I never saw the point in Gentoo. Okay, it's a distribution that you compile from scratch. Whee.
Which gives the user more control over package dependencies instead of having the maintainers choices forced on him. Optimizations? Bullshit. An optimized xterm is going to be 0.00000001% faster than a non-optimized xterm, and that's basically all I ever use. Just compile your kernel with all the optimizations since that's what really matters.
"Oh but installing gentoo lets me learn so much about linux". Bullshit. Does watching "gcc -Wall -OMGWTF -LOL -FMAKE-FASTER" fly across your screen for hours on end make you smarter somehow? Linux is an OS where the learning is in configuration.
march=amd64 -O2 works for me. So, I use a distro where I can install things quickly, and get on with configuring them. Debian.
I use both. Debian unstable for the family PC, Gentoo for my development box.
Moving to Gentoo was quite the learning process - virtually everything is done by hand, though the documentation is very good at guiding you through it.
This installer sort of negates your statement, don't you think? This thing is worse than Genkernel which encourages people to install without learning to configure a kernel properly.
It doesn't render properly in Firefox or Konqueror. Must be one of those IE only sites.
I tested your hypothesis by running IE under Crossover Office which does appear to render the page correctly, while Moz, Firefox, Konq, and Epiphany all show overlapping text. Very sad indeed.
Here's a question: What happens if a patent like this is discovered to be bogus? Surely all those companies who have shelled out $bignum to licence it would have the right to sue, for hasn't that money been extorted under false pretenses? While this issue is not all that clear cut, how about the many cases where the patent holder is obvioulsy aware that their patent is bad?
Clearly the liable party should be the one who told the holder that the patent was good by issuing it in the first place, don't you think?
Way to go folks, let the communists with that wonderfully successful system of the past, adopt the FSF. Ah well, the communists are going to be taking every tech job in the western world into India and China anyway, so I guess its good that they can rob and steal our intellectual property as well.
So I guess you wouldn't even consider the possibility that our various IP laws themselves are hampering our ability to compete?
Well, sure, but their tech will still be subject to the patents in any country that recognises software patents.
Which countries, if Europe does not legalize software patents, would that be? If this trend continues it could very well end up leaving US companies unable to compete in a free world market.
There are plenty of other open source games that don't run on linux that have active game creating communities with some great artists that could use help. The rpg toolkit is an open source project that's written in vb. They have a sourceforge page. I've looked at the code and there's no reason this couldn't be ported to.net/mono using the sdl. This would make it run on linux. This would give hundreds of begining game developers and artists access to a community of people (oss people) who would play their games and give them feed back on how to make their games better.
I'm sure there are other programs that are floating around that could benifit from non-windows developers looking at their code. The whole more eye's thing doesn't work if eyes aren't looking.
You simply aren't going to get many non-Windows developers to look at Visual Basic code.
And this is bad why? I can build KDE with as few or as many features as I want and configure the UI to my liking through an intuitive and easily accessible interface.
GPL is, in my opinion, not a true open-source license. sure, it lets you llook at the source code for a certain program, but that's where the openness stops. It's absolutely horrid to require someone who used you, supposedly, open sourcecode to re-publish anything he or she has done with it.
There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from using GPL'd software to create proprietory works. As a matter of fact the GPL clearly states it does not cover mere use. As for copying, the GPL grants developers rights rarely found in closed source software.
Unlike the GPL, Microsoft technology licenses are not viral. You pay for the right to use them in your own proprietary works. You can statically link MFC into your own Windows app without losing ownership of the resulting app to MS. You just don't own MFC. You can use MS fonts as you like, as long as you have a valid license, and any document you embed them in is still yours. (The FONT isn't yours, but you have some redistribution rights that you paid for.)
Of course those using your works would need a valid Microsoft license too. And suppose Microsoft goes to a subscription based license model? Wouldn't people have to perpetually shell out money to them to be able to use each others works? Thanks, but no thanks.
Very few people like war, it's best practitioners least of all. It occurs for reasons far more complicated than preference.
