I use Gentoo also but I must admit that doing "emerge -u world" scares the crap out of me. I'm always scared to mess up my system. But I've been lucky so far.
I have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86" in my make.conf and emerge everything with -UuD and experience few if any more problems than when I was running Debian unstable/experimental.
Because the leg bone is connected to the hip bone, etc. Many leg and foot problems are caused by peripheral vascular disease which can be the result of poor cardiac output, stenosis, even diabities.
Is your mom a programmer? My point is a CS grad should be expected to know as much about the internal functioning of a computer as a medical grad is expected to know about the internal functioning of the body.
Just say to him "Well Grandpa, my motto is anyone who can't describe, with exacting detail, all the functions of every organ in the human body doesn't deserve to live."
But you do expect a physician to have detailed knowledge of the body.
Since the per capita income in Iraq is around $2700 a year the special advantage to using Linux over Windows is that the people there can still afford to eat.
Why should the websites that these people are seeing the ads on be forced to develop and support a website free of charge?
Silly, if those websites didn't want to be seen they would have written a book instead of making their content available on the 'net'. Everybody knows that the internet is all about sharing information, not about making money.
At least with Windows Update, the user can be assured that they will get a secure untrojaned binary. No one has any evidence that Windows Update has been rooted.
Of course six months from now, when they finally get around to issuing a patch, the lack of source code also leaves no evidence that a new vulneralibility wasn't created when the old one is closed, does it?
You make a good point. Now if you would just point me to to offending Microsoft code... so what file does the vulnerability lay? I would be more than happy to edit a line or two of source if it would make my system more secure tonight.
Why should the websites that these people are seeing the ads on be forced to develop and support a website free of charge? Those sites have to pay the bills somehow, and for many, ads are the way to go. That sucks if your internet connection makes it such that larger ads cost you more. If that's the case, get your news/entertainment/what-have-you from a site that doesn't use such large ads.
The majority of internet users were as accepting of static banners the same as people have been accepting newspaper and magazine advertisements. They realised that it was necessary for the content provider to pay his distribution costs and kept them informed of new products on the market. This model has worked for centuries with print media and benefits producer, distributor, and consumer all at the same time. There are even publications whose sole content is advertising that do very well indeed.
It wasn't until the advent of these obtrusive take control of your hardware ads that caused people to reach the "outer limits" of their patience and start digging desperately to find any means available to stop advertisers from tyring to fsck them in the face.
You know, I'm willing to bet that most people didn't have a problem with banners as long as they were static. I even clicked on a few now and then and actually even bought something once or twice. Pop-ups on the other hand are just downright obtrusive and rude, and before I started blocking them I was too busy trying to close the stupid things to bother about reading their content.
It's part of the "Identi-Kids" type of programs. Supposed to make them easier to find if they go missing. Of course those fingerprints could come in handy when little Johnny "borrows" a car a few years later.
Don't you see that something else is wrong here? For one, maybe the US shouldn't be training terrorists like Osama Bin laden, the world would already be safer then.
Now that the Soviet Union is gone and Europe is free the US has no need to train terrorists, the same as they have no need for dictators anymore either.
Now, how to stop it? I favor use of tariffs to force up the price of offshore workers (might be tough to enforce, but if a company *sells* in the US, which is where you want to sell if you want to make the big bucks, we have some influence; if they can keep the Big 3 in business, they can help us out, too).
No, you aren't ever going to force the government to do any of the above particularly when it goes against the interests of big business. Better would be to go the route of physicians, engineers, nurses, etc and require professional licensing to work as a programmer. You can point out all the shoddy insecure software being sold and use that as your selling point.
That seems strange that copyright law would be so different from many other kinds of laws.
It has to be different from other kinds of law because it is trying to pound a non-physical (square peg) thing into a physical (round hole) one.
Copyright law puts restrictions on the expression of an idea in a country where free expression of ideas are a constitutionally guaranteed right. Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that free speech is limited to only those ideas that you come up with yourself.
I doubt you're alone here. I don't answer a call unless I recognize the number and skim the messages for anyone who may have called that is important. Email has become nearly completely useless, thank goodness for throwaway accounts.
The worse though is web page advertising. Banners never really bothered me and I would occasionally click on one, even buy a product. Now that they've become so obnoxious I use every trick I can think of to get rid of them.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? He's not talking about the quality of the OS, he's talking about the fact that just because he runs an OS that is GPLed doesn't mean he should have to release the source of ALL the code that runs on top of that OS.
