Something I found amusing, GDS (google desktop search) linux is strictly opt-in on folders while GDS windows is opt out. I use it on my ubuntu box because it beats the hell out of tracker/beagle.
Riiiiiight, just like a driver's license prevents traffic accidents, a gun license prevents shootings....
Yes, exactly like that. Many deaths are prevented by excluding high risk people such as felons/pre-teens from owning guns/driving.
For the record I disagree with the GP's point, but yours is not a valid counterargument. Of course deaths still occur regardless. The question is whether a license will reduce the number.
I think what you're talking about is centralized package management. I agree Apple should add it into OS X, as they are doing with the iPhone. There is even some indication they might be planning to do so in the future.
Honestly, I'm not holding my breath. Did you see what apple made of the iphone attempt? And it costs $99 to get a cert? I've seen devs on ubuntuforums.org get approached by maintainers wanting to package some minor app for the repository. Apple certainly isn't poor. There's a conflict of interest here.
And this supports my initial premise that OSS on non-OSS is no fun. (I know you weren't disagreeing with me)
Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers.
You ask most ubuntu people they'll probably tell you it's working as intended. If it's not free it's not GPL & probably not OSS either. Chances are it's a binary blob & that opens up a host of issues. Is it "zealotry" to actually want control over your own computer?
...and installing from a Web page.
Yeah they're working on it. Did you see the new apt:// protocol?
That's just plain silly. You don't have to have the source code for every tiny little bit on the computer for source code to be useful. Really, how many people need to dink with the kernel, be it Windows, OS X or Linux?
You really think it's just the kernel? Jobs (goes for ballmer too) has complete control over his platform. Are you going to make all your users pay for 10.5? If he stops supporting Carbon, what can you do?
My biggest gripe is with repositories. It would be absolutely trivial for MS to set up a repository & kill off 90% of the malware. Apple supposedly cares for its users - an add-remove button like ubuntu's would go a long way towards providing quality applications. I'm sure it's possible to add a repository afterwards, but it's nowhere as easy (popular) as ubuntu's default. When you find yourself having to explain to yet another person that legal, free, world class software actually exists -- remember that you're doing it because you're on someone else's platform & they want to make it difficult because they're in the business of selling proprietary software.
Advertising doesn't work like that. It's an investment. The amount spent is irrelevant so long as you expect to get back more as a result. R&D probably hits diminishing returns fast compared to advertising.
It's not a social problem if it can be solved by software now is it? Excuse us nerds for wanting to use our strengths to solve problems. Scream at some asshole vs set up QoS in 10 min, yeah I'll take option B, thanks.
Even without an offer on the table, there's other reasons a major shareholder might want to get rid of the board. He might feel he needs to punish them for not doing what he wanted. Or even just to show that he can punish them & maintain credibility.
More like security by diversity. It's the difference between hiding a key under the doormat & having a different key than your neighbor. Hiding your hashes vs salting them. The burglar may know your system quite well - point is you don't want him to get two houses with the same amount of effort.
It is the merest truism, evident at once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention. (Bridgman, P. W. The Logic of Modern Physics)
You can be sued for anything. Being sued for something doesn't mean that act is: illegal, immoral, unethical, or mean.
I think his point was that they can sue you and they can win. Are there any good samaritan laws for hacking into someone's computer? Rather the opposite, i think.
Putting pgp keys in our emails doesn't help that. It has to be transparent. And that's exactly what Scheiner is saying.
Yeah, good luck with that. In my experience, mail encryption is fundamentally difficult - like going from driving cars to planes. You have to know the basics of key management ie get someone's PUBLIC key, encrypt messages using HIS public key & he decrypts using HIS private key. That's already a dealbreaker for most people. Does he seriously expect they'll listen when he talk about key backups, key signing or the importance of only keeping decrypted attachments in ram?
You think it'd be allowed if they didn't at least mention IP rights? This isn't eastern europe, where I hear an ISP can set up a DC++ hub & look the other way. They have a lot of incentive to work with us P2P users & we'd quickly adopt anything that got us higher speeds. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt.
