Good idea. Hey, while we're at it, why not just sell people into slavery again when they can't pay their debt? Or we could be proactive and just introduce serfdom again. I'm sure you'd be one of the crackers rather than one of the poor saps at the receiving end of the whip, too, wouldn't you?
Get a fucking brain, you moron. There is a difference between killing someone in self-defense when you're being physically assaulted and are defending yourself, and killing someone *in revenge*.
In a word: yes. Flickr was bought by Yahoo about 2 years ago (and the subsequent move of all data from Canada to the US, making it subject to US law instead of Canadian law, caused some tensions, too).
You'd need a perfectly rigid pole for that - and in fact, the fact that (classical) information cannot travel faster than light therefore proves that no perfectly rigid pole can exist. (I remember this thought experiment from highschool...)
At the risk of getting modded off-topic (or maybe informative *coughcough*), "overrated" applies to the score of a comment, not the moderations done to it - that is, the rating rather than the ratings.
Linus' opinion and his statements are just like his kernel tree - he's often said that there's nothing special or "official" about it and that people only use it because it works, and that if somebody else will start (and maintain!) a better tree, people will use that instead. (Well, in reality, people might be sheep who will use Linus' tree because it's, well, Linus' tree, but that's not what he's advocating.)
I think the same's true here; there's no a priori reason why Linus' opinion is more important or deserving to be heard or considered than anyone else's; the reason why people still do so is that unlike the GP claims, his comments are rarely if ever "not well thought out". Quite the opposite: he's a man of strong convictions, but he always backs up his claims; he's willing to change his opinion when presented with compelling evidence that it's wrong; and he's totally honest about it when things suck, too - he doesn't ever spin.
That's why people take him serious and listen to him - not because he's Linus, but because he damn well knows what he's talking about and because he's an extremely insightful and capable guy.
Hindsight's always perfect. Do you really expect Tanenbaum would have had any qualms about letting him fail if Linux had been a class project, with no actual real-world use? I don't think he would've just done so right away without giving Linus a chance, but it would've been mild coercion at best - the "I'm the professor, trust me, I know what's right and wrong, so why don't you change your design now, son, you'll get a better grade that way... after all, I *am* the professor, and I control your grades, if you catch my drift" kind.
So without any actual proof (or even evidence) that Linus' design was solid, he certainly would've failed. And even now, I don't think that Tanenbaum admits that monolithic or hybrid kernels (because let's face it, Linux isn't 100% monolithic) are actually better; the most you'll probably get out of him is "yes, they're being used widely, and they haven't failed catastrophically, but microkernels are still be fundamentally better".
He's a zealot, basically (and I don't automatically mean in a bad way - he's just a zealot the same kind that, say, RMS is a zealot), whereas Linus is a pragmatic engineer (he sure has some strong opinions, too, but he can always back them up and he's willing to change them if presented with convincing evidence that they're wrong). That's the fundamental difference between the two, and it's also why Linus would've failed if he had been in Tanenbaum's class and if he hadn't changed his design according to Tanenbaum's wishes.
That being said, to not make this an entirely off-topic post, keep in mind that Schwartz is not an engineer, either. He wants to sell you a product - nothing more, nothing less.
Um, no. The guy who asked these questions, while clearly being extremely clueless, is not actually ripping anyone off. There's nothing that says you can't run closed-source software on a Linux system - quite the opposite -, and it's absolutely not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the license or the wishes of the programmers in question.
I suppose you could still be opposed to closed-source software in principle, but you're not - what you seem to be doing (intentionally or not, I can't tell) is put up a strawman of "you're violating the GPL folks feelings by doing this!", even though it is patently untrue, and then use that to justify advising the guy to use BSD instead.
Are you sure you're not a particularly sophisticated BSD troll?:P OK, no need to answer that, but either you're extremely clueless, or your post was a particularly sneaky and underhanded attempt to discredit the GPL.
It's very easy to visualise a billion, actually. Just imagine you've got a bunch of small cubes of 1x1x1mm (small, but certainly imaginable), and then use those to build a large cube of 1x1x1m (large, but certainly imaginable). Voilà - that's 1 billion small cubes you used.