The original discussion was on Linksys not distributing GPL'd code. This particularly thread delved into why they, and his company, chose Linux over some other system that used a license closer to their own philosophy and avoid these issues in the first place.
Because average people are the mass of this nation.. a wealth creating population is a wealth creating nation. Money needs to circulate.. money is the lifeblood of a nation.
The average person circulates most of his paycheck and maybe sets back a few bucks for a rainy day.
A wealth hoarding population creates a lack of wealth a creation of classes and ultimately a failure of the system.
I cannot speak to exactly why we chose Linux over BSD, in large part it was due to the quality of Red Boot Linux (a Red Hat distro designed for embedded applications).
Okay...you know what's coming next. Do you think it possible the quality could be the result of the GPL requiring code to be shared by those who distribute the software.
It actually uses, for instance, a set of chips manufactured by Broadcom. Anyone else building an embedded system and looking to use those chips -- or writing drivers for PC hardware based on those chips -- would have a great deal of use for these drivers.
If that is their worry, why didn't they use BSD code instead?
Let me get this straight... If you use GPL, you are supposed to reveal ALL the code you have even if it parts of it was designed completely independently? You want companies to reveal all their silicon secrets just because they are using Linux to access the silicon? They should give credit where credit is due but there is no reason for them to reveal the internal workings of their silicon, etc. Get real.
The GPL is real, and it is about sharing. If all they want to do is give credit then there is always BSD code available. I wonder if they would be asking as nicely as they kernel group is if they thought Linux was violating their license?
I work for a company where we are developing a product running an embedded version of Linux with plenty of our own, proprietary code running on top of it (we have been very careful to ensure that the two code bases never mix). You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who purchases this product down the line should be entitled not only to the source of the Linux code we used, but also the specs of the interface we built for interaction with the hardware as well as the code that uses this interface, neither of which contains a single line of outside or GLPed code.
Sounds like your company should be using BSD'd code instead GPL'd since its philosphy is more to its liking. Is there a particular reason they aren't?
IBM, SGI, INTEL, HP, Navy, Redhat, SUSE, Debian, and boatloads of other patches contributed by other companies, educational institutions, and independent devolopers working together for the profit of all.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Gentoo also but I must admit that doing "emerge -u world" scares the crap out of me. I'm always scared to mess up my system. But I've been lucky so far.
I have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86" in my make.conf and emerge everything with -UuD and experience few if any more problems than when I was running Debian unstable/experimental.
Because the leg bone is connected to the hip bone, etc. Many leg and foot problems are caused by peripheral vascular disease which can be the result of poor cardiac output, stenosis, even diabities.
Is your mom a programmer? My point is a CS grad should be expected to know as much about the internal functioning of a computer as a medical grad is expected to know about the internal functioning of the body.
Just say to him "Well Grandpa, my motto is anyone who can't describe, with exacting detail, all the functions of every organ in the human body doesn't deserve to live."
But you do expect a physician to have detailed knowledge of the body.
The kernel is basically just a big library that handles I/O and memory management.
If you only emerge old reliable ebuilds, Gentoo is as stable as any other distro.
Since the per capita income in Iraq is around $2700 a year the special advantage to using Linux over Windows is that the people there can still afford to eat.
Why should the websites that these people are seeing the ads on be forced to develop and support a website free of charge?
Silly, if those websites didn't want to be seen they would have written a book instead of making their content available on the 'net'. Everybody knows that the internet is all about sharing information, not about making money.
At least with Windows Update, the user can be assured that they will get a secure untrojaned binary. No one has any evidence that Windows Update has been rooted.
Of course six months from now, when they finally get around to issuing a patch, the lack of source code also leaves no evidence that a new vulneralibility wasn't created when the old one is closed, does it?
You make a good point. Now if you would just point me to to offending Microsoft code... so what file does the vulnerability lay? I would be more than happy to edit a line or two of source if it would make my system more secure tonight.
Why should the websites that these people are seeing the ads on be forced to develop and support a website free of charge? Those sites have to pay the bills somehow, and for many, ads are the way to go. That sucks if your internet connection makes it such that larger ads cost you more. If that's the case, get your news/entertainment/what-have-you from a site that doesn't use such large ads.
The majority of internet users were as accepting of static banners the same as people have been accepting newspaper and magazine advertisements. They realised that it was necessary for the content provider to pay his distribution costs and kept them informed of new products on the market. This model has worked for centuries with print media and benefits producer, distributor, and consumer all at the same time. There are even publications whose sole content is advertising that do very well indeed.
It wasn't until the advent of these obtrusive take control of your hardware ads that caused people to reach the "outer limits" of their patience and start digging desperately to find any means available to stop advertisers from tyring to fsck them in the face.
