Technically, who's responsible for the Fedora Legacy Support? If it is just the community, it doesn't sound like much.
The answer to your question: The Fedora Legacy Project volunteers are responsible for the project. These are, essentially, SysAdmins who've volunteered to package the bug fixes and security patches that they already need to apply to their own legacy systems so that others won't have to.
You may not have personally meant it this way, but your words echo a common sentiment that people often voice where they want to know that if the product they are using fails that someone else's head is going to roll. For those who need that, buy commercial support.
Why have we created a culture of people afraid of personal responsibility (not you necessarily, just in general)?
If you think the software purchasing decisions made by the vast majority of American businesses are -5 Codswallop, then put your money where your mouth is and start your own fucking Fortune 500 company.
The ability to provide solid IT support internally does not get you to the Fortune 500. Providing just enough support (which is usually *far* less support than any rational person would suppose) does. The only thing required to get to the Fortune 500 is the single-minded ability to make money, ignoring all other concerns.
This is one of those all too frequent cases where one has to wonder if Bill Gates is actually stupid enough to believe what he's saying, or if he's deliberately being dishonest.
In the future, software, in general, is going to be free[*] unless legal issues (ala SCO) prevent it. That's a plain, simple, and extremely obvious fact. Once a program is written, copying it costs virtually nothing, while each additional CPU, circuit board, IO chip, GPU, etc, actually has to be made.
Eventually chips, displays, power supplies, etc, will become so easy to make that they will be very cheap, but software will be cheaper[*] yet.
What an idiot.
[*] There will always be some software that you can't get free and will be willing to pay for, such as games, and any unique or innovative program. Such software will be the exception.
The claim of CD quality isn't for MP3 at 128kb/s, it's for AAC at 128kb/s. It's interesting that you said that 192kb/s is what you prefer, since that's the MP3 bit rate that 128kb/s AAC is said to equal.
Or if you already have a phone with (seemingly) built-in GPS capabilities, why spend $100 when you already have a GPS receiver? (especially if your phone is bluetooth, as bluetooth GPS receivers are around $300+!)
Wow, that sounds just like the GPL (must give back modifications).
Except with the GPL you get compensation in kind with what the free software community receives (ie: the code becomes free for all). With the MS license, MS can use your code to make money, but you can't use theirs to make money.
In other words, the GPL is an equal two-way street, while MS's is a one-way street in which they have allowed a few pedestrians to walk in the opposite direction.
How would you feel if you enhanced this game only to find these enhancements rolled into a new game without receiving compensation? Potentially, one could take this MS source and write what would essentially be Alliance 2, which MS could take back and sell as Alliance 2, and you can do nothing about it (except buy the new version for $59 at Electronics Boutique like everyone else).
This is a case of what's Microsoft's is Microsoft's and what's yours is Microsoft's.
Why do you think MS hates Open Source so much? Because they can't keep control once they give it up. MS can't play well with others. It's not in their DNA. Compare this with Apple who distributes an OS (Darwin), server apps (QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server), a web browser (Konqueror/Safari), and probably more, under an Open Source license.
How can you imagine the budget won't allow it? He proposes the budget, and he's got a friendly Congress.
We've been to the Moon before, and the economy was much smaller than it is now.
Or put simply: Your assertion that the budget won't allow it is about the lamest I've heard, as though the budget is immutable or something.
The idea that he has no intention on following through and is just campaigning is interesting. We'll see.
Maybe you just hate Bush? Not that there aren't things to hate, but you gotta give props when props are due. Even hard core Republicans praised Clinton for NAFTA.
Now before the Linux zealots and the Windows users start a holy flamewar here, understand this: the AIM of this campain is to demonstrate that Windows has a lower TCO (total cost of operation) than Linux.
That's the whole point of the ensuing flames. Windows is crap, everyone knows it. Don't you expect frustration when you know you're right, but the guy making the decisions tells you to go with what you know to be the wrong choice?
You are seeing the curvature of the planet.. It's the panorama image (full 360 degrees from multiple images) distorted into a polar (top-down) view.
Why it looks so small is that the picture was taken close to, and parallel with, the ground. There may be other factors as well (image resolutions and image processing algorithms).
If it's not boring (in the way you mean--I was enthralled), then it's not science, it's just another empty (and disappointing) pop event. Perhaps you'd have had Bono and Britney Spears host the event, commenting on the impact Mars has had in their lives and the clothes the mission control people were wearing. Arnold could have arrived in person to give a surprise congratulatory speech to the crew on behalf of the state of California.