Besides possibly sex, name another human endeavor that has produced as much literature as war. As far as its best practioners, well, personally I have immense respect for the Generals who won WW2. No, if war was disliked as much as you think it is people would have quit partaking it in it millenia ago.
Even if you forget fair use of ripping a 2 second gunshot from any movie their is still hundreds of public domain films complete with soundtrack available here..
See below for more information from my quoted article.
I did, particularly noting this part:
naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences.
What I'm saying is driving slower or faster than the flow of traffic is a misapplication of speed.
quote from http://www.answers.com/topic/car-accident:Many authorities emphasise speed as an inherent cause of accidents in itself, though most experts agree that speed alone is rarely a prime cause of accidents, though naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences
No arguments here. Personally I think differences in speed is more a cause of crashes than speed alone. I'm sure most people have come across the case of somebody entering a highway going 20 MPH below the speed limit. I'm just as sure that most people have come across the case of somebody going 20 MPH above the speed limit racing around them to exit the highway. Those situations are pretty likely to cause accidents, and the best way to prevent such accidents is to ensure that everyone drives the same speed by setting limits that are safe for all drivers on the road, not just grandma Moses or Mario Andretti and those who can not drive at a speed that is safe for the average driver should not be driving at all.
Absolutely you should. One of the most oft cited reasons for the limiting of rights in the US was to bring US copyright law in line with the Berne Convention. As a matter of fact that was the very reason given for doing away with the registration requirement which has just about killed our public domain because there is no sure way for the average person to determine if whether or not a work is copyrighted.
I would disagree on both poitns, everyone pays for police, but everyone benefits from their protection, and taxes baised on income make a lot of since here (Rich people have more to loose in theory).
So you are not totally against progressive taxation then? Also Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, All laws are publicly avaible. What good does it do to have publicly available laws if people are ignorant and can't read them? On a side note, thanks for having a civil discussion with me, well thought out and polight people are sometimes in short supply in political debates.
Invoulentary Socalism violates the very core of liberty.
So does involuntary facism, yet still a bit of policing is necessary to protect the minority from the majority. Tax everyone baised on their cost, nothing more. Everyone benefits from military, everyone pays for military, Not everyone uses the public school, not everyone pays for public school, seems simple enough.
If people are not taught the rules of a society then they will not know to obey them, so public education does benefit everyone.
Well as long as we are choosing which theif we give our money to, how about we let the mob get in on it? They are at least upfront about what they are doing.
What's there to up front about, it's pretty obvious that capitalism and democracy can't coexist without a touch of socialism.
Uh... if they recieved an inheritance, and that money had already had its taxes paid on, then they already have paid for it. It's money changing hands, not money suddenly appearing out of nowhere.
That money is not going towards paying for ongoing maintenance. Without inhertance and property taxes the burden falls solely on the backs of current wage earners.
Please explain how the first sentence follows from the second. Taxes are to pay for government function and services. Are the services and benefits we receive from the government proportional to our income?
Of course they are proportional as the more you make the more you have to lose, and the more you have to lose the more you need protection.
To make matters worse, income tax isn't even a fixed percentage of income. The percentage rate goes up as income goes up. How is that fair?
In a democracy it will always be possible for the majority to elect to give themselves the property of the minority. What progressive taxation buys you is a system that keeps that from happening.
So, we see that the only major TV outlet trusted almost equally by Democrats and Republicans is Fox News.
Or as equally distrusted, depending on how you look at it. If you add the Republican 26% and the Democrat 45% together, CNN's 71% overall trust rating crushes FOX's measley 53%.
Maybe you should read section 8, clause 8 of the constitution. For those too lazy to look it up, here it is:
[Congress shall have the power... ] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Notice the phrase "exclusive right". How do you think they expected the exclusive right to be preserved, by asking nicely?
True, but another important phrase is Congress shall have the power. Notice how it doesn't say Congress must excercise this power? The kids that the RIAA and MPAA are pissing off today will become the majority of voters tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
You and I still have the manual option, and for people who want to really learn about linux, it can continue to be recommended.
It's not about what can be done, it's about the direction the distro is heading.
I never saw the point in Gentoo. Okay, it's a distribution that you compile from scratch. Whee.
