> I'm grateful for what we've been given so far, but it's time to innovate.
Actually, I think Linux (and *BSD) have quite a number of innovative programs. Just look at Freshmeat or SourceForge; there's tons of stuff there.
I believe part of the problem is that there are so many half-finished innovations and programs. Not to say half-finished projects are bad, I'm just saying that since they are not 'complete', people may ignore them as opposed to a program advertised as 'release quality'. That, and the sheer number of projects, keeps them from being recognized anywhere else than a small circle of developers and users.
Also, many programs are developed to scratch an itch on a *nix-like system, and are not really applicable to DOS/Windows/MacOS. Case in point: this morning I got an e-mail from a guy wondering if psdoom would be ported to DOS. I told him that DOS had no concept of processes, so it couldn't be done. But this does show that (at least in this one case) there is interest in porting OSS programs and innovations to traditionally closed-source platforms.
Well, I believe the article states that the "illegal" files were in students' public directories. Therefore, school officials didn't have to "search"; the files were there for anyone to inspect and grab. Officials just happened to "stumble" on them at the request of RIAA.
OK, usually, I hate 'me too' comments, but with all the talk of 'users are getting smarter' and 'people saw the real MS in the trial', I just have to agree with the above poster. To the optomistic posters: What fantasy realm do you live in with all these sophisicated users? I don't want to be 'elete' here, but it's a fact that most people don't have a clue when it comes to computers.
> And perhaps most importantly, the trial has educated the public to Microsoft's tactics. The public no longer takes it for granted that Microsoft products are best, or that Microsoft controls the future of computing.
Not necessarily. I've talked with several people who feel the gov't is just bullying a successful company that innovates and is at the forefront of technology. They also believe that MS controls the future of software (or at least will be dominant). I know this because they were bragging how an internet start-up business signed a contract with MS saying that MS would not do 'another development like this one'. Apparently Joe Sixpack doesn't care about the trial, or the facts it's brought to light.
> I'm not quite sure if this is rather a loophole in the GPL than a flaw of the QPL.
The GPL gives you the *freedom* to develop in-house without releasing source. It only demands you release source if you distribute the program. I think that is an important freedom- the choice to *not* distribute your program/code. This provision of the GPL is a feature, not a bug.:-)
I try to say 'freed' software when I talk about Open Source / Free (speech) Software. But too many people probably mistake 'freed' for 'free' when I say it because 'free software' is so widely (mis)used anyway.
> The newer power supplies, including the ATX supply, are switching power supplies. This means that more of the power actually gets to the motherboard and less is wasted in the conversion.
True, I know that most cases come with power supplies. But I have 2 new AT switching power supplies now. That's why I want a converter.
OK, this is slightly off-topic, but close.:-) I have a good AT supply, but many MoBo's nowadays only have ATX power connectors. Is there a way to convert an AT connector to fit an ATX connection on the board?
> The only remaining point to clarify is that TrollTech wants to prevent abuse of the free license in In-House development. Therefor it's not allowed to keep the programme secret from the Trolls. But I guess this can be sorted out, as the GPL is not for secret code either...
Not so. The GPL may *encourage* code sharing, but definately does not *require* it for in-house development. The only time you must distribute your code is if you distribute the program.
I believe Linux was originally *developed* on Minix, but I don't think it has any Minix code in it. If it did, Linus would be breaking the Minix license, I think. Besides, I thought Linux wanted a 'better Minix than Minix', so why would he have used Minix code? If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Isn't there a clause in the Free QT Foundation agreement that if TT ever gets bought out, the latest version of QT gets released under a BSD-type license? Red Hat should just buy TT:->
Simple way to stop the OS from modifying the hardware's value: convince the stupid legislators/voters that changing the hardware ID of the CPU is illegal (immoral, wrong, bad for the ozone, etc...). Once that's outlawed, sw & hw companies (and the govt.) can have their way with you.
> My PC's first NEC monitor died in under 3 weeks, too.