Uhh, newsflash, "they" is "us". We elect them, they're drawn from our ranks, and I for one don't really want to see a financially mismanaged government lose even more revenue.
Two points:
1.) "Us" is a word with a specific meaning. You are not using it that way.
2.) The proper way to fix financial mismanagement is not to give the incompetent even more money. To do so would be to reward incompetence, which becomes an incentive to be incompetent.
Federal and state governments could lose billions of dollars in revenue from regulatory fees if calls moved onto the Internet are no longer subject to the charges.
You can't lose what you don't have. What they mean is they will have less to steal from.
How many of those people actually believe CocoaTech intended to release the full source to Path Finder? Zero. Anyone who will settle for nothing short of full GPLing of the source code is just trying to cash in on an honest mistake. I really doubt there are many who will make that demand, and if they won't accept a refund, it's they who are acting dishonestly.
When a company makes a mistake like this, a reasonable person will allow them the chance to make it right. If CocoaTech offers refunds to people who want it, they are making things right. If they don't, they are not taking responsibility for their mistake and as I've repeatedly stated, they deserve to face a lawsuit. How many people will demand a refund for this missing feature? I doubt there will be many (although there will probably be a few who will do it on principle).
The posters (to/. and to CocoaTech's forum) appear to solely *demand* the source code (and that's in within their rights, of course). Ostensibly they would not be satisfied with CocoaTech simply removing the GPLd code and ceasing to distribute the version in that's violating the GPL. (I'm just going by the few words they've decided to post, which may not indicate their true intentions, but that's all I have to go on)
If the cashier at the checkout lane short changes you, do you first point out the mistake ("I gave you a twenty") or do you call the police? In this case, is the proper response: "You guys have to release all the code if you want to use GPLd code." or is it: "All your code are belong to us! Gimme now!"?
Imagine if you made a similar mistake in your job. You are faced with throwing away *years* of work for an honest mistake? What if you bought a house 5 years ago and the bank notices one of the loan pages wasn't signed. What if legally that meant they could take back the house, and only have to pay you back the money you spent? Would it be legal for them to take it back? Would it be right?
CocoaTech will do the right thing. Hopefully voluntarily. Potentially not. I'm just suggesting we should give them a chance before condemning them. That's just me, I'm a nice guy I guess.
I know very little about the product in question, but from what I can tell, they wrote a Finder replacement, and bolted onto it a terminal (using an open source implementation). It appears they have released any code derived from the GPLd program.
As you've said, this clearly isn't enough. It's an understandable mistake though, and I'm sure CocoaTech will do the right thing (if not, they deserve all the trouble (including legal) they get into).
The source code I'm referring to as belonging to them is all the code they wrote to do everything the program does minus the GPLd terminal code.
The poster to slashdot and the poster to the CocoaTech forum didn't come off as trying to resolve an issue (and there definitely is an issue to resolve), but instead came off as sounding like they are trying to get something for free (the rest of the program's code).
If this is true, what can we do to get CocoaTech to open up the rest of the code?
Why do you want to force them to open up the rest of the code? Even the much maligned RMS doesn't have any desire to force others to release their code if they don't want to.
This isn't a case where some company took an entire open source project, added a few (potentially major) features then refuse to release the source. Common decency dictates they made an honest (hopefully) mistake, and one should give them a chance to correct it. They've released the souce to the portion they used that is open source. I'm not an expert, but this doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy the GPL to me. If that's correct, then to be in compliance they will either have to stop distributing the version with the open source code, or release all of the code. The choice should be up to them unless they press the issue (ala: SCO).
Like it or not, their source code belongs to them, and it's up to them to decide whether to release it or not. To force them to release it on a technicality, using legal means, is the exact same tactic the RIAA is using to legally steal money from people who've downloaded or facilitated the download of songs ("piracy" is, of course, bad, but thuggery is worse).
I took "Firewire speeds" to mean the speed the iPod will sync the photos to the computer. There's no flash memory fast enough to keep up with FireWire (that I'm aware of). Do you expect the USB 2.0 flash drives to transfer data at 480mbps?
There's no way the biggest audience is the pro user. The pool of potential buyers are iPod owners who also own digital cameras and have a Mac. The device has reduced battery life when used with a microdrive and doesn't even support MemoryStick Pro. It's clearly not targeted at the pro market, but the iLife consumer. Belkin is offering them, for $100, the ability to completely stop worrying about running out of flash memory at their friend's birthday party, at the beach, on the slopes, etc.