Nah in theory it checks out. Keeping traffic within your network will help costs. Give azureus some network topology information & you won't need to throttle as much. In theory. Carriers have everything to gain from this.
The million dollar question is whether they mean all P2P traffic, or just *AA approved content. They're making a new protocol & it's their data so the ball's in their court. I can easily see them using this as an excuse to go after P2P even more.
Slashdot Mirror
We really need that -1 Informative mod...
Something I found amusing, GDS (google desktop search) linux is strictly opt-in on folders while GDS windows is opt out. I use it on my ubuntu box because it beats the hell out of tracker/beagle.
Hans? Is that you?
i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet ...
For the record I disagree with the GP's point, but yours is not a valid counterargument. Of course deaths still occur regardless. The question is whether a license will reduce the number.
And this supports my initial premise that OSS on non-OSS is no fun. (I know you weren't disagreeing with me)
You ask most ubuntu people they'll probably tell you it's working as intended. If it's not free it's not GPL & probably not OSS either. Chances are it's a binary blob & that opens up a host of issues. Is it "zealotry" to actually want control over your own computer?
Yeah they're working on it. Did you see the new apt:// protocol?
My biggest gripe is with repositories. It would be absolutely trivial for MS to set up a repository & kill off 90% of the malware. Apple supposedly cares for its users - an add-remove button like ubuntu's would go a long way towards providing quality applications. I'm sure it's possible to add a repository afterwards, but it's nowhere as easy (popular) as ubuntu's default. When you find yourself having to explain to yet another person that legal, free, world class software actually exists -- remember that you're doing it because you're on someone else's platform & they want to make it difficult because they're in the business of selling proprietary software.
Advertising doesn't work like that. It's an investment. The amount spent is irrelevant so long as you expect to get back more as a result. R&D probably hits diminishing returns fast compared to advertising.
Hang on, do you weigh less than a duck.
It's not a social problem if it can be solved by software now is it? Excuse us nerds for wanting to use our strengths to solve problems. Scream at some asshole vs set up QoS in 10 min, yeah I'll take option B, thanks.
It would be their first cool product.
Admiral Ackbar was right! About ... EVERYTHING!
There's numerous ways to provide tactile feedback. It's not a particularly difficult problem, i'm sure we'll have it soon enough.
Even without an offer on the table, there's other reasons a major shareholder might want to get rid of the board. He might feel he needs to punish them for not doing what he wanted. Or even just to show that he can punish them & maintain credibility.
More like security by diversity. It's the difference between hiding a key under the doormat & having a different key than your neighbor. Hiding your hashes vs salting them. The burglar may know your system quite well - point is you don't want him to get two houses with the same amount of effort.
Hey man, you're projecting so hard you could point yourself at a wall and show off powerpoint presentations :)
[credit: yahtzee]
Or they could have, you know, GPL'd it. I love watching people fail problems that were solved decades ago.
It is the merest truism, evident at once to unsophisticated observation, that mathematics is a human invention. (Bridgman, P. W. The Logic of Modern Physics)
when the bot writer says it is.
I think his point was that they can sue you and they can win. Are there any good samaritan laws for hacking into someone's computer? Rather the opposite, i think.
Why johnny can't encrypt. (pdf)
You think it'd be allowed if they didn't at least mention IP rights? This isn't eastern europe, where I hear an ISP can set up a DC++ hub & look the other way. They have a lot of incentive to work with us P2P users & we'd quickly adopt anything that got us higher speeds. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of doubt.
Nah in theory it checks out. Keeping traffic within your network will help costs. Give azureus some network topology information & you won't need to throttle as much. In theory. Carriers have everything to gain from this.
The million dollar question is whether they mean all P2P traffic, or just *AA approved content. They're making a new protocol & it's their data so the ball's in their court. I can easily see them using this as an excuse to go after P2P even more.