Are there any projects afoot to do what BeOS was attempting to do? To create an OS sans cruft? I'm aware that the canon here dictates that Linux is the solution to end all solutions, but UNIX in general has proven ill-designed for home desktop use (single-user or few-user, multimedia-oriented or document-oriented systems).
It's mostly to keep it from being used against them later in court, when other people sue them for the same type of thing.
I believe that was the grandparent's point. A settlement this large is a de facto admission of wrongdoing, regardless of the wording of the settlement. This should be usable against them in court in the future, whether they want it to be or not. It's no longer up to them, ideally.
They are paying off a complaint because they do not feel that the legal system, which is ultimately designed to protect the innocent[0] will protect them. Ergo they must feel, on some level, that what they did is seen by the masses as wrong.
Legal boilerplate should never overrule common sense, but it does. Frequently.
[0] implementation consequences notwithstanding, that is the intent.
The liscence agreement only affects you if you're installing the software. You need never see the agreement at all to go over the install program and manipulate it.
It may well be a copyright violation, but it's not a liscence violation as the K Lite guys need never have agreed to the liscence.
The big deal is that consumers are expected to agree to any and every one of these liscence agreements that comes along. Yes, the majority of the clauses are unenforcable. Yes, the "contracts" may be completely invalid (no consideration, no negotiation, post-sale conditions...).
Do you have the time and money to fight it in court if the company that made the software decides to "terminate your liscence" for some violation? Or sue for breaking one of the terms of the agreement?
Elsewhere upthread, someone points out that the Visual Studio EULA does not permit you to make a word processor. What if you run a company that makes software, your developers took your advice and just clicked through that agreement, and wrote a word processor? Would you like to pay for the legal battle over the enforcabillity of that clause?
I don't want to see something prepared in a format someone else likes. I want to see it how I like it.
Unfortunately, hordes of web designers seem to disagree with you on this one, if the contents of ciwah and related groups is anything to go by. A lot (probably the vast majority) of people who publish on the web want pixel-by-pixel control of what you see on the screen.
Thankfully the W3C is moving the HTML standards away from this, but without popular support (read: internet explorer) the good things they're doing will fall by the wayside.
As an aside, this post highlights some of the existing holes in popular support for HTML. See if you can spot them!:)
Linux is not an operating system. I would, honestly, go so far as to say that Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, and all the others are, in fact, different operating systems. Each certainly fills a slightly different role. They share a lot of features, being built out of a broad selection of the same components and libraries, but each one has its quirks and differences. Indeed, because we all have access to the source to each of these slightly different operating systems, making them behave like each other to an extent is easy.
Do you expect to be able to port from Solaris to AIX cleanly? They're both unices, after all...
Use a modern distribution and you'll notice something--almost all the desktop applications behave and look fairly consistent. However, it is and always will be slightly different from another distribution, and signifigantly different from the system you built yourself using Linux From Scratch.
*smack* Sorry, you did mention the LABEL tag. Also, the HTML (4.01) spec explicitly says that when the label receives focus it should pass focus on to the associated control, so it would be a bug if this is not done.
May I suggest the <label> tag? If that doesn't perform how you want it to, suggest it to your browser makers of choice, or write your own.
Relevant excerpt, for the link-phobic:
The LABEL element may be used to attach information to controls. Each LABEL element is associated with exactly one form control.
The for attribute associates a label with another control explicitly: the value of the for attribute must be the same as the value of the id attribute of the associated control element. More than one LABEL may be associated with the same control by creating multiple references via the for attribute.
...
To associate a label with another control implicitly, the control element must be within the contents of the LABEL element. In this case, the LABEL may only contain one control element. The label itself may be positioned before or after the associated control.
Fix your firewall, don't add Yet More Encapsulation. In any sort of real mainframe-using environment, someone around should be clueful enough to properly configure the firewall.
You say "HTTP might not be quick, but it is becoming ubiquitous." TCP is already ubiquitous, is far more flexible, and doesn't have a specific document-retrieval architechture as a base. It is, in fact, a Bad Tool for GUIs.
There are a lot of posts from developers below that argue that you-the-buyer don't purchase the source. I beg your humble pardons, sirs, but you're wrong--the binary is the source. Granted, it's source in an extremely low-level form that's not eminently useful for development, but if you think a binary application is uneditable I would like to introduce you to gamecopyworld et al, who exist to edit, yes, binaries.