You have the tone of someone who never really considered buying one, but enjoys taking arms against Evil Corporations(tm). If you were a pro who thought this was a pro quality device, you'd just pass up on it after seeing its limitations and go buy another 3GB microdrive. If you were the target consumer, you'd not really complain because for it's lack of speed, it's still better than what you already have, and it might even be worth $100 to you. If you are a "prosumer", well you should be used to the frustration of prosumer digicam equipment which is rarely pro quality or consumer priced.
You didn't submit a review of the device giving it the thumbs down for speed, you spat venom at Belkin and did it in such a way that leaves the reader confused about almost everything except the fact that you seem to be upset.
I'll have two cheap memory cards (either 128MB or 256MB), and when I fill one, I'll put it into the iPod adaptor and start the transfer while using the other card in my camera. That should be about 10 minutes to load a full 256MB card. I don't expect I will fill the other 256MB card that fast (if I do, then I *really* worry about how fast I'll fill my computer's HD at over 1GB/hour!).
The real benefit here is I can take my camera on vacation, or just out and about, and not have to carry around my notebook. This is a *huge* benefit. Couple that with only needing two memory cards (even two 128MB cards will be enough), and this is looking real handy *and* cost saving (I already have an iPod).
The drawbacks? It's not instantaneous and it takes batteries. Not a huge problem, and if it's something that can be done better, someone will. If not, I'm still better off than I was before.
I don't understand the sarcasm of the story's submitter. Sounds like the guy has issues. I bet he doesn't have an iPod or he'd see that Belkin has put to market something that can add to the utility of his iPod, if he wants it. If he doesn't want it, he's no worse off than he was before and he still has an iPod.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just run it natively on the x86 architecture?
You must be new here.
Thanks for the "heads up".
(I know there's a Foster's joke in there somewhere, just waiting to get out)
1) How would nature control population growth in koalas?
1. Introduce a deadly predator capable of killing 20,000 of them (which is the plan).
2. Disease (bad idea).
3. Famine (the plan is to prevent this because the Australians like trees and koalas).
That doesn't mean I advocate a hunt as a solution to every animal problem, but sometimes it is the solution.
Technically, who's responsible for the Fedora Legacy Support? If it is just the community, it doesn't sound like much.
The answer to your question: The Fedora Legacy Project volunteers are responsible for the project. These are, essentially, SysAdmins who've volunteered to package the bug fixes and security patches that they already need to apply to their own legacy systems so that others won't have to.
You may not have personally meant it this way, but your words echo a common sentiment that people often voice where they want to know that if the product they are using fails that someone else's head is going to roll. For those who need that, buy commercial support.
Why have we created a culture of people afraid of personal responsibility (not you necessarily, just in general)?
If you think the software purchasing decisions made by the vast majority of American businesses are -5 Codswallop, then put your money where your mouth is and start your own fucking Fortune 500 company.
The ability to provide solid IT support internally does not get you to the Fortune 500. Providing just enough support (which is usually *far* less support than any rational person would suppose) does. The only thing required to get to the Fortune 500 is the single-minded ability to make money, ignoring all other concerns.
Like this one?
Not "free": the exact phrase, from Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, was:
"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter.
The question of TANSTAAFL aside, it's hard to be freer (cost-wise) than to not be directly charged for it.
This is one of those all too frequent cases where one has to wonder if Bill Gates is actually stupid enough to believe what he's saying, or if he's deliberately being dishonest.
In the future, software, in general, is going to be free[*] unless legal issues (ala SCO) prevent it. That's a plain, simple, and extremely obvious fact. Once a program is written, copying it costs virtually nothing, while each additional CPU, circuit board, IO chip, GPU, etc, actually has to be made.
Eventually chips, displays, power supplies, etc, will become so easy to make that they will be very cheap, but software will be cheaper[*] yet.
What an idiot.
[*] There will always be some software that you can't get free and will be willing to pay for, such as games, and any unique or innovative program. Such software will be the exception.
Yet, hardware has gone down in price from where it was in the mid 80's while software has gone up.
It's hard for software prices do go down from $0.
The claim of CD quality isn't for MP3 at 128kb/s, it's for AAC at 128kb/s. It's interesting that you said that 192kb/s is what you prefer, since that's the MP3 bit rate that 128kb/s AAC is said to equal.
Or if you already have a phone with (seemingly) built-in GPS capabilities, why spend $100 when you already have a GPS receiver? (especially if your phone is bluetooth, as bluetooth GPS receivers are around $300+!)