Which gives the user more control over package dependencies instead of having the maintainers choices forced on him.
Optimizations? Bullshit. An optimized xterm is going to be 0.00000001% faster than a non-optimized xterm, and that's basically all I ever use. Just compile your kernel with all the optimizations since that's what really matters.
"Oh but installing gentoo lets me learn so much about linux". Bullshit. Does watching "gcc -Wall -OMGWTF -LOL -FMAKE-FASTER" fly across your screen for hours on end make you smarter somehow? Linux is an OS where the learning is in configuration.
march=amd64 -O2 works for me.
So, I use a distro where I can install things quickly, and get on with configuring them. Debian.
I use both. Debian unstable for the family PC, Gentoo for my development box.
Moving to Gentoo was quite the learning process - virtually everything is done by hand, though the documentation is very good at guiding you through it.
This installer sort of negates your statement, don't you think? This thing is worse than Genkernel which encourages people to install without learning to configure a kernel properly.
It doesn't render properly in Firefox or Konqueror. Must be one of those IE only sites.
I tested your hypothesis by running IE under Crossover Office which does appear to render the page correctly, while Moz, Firefox, Konq, and Epiphany all show overlapping text. Very sad indeed.
You don't have rights to listen/copy/play in your cd unless I give you such rights.
Copyright covers copying, not listening or playing.
Here's a question: What happens if a patent like this is discovered to be bogus?
Surely all those companies who have shelled out $bignum to licence it would have the right to sue, for hasn't that money been extorted under false pretenses?
While this issue is not all that clear cut, how about the many cases where the patent holder is obvioulsy aware that their patent is bad?
Clearly the liable party should be the one who told the holder that the patent was good by issuing it in the first place, don't you think?
But original applications should at least have a chance to make some money in the free market...
You aren't arguing for making money in the free market, you're arguing for a government granting you a monopoly so there is no free market.
Way to go folks, let the communists with that wonderfully successful system of the past, adopt the FSF. Ah well, the communists are going to be taking every tech job in the western world into India and China anyway, so I guess its good that they can rob and steal our intellectual property as well.
So I guess you wouldn't even consider the possibility that our various IP laws themselves are hampering our ability to compete?
Well, sure, but their tech will still be subject to the patents in any country that recognises software patents.
Which countries, if Europe does not legalize software patents, would that be? If this trend continues it could very well end up leaving US companies unable to compete in a free world market.
There are plenty of other open source games that don't run on linux that have active game creating communities with some great artists that could use help. The rpg toolkit is an open source project that's written in vb. They have a sourceforge page. I've looked at the code and there's no reason this couldn't be ported to
I'm sure there are other programs that are floating around that could benifit from non-windows developers looking at their code. The whole more eye's thing doesn't work if eyes aren't looking.
You simply aren't going to get many non-Windows developers to look at Visual Basic code.
And you end up with KDE.
And this is bad why? I can build KDE with as few or as many features as I want and configure the UI to my liking through an intuitive and easily accessible interface.
GPL is, in my opinion, not a true open-source license. sure, it lets you llook at the source code for a certain program, but that's where the openness stops. It's absolutely horrid to require someone who used you, supposedly, open sourcecode to re-publish anything he or she has done with it.
There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from using GPL'd software to create proprietory works. As a matter of fact the GPL clearly states it does not cover mere use. As for copying, the GPL grants developers rights rarely found in closed source software.
Unlike the GPL, Microsoft technology licenses are not viral. You pay for the right to use them in your own proprietary works. You can statically link MFC into your own Windows app without losing ownership of the resulting app to MS. You just don't own MFC. You can use MS fonts as you like, as long as you have a valid license, and any document you embed them in is still yours. (The FONT isn't yours, but you have some redistribution rights that you paid for.)
Of course those using your works would need a valid Microsoft license too. And suppose Microsoft goes to a subscription based license model? Wouldn't people have to perpetually shell out money to them to be able to use each others works? Thanks, but no thanks.
Very few people like war, it's best practitioners least of all. It occurs for reasons far more complicated than preference.
