Amen! I've been looking forward to this feature for a long time, and now it's dead. Free beer to whoever turns it on.
Nothing pisses me off like an underlinked website.
>A few scientists decided it would be cool to split atoms a while ago... Look where that got us.
Umm...it got us a near infinite energy source that is very safe when well regulated and that releases very little pollution into the atmosphere, aside from that nasty little issue of the spent fuel. I'd say splitting the atom was a good thing, not a bad thing.
Ah, but it is far off. You can't patent a result. You must patent a procedure. If IBM were to patent an efficient deletion algorithm that passed prior art tests, more power to them. They developed it, and they should reap the rewards and problems that come along with a patent, if they desire it.
Right, because I specified "commercial" software. I also very clearly said that I thought the GPL was a bad thing.
Oh, wait...no I didn't! Try reading the full comment, and not what you ASSUME the comment says. All I said is that adding anything to GPL code makes the added code also GPL. This is a fact.
One's opinion of the consequences of this fact may vary, but it doesn't change the fact that the GPL will infect any code added to other GPL'd code.
I wasn't arguing that one was better or worse. Heck, I can't say I'm a huge fan of OSS in the first place. My point was, however, that regardless of your OSS leanings, GPL IS viral, and does infect any program written on top of it.
Whether this is good or bad is an issue for the developer to decide, not you or me.
It could be BSD, or some other opensource license. Or, it could be something else entirely that we haven't thought up yet. It could be any number of things.
However, if someone has already written a fair chunk of what you want to do under the GPL, and you want to use that code, as it is the best code for the job, you MUST release your program under the GPL, as well. Sure, you COULD write your own code, but that just defeats the purpose of opensource and code sharing in the first place.
BSD, on the other hand, makes no such decisions. If I want to take some BSD'd code, and incorporate it into my GPL'd program, fine. If I want to keep it BSD, fine. If I want to invent my own license, fine. It doesn't matter to the BSDL.
BSD gives future developers freedom. GPL infects the future developers' code with itself.
According to VZ, the company newsletter, "Verizon" is a contraction of "Veritas" and "Horizon."
I guess they're going for some kind of "Truth for the future" type image.
Re:Linux advocacy: VR3 framework for the Desktop?
on
Agenda, Not Hidden
·
· Score: 1
> Even an ordinary user can learn to type "apt-get xmms" if he wants to install xmms.
No, they can't. Users are idiots, and until everyone realizes this, Linux WILL NOT be a mainstream desktop OS.
An ordinary/. reader certainly can learn apt-get. Hell, even I, a certified Windows lover and Linux hater, can learn that. But I'm not an "ordinary user," nor is anyone who reads/.
Think about it. People call tech support for Windows installs that involve an entire double click. Expecting Joe Blow to open a CLI is just waaay too optimistic, and it is this philosophy that is keeping Linux from the mainstream acceptance that, from a kernel and technology standpoint, it deserves.
Sure, with CURRENT technology that's what we'd have to do. Maybe, with more reasearch, we could have a vat o' livers up and running, as people need them. They'd be cheap and plentiful, and if one was rejected, they could throw it out and try a new one. Sure, we can't do this now, but without the research, we'll NEVER be able to do it.
I agree, the slaughtering of human clones for spare parts should certainly be outlawed. But the growing of individual spare parts in labs? How could that be anything BUT a good thing?
Sure, but then your decompressor has to include the entire contents of the original file, or a compressed version thereof.
In order to get this compressed version, you would, of course, need another compressor, and YOUR compressor would be more or less worthless.
Amen to that. As much as I love RPI and my Dell laptop that I bought on my own, the laptop program has been poorly thought out and executed from the beginning. Last year, the laptops were used more for ICQ and Minesweeper in class than anything else. This year, they just haven't been used at all. Long live the IOP!
Well, as an RPI student, I have a friend who got busted. They just told her to take them down, though. No loss of access. They said if it happened again, she would lose it, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Is AT&T Roadrunner based on @home, too? I thought that the Roadrunner and @home networks were seperaate....
If you're going to use a password manager, why not just make all of your passwords the same anyway?
All it takes is someone knowing the manager's password to get them all easily enough anyhow.