What a mindless waste of money.
Wow, that sounds just like the GPL (must give back modifications).
Except with the GPL you get compensation in kind with what the free software community receives (ie: the code becomes free for all). With the MS license, MS can use your code to make money, but you can't use theirs to make money.
In other words, the GPL is an equal two-way street, while MS's is a one-way street in which they have allowed a few pedestrians to walk in the opposite direction.
How would you feel if you enhanced this game only to find these enhancements rolled into a new game without receiving compensation? Potentially, one could take this MS source and write what would essentially be Alliance 2, which MS could take back and sell as Alliance 2, and you can do nothing about it (except buy the new version for $59 at Electronics Boutique like everyone else).
This is a case of what's Microsoft's is Microsoft's and what's yours is Microsoft's.
Why do you think MS hates Open Source so much? Because they can't keep control once they give it up. MS can't play well with others. It's not in their DNA. Compare this with Apple who distributes an OS (Darwin), server apps (QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server), a web browser (Konqueror/Safari), and probably more, under an Open Source license.
How can you imagine the budget won't allow it? He proposes the budget, and he's got a friendly Congress.
We've been to the Moon before, and the economy was much smaller than it is now.
Or put simply: Your assertion that the budget won't allow it is about the lamest I've heard, as though the budget is immutable or something.
The idea that he has no intention on following through and is just campaigning is interesting. We'll see.
Maybe you just hate Bush? Not that there aren't things to hate, but you gotta give props when props are due. Even hard core Republicans praised Clinton for NAFTA.
Yeah, you're right, let's just stop all space exploration.
Anything else that makes life fun that you care to destroy, while you're at it?
Better that a rat bit your sister, and MANKIND is on the Moon, than a rat bit your sister and the Moon nobody's on the moon.
Now before the Linux zealots and the Windows users start a holy flamewar here, understand this: the AIM of this campain is to demonstrate that Windows has a lower TCO (total cost of operation) than Linux.
That's the whole point of the ensuing flames. Windows is crap, everyone knows it. Don't you expect frustration when you know you're right, but the guy making the decisions tells you to go with what you know to be the wrong choice?
You are seeing the curvature of the planet.. It's the panorama image (full 360 degrees from multiple images) distorted into a polar (top-down) view.
Why it looks so small is that the picture was taken close to, and parallel with, the ground. There may be other factors as well (image resolutions and image processing algorithms).
If it's not boring (in the way you mean--I was enthralled), then it's not science, it's just another empty (and disappointing) pop event. Perhaps you'd have had Bono and Britney Spears host the event, commenting on the impact Mars has had in their lives and the clothes the mission control people were wearing. Arnold could have arrived in person to give a surprise congratulatory speech to the crew on behalf of the state of California.
I'll take NASA TV as-is, thanks.
Uhh, newsflash, "they" is "us". We elect them, they're drawn from our ranks, and I for one don't really want to see a financially mismanaged government lose even more revenue.
Two points:
1.) "Us" is a word with a specific meaning. You are not using it that way.
2.) The proper way to fix financial mismanagement is not to give the incompetent even more money. To do so would be to reward incompetence, which becomes an incentive to be incompetent.
Federal and state governments could lose billions of dollars in revenue from regulatory fees if calls moved onto the Internet are no longer subject to the charges.
You can't lose what you don't have. What they mean is they will have less to steal from.
How many of those people actually believe CocoaTech intended to release the full source to Path Finder? Zero. Anyone who will settle for nothing short of full GPLing of the source code is just trying to cash in on an honest mistake. I really doubt there are many who will make that demand, and if they won't accept a refund, it's they who are acting dishonestly.
When a company makes a mistake like this, a reasonable person will allow them the chance to make it right. If CocoaTech offers refunds to people who want it, they are making things right. If they don't, they are not taking responsibility for their mistake and as I've repeatedly stated, they deserve to face a lawsuit. How many people will demand a refund for this missing feature? I doubt there will be many (although there will probably be a few who will do it on principle).
The posters (to /. and to CocoaTech's forum) appear to solely *demand* the source code (and that's in within their rights, of course). Ostensibly they would not be satisfied with CocoaTech simply removing the GPLd code and ceasing to distribute the version in that's violating the GPL. (I'm just going by the few words they've decided to post, which may not indicate their true intentions, but that's all I have to go on)
If the cashier at the checkout lane short changes you, do you first point out the mistake ("I gave you a twenty") or do you call the police? In this case, is the proper response: "You guys have to release all the code if you want to use GPLd code." or is it: "All your code are belong to us! Gimme now!"?
