Well, desktops tend to have rotary garfuncters, laptops use malleable garfuncters. Also, desktops tend to be too large, it needs to be on a smaller laptop for the software to work properly. Any computer shop employee can explain this to you.
And I'm not a free software zealot or anything, I'm just a regular jerk-off that listens to mp3s and watches DVDs, and plays some old games on WINE, and use the proprietary hal module in the madwifi driver. But I think that what's more important than simply the freedom to choose, is the knowledge that a choice is being made. And Ubuntu does this fairly well with their 'restricted' terminology. It could still be better, though.
This really isn't a big deal. The big deal will be Apple's reaction to it. Will they like it, since people might be encouraged to use AOL on iPhones as an alternative to SMS? Or will they kill the AOL client and make iPhone users pay for SMS?
Some people don't need to know what Open Source is. I guess I wasn't clear, I'm talking about people who think they know what it is and misrepresent it, like the OP byolinux was.
The GGGGP Brandybuck corrected him, and then I was just trying to point out while there is no distinction, some fanboys will continue to think that there is. Now, there is a difference in between Open Source Software, purely because some people will be misinformed that there is.
I have no quarrel with people that knowingly choose Owned over Free. And as I meant to imply in the first of my previous posts, I have no quarrel with people who push WINE when there is no GNU alternative to their app. It's the people that think that it can be proprietary and still be Open Source that really bother me.
Well Canonical is the "preferred partner" of Ubuntu, since that's where a lot of their funding and some labour comes from. I'm sure some of that funding goes towards keeping the medibuntu repos alive.
Also, the Linux kernel itself normally contains proprietary firmware; which isn't a huge deal; but it is the reason Ubuntu alternatives such as Gobuntu and gNewsense exist.
So, Ubuntu is free, more free than the majority of other distro (and I do applaud them for that), but it's not 100% free.
Oh, ok. I agree, I do get tired of people attaching extra meaning to the term, Free Software, and then expecting everyone to see how it follows. What you've said makes sense now.
I like the term 'freed' software as well, although it might imply to some people that said software was at one time non-free.
My router at home only needs to be rebooted when you're changing admin priveleges or re-assigning the router's IP. But one day I went to a friends house and while trying to figure out how to connect to the Internet, and tried several times to give myself a proper IP. Each time I did, I disconnected my friend's roommate while he was playing WoW. Apparently he was in the middle of a big group mission. I had no idea until the fifth disconnect.
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be hostile or an insult. My point is, (from my experience) most people that use Open Source do not really understand or care about it's definition according to the OSI website. That goes double for those recent Windows immigrants.
Not in the least! While not a political movement with ideology police, the Open Source "movement" still rejects proprietary software from its definition.
Originally, yes. And formally, yes. But these days, people who prefer saying 'Open Source' over Free Software are the ones that are pushing WINE when they could be pushing GNU alternatives to windows apps.
Then there'll be a lot less bugfixes, patches, and problem solving, since many problems could very well be caused by the 'owned' blobs.
Worst case scenario; the guys developing this for the sake of free software migrate to Hurd or a Free-er alternative, Linux becomes less and less free. Because the large user base which is supposed to make open source better actually doesn't matter any more.
Canonical's Netbook Remix has a ton of proprietary codecs and crap.
Although, I think there is a non-proprietary version of it as well, perhaps sold as a different product.
Anyone who's read much Lawrence Lessig would understand why. It's not proper to call it stealing unless you download/copy it and then erase if from what you downloaded it from.
It is free. But it's a protective sort of free. That's why in some logo and fanart images, the GPL is depicted as a shield, or armour.
There's really no good analogy for it, but my favourite has always been the scuba tank one. You can go deep sea exploring now, but you need to have a big chunk of rubber in your mouth. It is a license for the sake of _not_ drowning in other licenses.
unfortunately, this aspect does kind of ram the 'free software' aspect of it down people's throats. But that's what it was made for. The day people stop using the GPL will be the day software licenses are abolished altogether.
IANAL, and I haven't thoroughly examined GPLv2 or v3, but for the Joomla! case I'm pretty sure the SMF people could have just forked an older GLPv2 release and just used that. Or am I misunderstanding?
