. You cant argue "but thats not what I sigined on for" because it is, you said "or later" and those two little words makes you a religious nut job with no respect for women.
Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Yes. Possible to get screwed? Yes.