Further, the 'source' in the form of the machine-code executable is covered by a liscence agreement (of questionable legality) and by copyright law (of perfect legality). The source code used to generate that binary would be under exactly the same liscence/copyright. The article is not insisting that you give the source away for free!
A pair of red lego blocks on a sadisticly-tinted red/blue checkerboard plane. I'd post the image, but anywhere I COULD post it would die a horrible death. Render it yourself.
Wouldn't matter. If it worked the way you two think it did, IE would still need a perl plug. But it doesn't --.asp,.cfm,.cgi,.pl,.whatever-the-fek-else (.sh would work, so would.bat if you were a psycho) is all handled server-side, not client-side. All the client gets is an HTML stream from the server.
It occurs to me that for games along the lines of Black and White (or a realtime version of, say, Firetop Mountain [http://www.gamerz.net/~fm/Main/]) that sort of thing might be perfect. Instead of gesturing with the mouse, you gesture with your hand -- and actually THROW that fireball at those infidel dogs. I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
Watch where you spill that can of worms. The same could be said that removing a letter does not a trademark make either, and yet neither Microsoft nor the appropriate company (lazy me, not doing research) have sued over Windows/X-Windows. (Note that this may change; Microsoft may claim that the OS running their X-Box gaming system has some claim to the name "X Windows." Should be interesting to see where THAT goes.)
BS I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
The man was right. Everything that could've been invented at the time, with the tools they had, had been invented. As others have pointed out, it takes a while for new technologies to stablize, and longer still for new ideas to spring from the existing ones. I would say, now, that "Everything that can be invented has been invented" is still true. Can you come up with something radically new? I know I can't, simply possible improvements on existing technology, which, apparently, aren't innovation.
However.
Everything that should be patented has been patented since 1899.
-Boneshintai I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there any projects afoot to do what BeOS was attempting to do? To create an OS sans cruft? I'm aware that the canon here dictates that Linux is the solution to end all solutions, but UNIX in general has proven ill-designed for home desktop use (single-user or few-user, multimedia-oriented or document-oriented systems).
I believe that was the grandparent's point. A settlement this large is a de facto admission of wrongdoing, regardless of the wording of the settlement. This should be usable against them in court in the future, whether they want it to be or not. It's no longer up to them, ideally.
They are paying off a complaint because they do not feel that the legal system, which is ultimately designed to protect the innocent[0] will protect them. Ergo they must feel, on some level, that what they did is seen by the masses as wrong.
Legal boilerplate should never overrule common sense, but it does. Frequently.
[0] implementation consequences notwithstanding, that is the intent.
The liscence agreement only affects you if you're installing the software. You need never see the agreement at all to go over the install program and manipulate it.
It may well be a copyright violation, but it's not a liscence violation as the K Lite guys need never have agreed to the liscence.
The big deal is that consumers are expected to agree to any and every one of these liscence agreements that comes along. Yes, the majority of the clauses are unenforcable. Yes, the "contracts" may be completely invalid (no consideration, no negotiation, post-sale conditions...).
Do you have the time and money to fight it in court if the company that made the software decides to "terminate your liscence" for some violation? Or sue for breaking one of the terms of the agreement?
Elsewhere upthread, someone points out that the Visual Studio EULA does not permit you to make a word processor. What if you run a company that makes software, your developers took your advice and just clicked through that agreement, and wrote a word processor? Would you like to pay for the legal battle over the enforcabillity of that clause?
Someone on e2 did a very good job writing short fiction (I hope, anyways) based on that label.
I believe you meant to say that the Earth's gravitational force upon itself is infinite.
Nit: picked.
Unfortunately, hordes of web designers seem to disagree with you on this one, if the contents of ciwah and related groups is anything to go by. A lot (probably the vast majority) of people who publish on the web want pixel-by-pixel control of what you see on the screen.
Thankfully the W3C is moving the HTML standards away from this, but without popular support (read: internet explorer) the good things they're doing will fall by the wayside.
As an aside, this post highlights some of the existing holes in popular support for HTML. See if you can spot them! :)
So, um, how is this different from signing your email with PGP and requesting a signed read reciept?
Yet another pointless 'invention'.
That's what bin mode is for. ASCII mode auto-converts newlines, BINARY mode leaves the data absolutely alone.