In general, you get loads of freedom with the GPL. Just as long as it's GPL. If you want to use previously GPL'ed code, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. As the article tries to point out, the freedom is in the access to code, but not always in the way you can use it. Which is necessary for people that want their code to exist and compete with proprietary software. The GPL does what it's intended to do, and does it very well, it just may not do what everyone wants it to do.
Hey, this is getting way off topic, but I do find this interesting. I have more classroom experience with mathematical language than any spoken languages, but I was of the opinion that any spoken language could, for example, be interpreted by a Turing Machine.
How does your previous post relate to the OP? My point was that the quotation marks being used were meant to indicate sarcasm, and everyone got it. It's probably not a whoosh thing; you understood what had happened. What exactly was it that you disagreed with?
Why should people know what the intelligence community is doing? You shouldn't as you haven't got the need to know.
At least until a group of officers come to your door.
If I were an American being wiretapped, even if I couldn't get any warning, I'd at least want the intelligence forces to need a warrant for it first. Just because they work for the government doesn't mean they're incapable of mistakes or malice.
It does parse logically. But there's more to the grammar than what they teach you in grade school. Certain arbitrary rules are created through unconventional use, double meanings, reception of pop culture, and emulation of body language through text. So, it's perfectly logical to people who are familiar with the culture/context of the spoken language. There's just a kind of pseudo-grammar.
In other words, the are only very few context-free grammars in widely used languages. "Proper" English grammar is just the template for that bizarre concoction that we, the west and most of europe, use.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, desktops tend to have rotary garfuncters, laptops use malleable garfuncters. Also, desktops tend to be too large, it needs to be on a smaller laptop for the software to work properly. Any computer shop employee can explain this to you.
oh well, crap, here's the link: http://www.canonical.com/netbooks scroll down to the bottom half. Subsequent forum discussion: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=822097&highlight=netbook+remix. Although, I guess if you were just talking about the Ubuntu devs, I have no arguement. I never even made that "pays enough" statement, I just wanted to give an example (wrong link though, my bad).
And I'm not a free software zealot or anything, I'm just a regular jerk-off that listens to mp3s and watches DVDs, and plays some old games on WINE, and use the proprietary hal module in the madwifi driver. But I think that what's more important than simply the freedom to choose, is the knowledge that a choice is being made. And Ubuntu does this fairly well with their 'restricted' terminology. It could still be better, though.
Back in the day, my grand-dad bagged himself quite a lot of Canadian piranhas.
I bet it was just another one of those things that scientists 'made up'.
Either that, or he helped himself to the special heart medicine that no one else knows about...
This really isn't a big deal. The big deal will be Apple's reaction to it. Will they like it, since people might be encouraged to use AOL on iPhones as an alternative to SMS? Or will they kill the AOL client and make iPhone users pay for SMS?
Some people don't need to know what Open Source is. I guess I wasn't clear, I'm talking about people who think they know what it is and misrepresent it, like the OP byolinux was.
The GGGGP Brandybuck corrected him, and then I was just trying to point out while there is no distinction, some fanboys will continue to think that there is. Now, there is a difference in between Open Source Software, purely because some people will be misinformed that there is.
I have no quarrel with people that knowingly choose Owned over Free. And as I meant to imply in the first of my previous posts, I have no quarrel with people who push WINE when there is no GNU alternative to their app. It's the people that think that it can be proprietary and still be Open Source that really bother me.
Well Canonical is the "preferred partner" of Ubuntu, since that's where a lot of their funding and some labour comes from. I'm sure some of that funding goes towards keeping the medibuntu repos alive.
Also, the Linux kernel itself normally contains proprietary firmware; which isn't a huge deal; but it is the reason Ubuntu alternatives such as Gobuntu and gNewsense exist.
So, Ubuntu is free, more free than the majority of other distro (and I do applaud them for that), but it's not 100% free.
If they phrase it right, they can make it sound like an offer you can't refuse! http://kinokofry.com/2008/07/10/kinokofry-031/
Oh, ok. I agree, I do get tired of people attaching extra meaning to the term, Free Software, and then expecting everyone to see how it follows. What you've said makes sense now.
I like the term 'freed' software as well, although it might imply to some people that said software was at one time non-free.
Lojban, anyone?