Amen! I've been looking forward to this feature for a long time, and now it's dead. Free beer to whoever turns it on. Nothing pisses me off like an underlinked website.
Marsupials are mammals.
They don't appear to be made of wood...
>A few scientists decided it would be cool to split atoms a while ago... Look where that got us.
Umm...it got us a near infinite energy source that is very safe when well regulated and that releases very little pollution into the atmosphere, aside from that nasty little issue of the spent fuel. I'd say splitting the atom was a good thing, not a bad thing.
That's Chuck E. Cheese's.
Ah, but it is far off. You can't patent a result. You must patent a procedure. If IBM were to patent an efficient deletion algorithm that passed prior art tests, more power to them. They developed it, and they should reap the rewards and problems that come along with a patent, if they desire it.
That would be Carnegie Mellon, among others
Palm does use reflective TFTs in the M505. That's been one of the biggest complaints about the unit: the contrast apparently isn't all that great.
Right, because I specified "commercial" software. I also very clearly said that I thought the GPL was a bad thing.
Oh, wait...no I didn't! Try reading the full comment, and not what you ASSUME the comment says. All I said is that adding anything to GPL code makes the added code also GPL. This is a fact.
One's opinion of the consequences of this fact may vary, but it doesn't change the fact that the GPL will infect any code added to other GPL'd code.
I wasn't arguing that one was better or worse. Heck, I can't say I'm a huge fan of OSS in the first place. My point was, however, that regardless of your OSS leanings, GPL IS viral, and does infect any program written on top of it. Whether this is good or bad is an issue for the developer to decide, not you or me.
Who said it would be proprietary?
It could be BSD, or some other opensource license. Or, it could be something else entirely that we haven't thought up yet. It could be any number of things.
However, if someone has already written a fair chunk of what you want to do under the GPL, and you want to use that code, as it is the best code for the job, you MUST release your program under the GPL, as well. Sure, you COULD write your own code, but that just defeats the purpose of opensource and code sharing in the first place. BSD, on the other hand, makes no such decisions. If I want to take some BSD'd code, and incorporate it into my GPL'd program, fine. If I want to keep it BSD, fine. If I want to invent my own license, fine. It doesn't matter to the BSDL. BSD gives future developers freedom. GPL infects the future developers' code with itself.
According to VZ, the company newsletter, "Verizon" is a contraction of "Veritas" and "Horizon."
I guess they're going for some kind of "Truth for the future" type image.
> Even an ordinary user can learn to type "apt-get xmms" if he wants to install xmms. No, they can't. Users are idiots, and until everyone realizes this, Linux WILL NOT be a mainstream desktop OS. An ordinary /. reader certainly can learn apt-get. Hell, even I, a certified Windows lover and Linux hater, can learn that. But I'm not an "ordinary user," nor is anyone who reads /.
Think about it. People call tech support for Windows installs that involve an entire double click. Expecting Joe Blow to open a CLI is just waaay too optimistic, and it is this philosophy that is keeping Linux from the mainstream acceptance that, from a kernel and technology standpoint, it deserves.
Sure, with CURRENT technology that's what we'd have to do. Maybe, with more reasearch, we could have a vat o' livers up and running, as people need them. They'd be cheap and plentiful, and if one was rejected, they could throw it out and try a new one. Sure, we can't do this now, but without the research, we'll NEVER be able to do it. I agree, the slaughtering of human clones for spare parts should certainly be outlawed. But the growing of individual spare parts in labs? How could that be anything BUT a good thing?
Sure, but then your decompressor has to include the entire contents of the original file, or a compressed version thereof. In order to get this compressed version, you would, of course, need another compressor, and YOUR compressor would be more or less worthless.
Amen to that. As much as I love RPI and my Dell laptop that I bought on my own, the laptop program has been poorly thought out and executed from the beginning. Last year, the laptops were used more for ICQ and Minesweeper in class than anything else. This year, they just haven't been used at all. Long live the IOP!
The /. effect is easy enough to avoid...that's why they invented geocities. Now lets see some pics!
Well, as an RPI student, I have a friend who got busted. They just told her to take them down, though. No loss of access. They said if it happened again, she would lose it, though.