Imagine if you made a similar mistake in your job. You are faced with throwing away *years* of work for an honest mistake? What if you bought a house 5 years ago and the bank notices one of the loan pages wasn't signed. What if legally that meant they could take back the house, and only have to pay you back the money you spent? Would it be legal for them to take it back? Would it be right?
CocoaTech will do the right thing. Hopefully voluntarily. Potentially not. I'm just suggesting we should give them a chance before condemning them. That's just me, I'm a nice guy I guess.
I know very little about the product in question, but from what I can tell, they wrote a Finder replacement, and bolted onto it a terminal (using an open source implementation). It appears they have released any code derived from the GPLd program.
As you've said, this clearly isn't enough. It's an understandable mistake though, and I'm sure CocoaTech will do the right thing (if not, they deserve all the trouble (including legal) they get into).
The source code I'm referring to as belonging to them is all the code they wrote to do everything the program does minus the GPLd terminal code.
The poster to slashdot and the poster to the CocoaTech forum didn't come off as trying to resolve an issue (and there definitely is an issue to resolve), but instead came off as sounding like they are trying to get something for free (the rest of the program's code).
If this is true, what can we do to get CocoaTech to open up the rest of the code?
Why do you want to force them to open up the rest of the code? Even the much maligned RMS doesn't have any desire to force others to release their code if they don't want to.
This isn't a case where some company took an entire open source project, added a few (potentially major) features then refuse to release the source. Common decency dictates they made an honest (hopefully) mistake, and one should give them a chance to correct it. They've released the souce to the portion they used that is open source. I'm not an expert, but this doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy the GPL to me. If that's correct, then to be in compliance they will either have to stop distributing the version with the open source code, or release all of the code. The choice should be up to them unless they press the issue (ala: SCO).
Like it or not, their source code belongs to them, and it's up to them to decide whether to release it or not. To force them to release it on a technicality, using legal means, is the exact same tactic the RIAA is using to legally steal money from people who've downloaded or facilitated the download of songs ("piracy" is, of course, bad, but thuggery is worse).
I took "Firewire speeds" to mean the speed the iPod will sync the photos to the computer. There's no flash memory fast enough to keep up with FireWire (that I'm aware of). Do you expect the USB 2.0 flash drives to transfer data at 480mbps?
There's no way the biggest audience is the pro user. The pool of potential buyers are iPod owners who also own digital cameras and have a Mac. The device has reduced battery life when used with a microdrive and doesn't even support MemoryStick Pro. It's clearly not targeted at the pro market, but the iLife consumer. Belkin is offering them, for $100, the ability to completely stop worrying about running out of flash memory at their friend's birthday party, at the beach, on the slopes, etc.
You have the tone of someone who never really considered buying one, but enjoys taking arms against Evil Corporations(tm). If you were a pro who thought this was a pro quality device, you'd just pass up on it after seeing its limitations and go buy another 3GB microdrive. If you were the target consumer, you'd not really complain because for it's lack of speed, it's still better than what you already have, and it might even be worth $100 to you. If you are a "prosumer", well you should be used to the frustration of prosumer digicam equipment which is rarely pro quality or consumer priced.
You didn't submit a review of the device giving it the thumbs down for speed, you spat venom at Belkin and did it in such a way that leaves the reader confused about almost everything except the fact that you seem to be upset.
Assuming I buy one, this is how I plan to use it.
I'll have two cheap memory cards (either 128MB or 256MB), and when I fill one, I'll put it into the iPod adaptor and start the transfer while using the other card in my camera. That should be about 10 minutes to load a full 256MB card. I don't expect I will fill the other 256MB card that fast (if I do, then I *really* worry about how fast I'll fill my computer's HD at over 1GB/hour!).
The real benefit here is I can take my camera on vacation, or just out and about, and not have to carry around my notebook. This is a *huge* benefit. Couple that with only needing two memory cards (even two 128MB cards will be enough), and this is looking real handy *and* cost saving (I already have an iPod).
The drawbacks? It's not instantaneous and it takes batteries. Not a huge problem, and if it's something that can be done better, someone will. If not, I'm still better off than I was before.
I don't understand the sarcasm of the story's submitter. Sounds like the guy has issues. I bet he doesn't have an iPod or he'd see that Belkin has put to market something that can add to the utility of his iPod, if he wants it. If he doesn't want it, he's no worse off than he was before and he still has an iPod.