Good point... but how can you prove to us that you're not secretly an agent of the government engaging in damage control now by making us distrust the leaked numbers even though the leak's genuine and even though they ARE real?;)
Well, "never" matches "from time to time", just like wanting to make copyright last "forever less one day" by perpetually expanding it whenever some works' protection threatens to expire matches "securing for limited Times".
Yeah, it's perverted, but you can be sure that there are people who'll seriously argue this way - at least after they stopped screaming "zOMGterrorists!!111".
You're not really all that paranoid, I think. "Divide and conquer" has long been an effective strategy; of course, these days, the "conquer" part wouldn't really be all that popular, but you can still do "divide and control" or at least "divide and influence" (which will be done depends on many factors - how rich the countries in question are, how large they are, how close they are to you culturally, and so on).
Politics *are* a dirty game, especially behind closed doors; people who think otherwise are simply naive.
"The odds of any group of people that size pulling that off once is astronomical, numerous times it inconceivable."
That's an ad hoc assertion for which you provide no evidence whatsoever. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories myself, but I think you should refute them based on actual evidence/proof that they're incorrect, not simply brush them aside with snide remarks or unsubstantiated claims.
Indeed - and then instead of licensing patents, they just signed a "covenant not to sue". It's very much against the spirit of the license, but apparently not the letter, and while the spirit of a license and the intent of the licensor will certainly be taken into account in court, it's always a better idea to just fix the letter of the license to close the loophole, too.
It just depends on the programmer's preference. I like BSD still personally. It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think the GPLv2 is less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho. A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.
Yeah... and we don't live in a true democracy because we've got inalienable rights that we (by means of an elected government) cannot legally take away, either. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea. Hey, while we're at it, why not just sell people into slavery again when they can't pay their debt? Or we could be proactive and just introduce serfdom again. I'm sure you'd be one of the crackers rather than one of the poor saps at the receiving end of the whip, too, wouldn't you?
Get a fucking brain, you moron. There is a difference between killing someone in self-defense when you're being physically assaulted and are defending yourself, and killing someone *in revenge*.
Or the family jewels, judging from their (re)actions...
In a word: yes. Flickr was bought by Yahoo about 2 years ago (and the subsequent move of all data from Canada to the US, making it subject to US law instead of Canadian law, caused some tensions, too).
You'd need a perfectly rigid pole for that - and in fact, the fact that (classical) information cannot travel faster than light therefore proves that no perfectly rigid pole can exist. (I remember this thought experiment from highschool...)
The correct term is breatharian, actually (or oxygenarian if you're into KoL).
Yes, it's true - without microsoft, this wouldn't have been possible.
Think about it...
At the risk of getting modded off-topic (or maybe informative *coughcough*), "overrated" applies to the score of a comment, not the moderations done to it - that is, the rating rather than the ratings.
Wow. Hell must've frozen over...
I wholeheartedly agree.
Linus' opinion and his statements are just like his kernel tree - he's often said that there's nothing special or "official" about it and that people only use it because it works, and that if somebody else will start (and maintain!) a better tree, people will use that instead. (Well, in reality, people might be sheep who will use Linus' tree because it's, well, Linus' tree, but that's not what he's advocating.)
I think the same's true here; there's no a priori reason why Linus' opinion is more important or deserving to be heard or considered than anyone else's; the reason why people still do so is that unlike the GP claims, his comments are rarely if ever "not well thought out". Quite the opposite: he's a man of strong convictions, but he always backs up his claims; he's willing to change his opinion when presented with compelling evidence that it's wrong; and he's totally honest about it when things suck, too - he doesn't ever spin.
That's why people take him serious and listen to him - not because he's Linus, but because he damn well knows what he's talking about and because he's an extremely insightful and capable guy.
Hindsight's always perfect. Do you really expect Tanenbaum would have had any qualms about letting him fail if Linux had been a class project, with no actual real-world use? I don't think he would've just done so right away without giving Linus a chance, but it would've been mild coercion at best - the "I'm the professor, trust me, I know what's right and wrong, so why don't you change your design now, son, you'll get a better grade that way... after all, I *am* the professor, and I control your grades, if you catch my drift" kind.