1.1.1.1... 1.1.1.2... 1.1.1.3...
Linux is not an operating system. I would, honestly, go so far as to say that Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse, Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, and all the others are, in fact, different operating systems. Each certainly fills a slightly different role. They share a lot of features, being built out of a broad selection of the same components and libraries, but each one has its quirks and differences. Indeed, because we all have access to the source to each of these slightly different operating systems, making them behave like each other to an extent is easy.
Do you expect to be able to port from Solaris to AIX cleanly? They're both unices, after all...
Use a modern distribution and you'll notice something--almost all the desktop applications behave and look fairly consistent. However, it is and always will be slightly different from another distribution, and signifigantly different from the system you built yourself using Linux From Scratch.
Linux is not a monolith.
*smack* Sorry, you did mention the LABEL tag. Also, the HTML (4.01) spec explicitly says that when the label receives focus it should pass focus on to the associated control, so it would be a bug if this is not done.
May I suggest the <label> tag? If that doesn't perform how you want it to, suggest it to your browser makers of choice, or write your own.
Relevant excerpt, for the link-phobic:
Or, if you're using C++, stop using char * strings and start using #include and std::string. Length is automagical.
Cheers,
Owen
Fix your firewall, don't add Yet More Encapsulation. In any sort of real mainframe-using environment, someone around should be clueful enough to properly configure the firewall.
You say "HTTP might not be quick, but it is becoming ubiquitous." TCP is already ubiquitous, is far more flexible, and doesn't have a specific document-retrieval architechture as a base. It is, in fact, a Bad Tool for GUIs.
There are a lot of posts from developers below that argue that you-the-buyer don't purchase the source. I beg your humble pardons, sirs, but you're wrong--the binary is the source. Granted, it's source in an extremely low-level form that's not eminently useful for development, but if you think a binary application is uneditable I would like to introduce you to gamecopyworld et al, who exist to edit, yes, binaries.
Further, the 'source' in the form of the machine-code executable is covered by a liscence agreement (of questionable legality) and by copyright law (of perfect legality). The source code used to generate that binary would be under exactly the same liscence/copyright. The article is not insisting that you give the source away for free!
Cheers,
Owen
A pair of red lego blocks on a sadisticly-tinted red/blue checkerboard plane. I'd post the image, but anywhere I COULD post it would die a horrible death. Render it yourself.
man: no match
(Note to cmdrtaco: Your new lameness filter sucks. kthxplzdrvthru.)
One - Masamune's swords were the good ones, not the evil ones.
Two - Damascus Steel != Japanese technique.
Luv!
Wouldn't matter. If it worked the way you two think it did, IE would still need a perl plug. But it doesn't -- .asp, .cfm, .cgi, .pl, .whatever-the-fek-else (.sh would work, so would .bat if you were a psycho) is all handled server-side, not client-side. All the client gets is an HTML stream from the server.
Toodles.
It occurs to me that for games along the lines of Black and White (or a realtime version of, say, Firetop Mountain [http://www.gamerz.net/~fm/Main/]) that sort of thing might be perfect. Instead of gesturing with the mouse, you gesture with your hand -- and actually THROW that fireball at those infidel dogs.
I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
Watch where you spill that can of worms. The same could be said that removing a letter does not a trademark make either, and yet neither Microsoft nor the appropriate company (lazy me, not doing research) have sued over Windows/X-Windows. (Note that this may change; Microsoft may claim that the OS running their X-Box gaming system has some claim to the name "X Windows." Should be interesting to see where THAT goes.)
BS
I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
Though he does have a point, sort of. This tells is it's intact, possibly still working. It didn't crash, although it may have simply crashed.
-BS
I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
notes: package is very heavy, do not drop.
Which someone obviously did. Those customs officials, I tell ye...
(Boneshintai)
I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.
Fundamental problem here:
The man was right. Everything that could've been invented at the time, with the tools they had, had been invented. As others have pointed out, it takes a while for new technologies to stablize, and longer still for new ideas to spring from the existing ones. I would say, now, that "Everything that can be invented has been invented" is still true. Can you come up with something radically new? I know I can't, simply possible improvements on existing technology, which, apparently, aren't innovation.
However.
Everything that should be patented has been patented since 1899.
-Boneshintai
I don't claim to be right, I just claim to be thinking about it.