My router at home only needs to be rebooted when you're changing admin priveleges or re-assigning the router's IP. But one day I went to a friends house and while trying to figure out how to connect to the Internet, and tried several times to give myself a proper IP. Each time I did, I disconnected my friend's roommate while he was playing WoW. Apparently he was in the middle of a big group mission. I had no idea until the fifth disconnect.
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be hostile or an insult. My point is, (from my experience) most people that use Open Source do not really understand or care about it's definition according to the OSI website. That goes double for those recent Windows immigrants.
Funny, the Microsoft employees I know hate their jobs, and hate Windows. Granted, I don't know many, but that's just the couple MS employees I do.
Not in the least! While not a political movement with ideology police, the Open Source "movement" still rejects proprietary software from its definition.
Originally, yes. And formally, yes. But these days, people who prefer saying 'Open Source' over Free Software are the ones that are pushing WINE when they could be pushing GNU alternatives to windows apps.
Philosophy, Political Movement, Business Model, form of community; Free Software is a lot of things.
Besides, almost every political movement is based on some form of philosophy or another.
Then there'll be a lot less bugfixes, patches, and problem solving, since many problems could very well be caused by the 'owned' blobs.
Worst case scenario; the guys developing this for the sake of free software migrate to Hurd or a Free-er alternative, Linux becomes less and less free. Because the large user base which is supposed to make open source better actually doesn't matter any more.
Canonical's Netbook Remix has a ton of proprietary codecs and crap. Although, I think there is a non-proprietary version of it as well, perhaps sold as a different product.
mod parent up.
Anyone who's read much Lawrence Lessig would understand why. It's not proper to call it stealing unless you download/copy it and then erase if from what you downloaded it from.
Bob:Hmm, kids are pirating our games, even with the massive amounts of hardware destroying DRM we put on them.
Jack:They can't pirate them if we just make them free.
Bob:Hey, you're right. Ha ha, suckers!
I joke, I joke.
Schrodinger's Cat Baseball. Although it still doesn't work quite right when it's out of the box.
It is free. But it's a protective sort of free. That's why in some logo and fanart images, the GPL is depicted as a shield, or armour.
There's really no good analogy for it, but my favourite has always been the scuba tank one. You can go deep sea exploring now, but you need to have a big chunk of rubber in your mouth. It is a license for the sake of _not_ drowning in other licenses.
unfortunately, this aspect does kind of ram the 'free software' aspect of it down people's throats. But that's what it was made for. The day people stop using the GPL will be the day software licenses are abolished altogether.
IANAL, and I haven't thoroughly examined GPLv2 or v3, but for the Joomla! case I'm pretty sure the SMF people could have just forked an older GLPv2 release and just used that. Or am I misunderstanding?
In general, you get loads of freedom with the GPL. Just as long as it's GPL. If you want to use previously GPL'ed code, you can't always have your cake and eat it too. As the article tries to point out, the freedom is in the access to code, but not always in the way you can use it. Which is necessary for people that want their code to exist and compete with proprietary software. The GPL does what it's intended to do, and does it very well, it just may not do what everyone wants it to do.
Hey, this is getting way off topic, but I do find this interesting. I have more classroom experience with mathematical language than any spoken languages, but I was of the opinion that any spoken language could, for example, be interpreted by a Turing Machine.
How does your previous post relate to the OP? My point was that the quotation marks being used were meant to indicate sarcasm, and everyone got it. It's probably not a whoosh thing; you understood what had happened. What exactly was it that you disagreed with?
Why should people know what the intelligence community is doing? You shouldn't as you haven't got the need to know.
At least until a group of officers come to your door.
If I were an American being wiretapped, even if I couldn't get any warning, I'd at least want the intelligence forces to need a warrant for it first. Just because they work for the government doesn't mean they're incapable of mistakes or malice.
It does parse logically. But there's more to the grammar than what they teach you in grade school. Certain arbitrary rules are created through unconventional use, double meanings, reception of pop culture, and emulation of body language through text. So, it's perfectly logical to people who are familiar with the culture/context of the spoken language. There's just a kind of pseudo-grammar.
In other words, the are only very few context-free grammars in widely used languages. "Proper" English grammar is just the template for that bizarre concoction that we, the west and most of europe, use.