NEC sucks. They may look good for reviewers, but then they fall apart. In under 3 mo. my new NEC monitor was basically shot: lines on the screen, funny noises, etc. I had to pay shipping to send it back, and then they sent a *refurbished* one! Great. I got some other dope's that was sent back and 'fixed'. Some poor person will get my old one when they 'fix' it, too... Anyway, not more than another 3 mo., the same thing started to happen to this one. I tried to get a *new*, good monitor out of them (because I had never really gotten a new, trouble-free monitor for my purchase price). They didn't yield. They only covered shipping so I could send *another* monitor back and recieve *another* refurbished one. There are a few minor problems with this one, too (like the OSD being fuzzy sometimes), but nothing that makes me want to deal with the damn tech 'support' at NEC again. BTW, the CTX monitor I had before the NEC lasted quite a few years, so it wasn't my computer or vid. card sending out some weird signal to fry it. I will never buy NEC again.
Intel doesn't need ID's *or* FSB/multiplier lock to stop false marking of CPU's! Just a few ROM bits to tell what bus/clock speed the chip is approved for, and maybe something to tell what it is actually running at.
I have a few questions: Since when did Linux become a 'network operating system'? I know it has supported networking from early on, but saying it is a 'network' os may be too misleading for a press release. Also, I thought Linus started Linux as a project to learn more about his 386 and to create a minix clone, not 'after becoming disillusioned with the poor quality of commercial alternatives'.
Slashdot Mirror
> I'm grateful for what we've been given so far, but it's time to innovate.
Actually, I think Linux (and *BSD) have quite a number of innovative programs. Just look at Freshmeat or SourceForge; there's tons of stuff there.
I believe part of the problem is that there are so many half-finished innovations and programs. Not to say half-finished projects are bad, I'm just saying that since they are not 'complete', people may ignore them as opposed to a program advertised as 'release quality'. That, and the sheer number of projects, keeps them from being recognized anywhere else than a small circle of developers and users.
Also, many programs are developed to scratch an itch on a *nix-like system, and are not really applicable to DOS/Windows/MacOS. Case in point: this morning I got an e-mail from a guy wondering if psdoom would be ported to DOS. I told him that DOS had no concept of processes, so it couldn't be done. But this does show that (at least in this one case) there is interest in porting OSS programs and innovations to traditionally closed-source platforms.
> Try to type kill -9 (or perl )on your silkscreen
;-}
Simple solution for the kill -9 problem: port Doom Sysadmin to the Palm!
Well, I believe the article states that the "illegal" files were in students' public directories. Therefore, school officials didn't have to "search"; the files were there for anyone to inspect and grab. Officials just happened to "stumble" on them at the request of RIAA.
OK, usually, I hate 'me too' comments, but with all the talk of 'users are getting smarter' and 'people saw the real MS in the trial', I just have to agree with the above poster.
To the optomistic posters: What fantasy realm do you live in with all these sophisicated users? I don't want to be 'elete' here, but it's a fact that most people don't have a clue when it comes to computers.
> And perhaps most importantly, the trial has educated the public to Microsoft's tactics. The public no longer takes it for granted that Microsoft products are best, or that Microsoft controls the future of computing.
Not necessarily. I've talked with several people who feel the gov't is just bullying a successful company that innovates and is at the forefront of technology.
They also believe that MS controls the future of software (or at least will be dominant). I know this because they were bragging how an internet start-up business signed a contract with MS saying that MS would not do 'another development like this one'. Apparently Joe Sixpack doesn't care about the trial, or the facts it's brought to light.
> I'm not quite sure if this is rather a loophole in the GPL than a flaw of the QPL.
:-)
The GPL gives you the *freedom* to develop in-house without releasing source. It only demands you release source if you distribute the program. I think that is an important freedom- the choice to *not* distribute your program/code.
This provision of the GPL is a feature, not a bug.
so how did it get *my* address?
I try to say 'freed' software when I talk about Open Source / Free (speech) Software. But too many people probably mistake 'freed' for 'free' when I say it because 'free software' is so widely (mis)used anyway.