You know, I'm willing to bet that most people didn't have a problem with banners as long as they were static. I even clicked on a few now and then and actually even bought something once or twice. Pop-ups on the other hand are just downright obtrusive and rude, and before I started blocking them I was too busy trying to close the stupid things to bother about reading their content.
Parents take their kids to be fingerprinted??
when and where does this happen?
It's part of the "Identi-Kids" type of programs. Supposed to make them easier to find if they go missing. Of course those fingerprints could come in handy when little Johnny "borrows" a car a few years later.
Don't you see that something else is wrong here? For one, maybe the US shouldn't be training terrorists like Osama Bin laden, the world would already be safer then.
Now that the Soviet Union is gone and Europe is free the US has no need to train terrorists, the same as they have no need for dictators anymore either.
Now, how to stop it? I favor use of tariffs to force up the price of offshore workers (might be tough to enforce, but if a company *sells* in the US, which is where you want to sell if you want to make the big bucks, we have some influence; if they can keep the Big 3 in business, they can help us out, too).
No, you aren't ever going to force the government to do any of the above particularly when it goes against the interests of big business. Better would be to go the route of physicians, engineers, nurses, etc and require professional licensing to work as a programmer. You can point out all the shoddy insecure software being sold and use that as your selling point.
This is why it is important to remember there is a difference between commercial and non-commercial use of copyrights.
That seems strange that copyright law would be so different from many other kinds of laws.
It has to be different from other kinds of law because it is trying to pound a non-physical (square peg) thing into a physical (round hole) one.
Copyright law puts restrictions on the expression of an idea in a country where free expression of ideas are a constitutionally guaranteed right. Nowhere in the first amendment does it say that free speech is limited to only those ideas that you come up with yourself.
I doubt you're alone here. I don't answer a call unless I recognize the number and skim the messages for anyone who may have called that is important. Email has become nearly completely useless, thank goodness for throwaway accounts.
The worse though is web page advertising. Banners never really bothered me and I would occasionally click on one, even buy a product. Now that they've become so obnoxious I use every trick I can think of to get rid of them.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? He's not talking about the quality of the OS, he's talking about the fact that just because he runs an OS that is GPLed doesn't mean he should have to release the source of ALL the code that runs on top of that OS.
The original discussion was on Linksys not distributing GPL'd code. This particularly thread delved into why they, and his company, chose Linux over some other system that used a license closer to their own philosophy and avoid these issues in the first place.
Because average people are the mass of this nation.. a wealth creating population is a wealth creating nation. Money needs to circulate.. money is the lifeblood of a nation.
The average person circulates most of his paycheck and maybe sets back a few bucks for a rainy day.
A wealth hoarding population creates a lack of wealth a creation of classes and ultimately a failure of the system.
It's the rich that are hording the wealth.
I cannot speak to exactly why we chose Linux over BSD, in large part it was due to the quality of Red Boot Linux (a Red Hat distro designed for embedded applications).
Okay...you know what's coming next. Do you think it possible the quality could be the result of the GPL requiring code to be shared by those who distribute the software.
It actually uses, for instance, a set of chips manufactured by Broadcom. Anyone else building an embedded system and looking to use those chips -- or writing drivers for PC hardware based on those chips -- would have a great deal of use for these drivers.
If that is their worry, why didn't they use BSD code instead?
Let me get this straight... If you use GPL, you are supposed to reveal ALL the code you have even if it parts of it was designed completely independently? You want companies to reveal all their silicon secrets just because they are using Linux to access the silicon? They should give credit where credit is due but there is no reason for them to reveal the internal workings of their silicon, etc. Get real.
The GPL is real, and it is about sharing. If all they want to do is give credit then there is always BSD code available. I wonder if they would be asking as nicely as they kernel group is if they thought Linux was violating their license?
I work for a company where we are developing a product running an embedded version of Linux with plenty of our own, proprietary code running on top of it (we have been very careful to ensure that the two code bases never mix). You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who purchases this product down the line should be entitled not only to the source of the Linux code we used, but also the specs of the interface we built for interaction with the hardware as well as the code that uses this interface, neither of which contains a single line of outside or GLPed code.
Sounds like your company should be using BSD'd code instead GPL'd since its philosphy is more to its liking. Is there a particular reason they aren't?
IBM, SGI, INTEL, HP, Navy, Redhat, SUSE, Debian, and boatloads of other patches contributed by other companies, educational institutions, and independent devolopers working together for the profit of all.