I agree, just because someone can list the names of several OSs doesn't mean that all of them are necessary, or even valid options for some situations.
For example, who's to say that there isn't an Operating System that is a bad choice for any purpose. I know of several obvious candidates.
And who says that each of the three choices: "Windows, Mac OS X and Linux" are "single" OSs anyway.
If someone says that "Windows" is the best choice for everything, it's only in MSFT's dreams that they mean "Vista".
IMHO, "Linux" may someday be the best choice for almost any purpose, but I'd fear a world in which that implies only one specific flavor of Linux. I'd never want to run Ubuntu on my MP3 player any more than I'd want to run Rockbox on my server.
Contrary to the common wisdom, I think that the diversity of Linux distributions is the Linux's best feature, not a sign of impending fork-doom.
So while there may never be "a single OS that works best for all people in all situations", perhaps someday they could still all be forms of Linux [X/GNU/Linux] or another free OS.
Re:Yes, but why does Microsoft need a stand...
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 1
If you know what the GPL says, and what it entails, you will see why MS has to make sure there is no GPL code being used in their products. Thats not being evil, thats living in the real world where what you and your employees do has real consequences. Grow up.
Sorry, but if you knew what the GPL says, you'd realize that it cannot give anyone else the right to release (or force MSFT to release) their source code.
If you can't redistribute something based on GPL code under the GPL (e.g. because you don't own the copyright for the MSFT code), then you are not allowed to distribute it at all (without removing either the GPL-covered stuff or the MSFT stuff).
If you had read the GPL, you would realize that this is directly spelled out in Section 7:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
Since the GPL only applies when someone distributes the software, it normally doesn't prevent you from writing and using something that you will never distribute to anyone.
IMHO, what MSFT is trying to do (aside from the usual FUD) is to prevent people from using GPL code even in their own programs (e.g. a proprietary web-site backend).
cdurst
Typical Disclaimer: IANAL
Sharing user's home directories
on
KDE 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
The biggest problem I have with KDE is that it is as single-user as Windows, just in a different way. They both seem to assume that there is a one-to-one mapping of user to system.
For example: I have two systems in my office and a home directory that is shared among them (and all the other systems here, some of which may someday run KDE on entirely different system architectures). One system is running RH6.2 (with KDE 1.1.2). The other system is a dual-boot (well triple-boot if you count W2K): Red Hat 7.1 (KDE 2.1.1) and Mandrake 8.0 Freq2 (KDE 2.2 alpha2).
I'm usually logged into both of my systems at the same time all day long, but I'm afraid to use KDE on both of them at the same time. As a result, I keep one in KDE and one in Gnome.
Even then, when I reboot my dual-boot system, I have to move my.kderc and.kde/ out of the way because they aren't compatible with KDE 2.2 (and they have RedHat rather than Mandrake menus)!
Is there some way to convince KDE that it should look at a different.kderc and.kde/ directory (an environment variable, perhaps...)?
Assuming it is possible to redirect the default config filenames to separate the different KDE configs by system/platform, does anybody have any tricks for sharing things like custom menu entries and panel buttons across systems and platforms?
Even within the same KDE and OS versions, is it safe to share the same.kde directory across multiple systems at the same time? Does it do proper file locking on changes, etc?
In the meanwhile, building contractors have hardly had difficulty getting their hands on the building codes.
That explains why building contracters aren't complaining.
For example, just yesterday I was wondering how I, as a homeowner, could be sure that my own electrical work on my house was "up to code."
Now I hear that I'm not allowed to access that information for free on the Internet. I have to either purchase manuals that I will never need again (before the code changes), or do research by going down to the county clerk's office.
Maybe it would just be easier to hire an electrical contractor...
Slashdot Mirror
For example, who's to say that there isn't an Operating System that is a bad choice for any purpose. I know of several obvious candidates.
And who says that each of the three choices: "Windows, Mac OS X and Linux" are "single" OSs anyway.
If someone says that "Windows" is the best choice for everything, it's only in MSFT's dreams that they mean "Vista".
IMHO, "Linux" may someday be the best choice for almost any purpose, but I'd fear a world in which that implies only one specific flavor of Linux. I'd never want to run Ubuntu on my MP3 player any more than I'd want to run Rockbox on my server.
Contrary to the common wisdom, I think that the diversity of Linux distributions is the Linux's best feature, not a sign of impending fork-doom.
So while there may never be "a single OS that works best for all people in all situations", perhaps someday they could still all be forms of Linux [X/GNU/Linux] or another free OS.
Sorry, but if you knew what the GPL says, you'd realize that it cannot give anyone else the right to release (or force MSFT to release) their source code.
If you can't redistribute something based on GPL code under the GPL (e.g. because you don't own the copyright for the MSFT code), then you are not allowed to distribute it at all (without removing either the GPL-covered stuff or the MSFT stuff).
If you had read the GPL, you would realize that this is directly spelled out in Section 7:
Since the GPL only applies when someone distributes the software, it normally doesn't prevent you from writing and using something that you will never distribute to anyone.
IMHO, what MSFT is trying to do (aside from the usual FUD) is to prevent people from using GPL code even in their own programs (e.g. a proprietary web-site backend).
cdurst
Typical Disclaimer: IANAL
For example: I have two systems in my office and a home directory that is shared among them (and all the other systems here, some of which may someday run KDE on entirely different system architectures). One system is running RH6.2 (with KDE 1.1.2). The other system is a dual-boot (well triple-boot if you count W2K): Red Hat 7.1 (KDE 2.1.1) and Mandrake 8.0 Freq2 (KDE 2.2 alpha2).
I'm usually logged into both of my systems at the same time all day long, but I'm afraid to use KDE on both of them at the same time. As a result, I keep one in KDE and one in Gnome.
Even then, when I reboot my dual-boot system, I have to move my .kderc and .kde/ out of the way because they aren't compatible with KDE 2.2 (and they have RedHat rather than Mandrake menus)!
Is there some way to convince KDE that it should look at a different .kderc and .kde/ directory (an environment variable, perhaps ...)?
Assuming it is possible to redirect the default config filenames to separate the different KDE configs by system/platform, does anybody have any tricks for sharing things like custom menu entries and panel buttons across systems and platforms?
Even within the same KDE and OS versions, is it safe to share the same .kde directory across multiple systems at the same time? Does it do proper file locking on changes, etc?
That explains why building contracters aren't complaining.
For example, just yesterday I was wondering how I, as a homeowner, could be sure that my own electrical work on my house was "up to code."
Now I hear that I'm not allowed to access that information for free on the Internet. I have to either purchase manuals that I will never need again (before the code changes), or do research by going down to the county clerk's office.
Maybe it would just be easier to hire an electrical contractor ...