So without any actual proof (or even evidence) that Linus' design was solid, he certainly would've failed. And even now, I don't think that Tanenbaum admits that monolithic or hybrid kernels (because let's face it, Linux isn't 100% monolithic) are actually better; the most you'll probably get out of him is "yes, they're being used widely, and they haven't failed catastrophically, but microkernels are still be fundamentally better".
He's a zealot, basically (and I don't automatically mean in a bad way - he's just a zealot the same kind that, say, RMS is a zealot), whereas Linus is a pragmatic engineer (he sure has some strong opinions, too, but he can always back them up and he's willing to change them if presented with convincing evidence that they're wrong). That's the fundamental difference between the two, and it's also why Linus would've failed if he had been in Tanenbaum's class and if he hadn't changed his design according to Tanenbaum's wishes.
That being said, to not make this an entirely off-topic post, keep in mind that Schwartz is not an engineer, either. He wants to sell you a product - nothing more, nothing less.
Um, no. The guy who asked these questions, while clearly being extremely clueless, is not actually ripping anyone off. There's nothing that says you can't run closed-source software on a Linux system - quite the opposite -, and it's absolutely not contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the license or the wishes of the programmers in question.
:P OK, no need to answer that, but either you're extremely clueless, or your post was a particularly sneaky and underhanded attempt to discredit the GPL.
I suppose you could still be opposed to closed-source software in principle, but you're not - what you seem to be doing (intentionally or not, I can't tell) is put up a strawman of "you're violating the GPL folks feelings by doing this!", even though it is patently untrue, and then use that to justify advising the guy to use BSD instead.
Are you sure you're not a particularly sophisticated BSD troll?
...vaudeville dead? Say it isn't so, good Sir! I was just looking to buy tickets to the Barrison Sister's next performance!
It's very easy to visualise a billion, actually. Just imagine you've got a bunch of small cubes of 1x1x1mm (small, but certainly imaginable), and then use those to build a large cube of 1x1x1m (large, but certainly imaginable). Voilà - that's 1 billion small cubes you used.
Rule #1 from Politics 101... the sheeple will not be educated. :/
Good point... but how can you prove to us that you're not secretly an agent of the government engaging in damage control now by making us distrust the leaked numbers even though the leak's genuine and even though they ARE real? ;)
Well, "never" matches "from time to time", just like wanting to make copyright last "forever less one day" by perpetually expanding it whenever some works' protection threatens to expire matches "securing for limited Times".
Yeah, it's perverted, but you can be sure that there are people who'll seriously argue this way - at least after they stopped screaming "zOMGterrorists!!111".
You're not really all that paranoid, I think. "Divide and conquer" has long been an effective strategy; of course, these days, the "conquer" part wouldn't really be all that popular, but you can still do "divide and control" or at least "divide and influence" (which will be done depends on many factors - how rich the countries in question are, how large they are, how close they are to you culturally, and so on).
Politics *are* a dirty game, especially behind closed doors; people who think otherwise are simply naive.
"The odds of any group of people that size pulling that off once is astronomical, numerous times it inconceivable."
That's an ad hoc assertion for which you provide no evidence whatsoever. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories myself, but I think you should refute them based on actual evidence/proof that they're incorrect, not simply brush them aside with snide remarks or unsubstantiated claims.
Linus *is* a GPL fanboy, you insensitive clod!
Indeed - and then instead of licensing patents, they just signed a "covenant not to sue". It's very much against the spirit of the license, but apparently not the letter, and while the spirit of a license and the intent of the licensor will certainly be taken into account in court, it's always a better idea to just fix the letter of the license to close the loophole, too.
It just depends on the programmer's preference. I like BSD still personally. It gives companies incentives to help out, where I think the GPLv2 is less attractive to companies which will hurt it in the long run imho. A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed.
Yeah... and we don't live in a true democracy because we've got inalienable rights that we (by means of an elected government) cannot legally take away, either. Right?
Interestingly enough, "venting" is also the word falconers use when a bird defecates...
Hey, if you look at everything that the graecoroman gods did, incest is actually one of the most harmless things you'll come across...