Besides possibly sex, name another human endeavor that has produced as much literature as war. As far as its best practioners, well, personally I have immense respect for the Generals who won WW2. No, if war was disliked as much as you think it is people would have quit partaking it in it millenia ago.
Also good free sound-files are hard to find.
Even if you forget fair use of ripping a 2 second gunshot from any movie their is still hundreds of public domain films complete with soundtrack available here..
See below for more information from my quoted article.
I did, particularly noting this part:
naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences.
What I'm saying is driving slower or faster than the flow of traffic is a misapplication of speed.
quote from http://www.answers.com/topic/car-accident:Many authorities emphasise speed as an inherent cause of accidents in itself, though most experts agree that speed alone is rarely a prime cause of accidents, though naturally a mis-application of speed can be a contributing factor, and higher speed in an accident resulting from whatever cause is more likely to have serious consequences
No arguments here. Personally I think differences in speed is more a cause of crashes than speed alone. I'm sure most people have come across the case of somebody entering a highway going 20 MPH below the speed limit. I'm just as sure that most people have come across the case of somebody going 20 MPH above the speed limit racing around them to exit the highway. Those situations are pretty likely to cause accidents, and the best way to prevent such accidents is to ensure that everyone drives the same speed by setting limits that are safe for all drivers on the road, not just grandma Moses or Mario Andretti and those who can not drive at a speed that is safe for the average driver should not be driving at all.
Absolutely you should. One of the most oft cited reasons for the limiting of rights in the US was to bring US copyright law in line with the Berne Convention. As a matter of fact that was the very reason given for doing away with the registration requirement which has just about killed our public domain because there is no sure way for the average person to determine if whether or not a work is copyrighted.
I would disagree on both poitns, everyone pays for police, but everyone benefits from their protection, and taxes baised on income make a lot of since here (Rich people have more to loose in theory).
So you are not totally against progressive taxation then?
Also Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, All laws are publicly avaible.
What good does it do to have publicly available laws if people are ignorant and can't read them?
On a side note, thanks for having a civil discussion with me, well thought out and polight people are sometimes in short supply in political debates.
You're welcome.
Invoulentary Socalism violates the very core of liberty.
So does involuntary facism, yet still a bit of policing is necessary to protect the minority from
the majority.
Tax everyone baised on their cost, nothing more. Everyone benefits from military, everyone pays for military, Not everyone uses the public school, not everyone pays for public school, seems simple enough.
If people are not taught the rules of a society then they will not know to obey them, so public education does benefit everyone.
Well as long as we are choosing which theif we give our money to, how about we let the mob get in on it? They are at least upfront about what they are doing.
What's there to up front about, it's pretty obvious that capitalism and democracy can't coexist without a touch of socialism.
Uh... if they recieved an inheritance, and that money had already had its taxes paid on, then they already have paid for it. It's money changing hands, not money suddenly appearing out of nowhere.
That money is not going towards paying for ongoing maintenance. Without inhertance and property taxes the burden falls solely on the backs of current wage earners.
Please explain how the first sentence follows from the second. Taxes are to pay for government function and services. Are the services and benefits we receive from the government proportional to our income?
Of course they are proportional as the more you make the more you have to lose, and the more you have to lose the more you need protection.
To make matters worse, income tax isn't even a fixed percentage of income. The percentage rate goes up as income goes up. How is that fair?
In a democracy it will always be possible for the majority to elect to give themselves the property of the minority. What progressive taxation buys you is a system that keeps that from happening.
So, we see that the only major TV outlet trusted almost equally by Democrats and Republicans is Fox News.
Or as equally distrusted, depending on how you look at it. If you add the Republican 26% and the Democrat 45% together, CNN's 71% overall trust rating crushes FOX's measley 53%.
Maybe you should read section 8, clause 8 of the constitution. For those too lazy to look it up, here it is:
[Congress shall have the power... ] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Notice the phrase "exclusive right". How do you think they expected the exclusive right to be preserved, by asking nicely?
True, but another important phrase is Congress shall have the power. Notice how it doesn't say Congress must excercise this power? The kids that the RIAA and MPAA are pissing off today will become the majority of voters tomorrow.