From the bottom of the posting:
/* Former editor in chief, Unix Info magazine
* now full-time developer... mostly Unix, some Windows
* speaking for himself, not his employer
*/
I used Opera until the time limit was up.
Nice browser. It would go back to the right place in the thread, too. I liked the multiple window feature.
> The newer power supplies, including the ATX supply, are switching power supplies. This means that more of the power actually gets to the motherboard and less is wasted in the conversion.
True, I know that most cases come with power supplies. But I have 2 new AT switching power supplies now. That's why I want a converter.
> 2.Or the MB has one of the newer voltage regulators, which are highly efficient and don't need large heatsinks.
So is there one of these 'newer' regulators somewhere that I can use inline?
OK, this is slightly off-topic, but close. :-)
I have a good AT supply, but many MoBo's nowadays only have ATX power connectors. Is there a way to convert an AT connector to fit an ATX connection on the board?
TIA!
> The only remaining point to clarify is that TrollTech wants to prevent abuse of the free license in In-House development. Therefor it's not allowed to keep the programme secret from the Trolls. But I guess this can be sorted out, as the GPL is not for secret code either...
Not so. The GPL may *encourage* code sharing, but definately does not *require* it for in-house development. The only time you must distribute your code is if you distribute the program.
Like I said before, Linus developed Linux on Minix. Minix was scaffolding while Linus created his new OS.
Do construction workers use the scaffolding as part of the final structure they are building? Didn't think so.
Ok, so I typed 'Linux' rather than 'Linus' once in the above post. Sue me ;-)
I believe Linux was originally *developed* on Minix, but I don't think it has any Minix code in it. If it did, Linus would be breaking the Minix license, I think. Besides, I thought Linux wanted a 'better Minix than Minix', so why would he have used Minix code?
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
> If they include a special widget library, the community just replaces them one-by-one with GPL'd versions
...er...wait a minute...nevermind.
Yeah, make (L)GPL'd clones of closed (or only partially open) widget sets. Harmony did.
Isn't there a clause in the Free QT Foundation agreement that if TT ever gets bought out, the latest version of QT gets released under a BSD-type license? :->
Red Hat should just buy TT
Simple way to stop the OS from modifying the hardware's value: convince the stupid legislators/voters that changing the hardware ID of the CPU is illegal (immoral, wrong, bad for the ozone, etc...).
Once that's outlawed, sw & hw companies (and the govt.) can have their way with you.
> My PC's first NEC monitor died in under 3 weeks, too.
NEC sucks. They may look good for reviewers, but then they fall apart. In under 3 mo. my new NEC monitor was basically shot: lines on the screen, funny noises, etc. I had to pay shipping to send it back, and then they sent a *refurbished* one! Great. I got some other dope's that was sent back and 'fixed'. Some poor person will get my old one when they 'fix' it, too... Anyway, not more than another 3 mo., the same thing started to happen to this one. I tried to get a *new*, good monitor out of them (because I had never really gotten a new, trouble-free monitor for my purchase price). They didn't yield. They only covered shipping so I could send *another* monitor back and recieve *another* refurbished one. There are a few minor problems with this one, too (like the OSD being fuzzy sometimes), but nothing that makes me want to deal with the damn tech 'support' at NEC again.
BTW, the CTX monitor I had before the NEC lasted quite a few years, so it wasn't my computer or vid. card sending out some weird signal to fry it.
I will never buy NEC again.
> then it might be too late to write the configuration bits.
Couldn't you put the clock ID bits in some sort of microcode?
Intel doesn't need ID's *or* FSB/multiplier lock to stop false marking of CPU's! Just a few ROM bits to tell what bus/clock speed the chip is approved for, and maybe something to tell what it is actually running at.
I have a few questions:
Since when did Linux become a 'network operating system'? I know it has supported networking from early on, but saying it is a 'network' os may be too misleading for a press release.
Also, I thought Linus started Linux as a project to learn more about his 386 and to create a minix clone, not 'after becoming disillusioned with the poor quality of commercial alternatives'.
L8R!
David
Whatever happened to MEEPT!!'s account?
MEEPT!! may have been annoying at times, but really fun to read at others.