>Angelina Jolie was once in a music video by Meat Loaf. Now, have any >of you ever seen or listened to Mr. Loaf? If so, can you offer some >sort of explanation for his existence? I'm waiting...
We're all waiting for the end of time so we can end our time with *YOU*......
>Good for you for being a digital musician. I'm sure you make some phat >sounds with your samples and loop CDs. Sure gets around that tedious >business of actually playing an instrument, doesn't it?
I wouldn't use the term "musician" to describe these guys.....
>Hum. When launching KDE, you don't run an umpty megabyte executable. >It seems you were not knowing far about KDE. KDE is built on top of Qt >for mere practical reasons: the aim was not to create a desktop >environment with non-gpl foundations, but t develop quickly a coherent >desktop environment. Qt is, technically speaking, a really great >toolkit for component programming.
Heh. KDE orginally was nothing but a backdoor for the people involved with the Qt libs to try and pull a fast one with the Qt libs and linux. If it wasn't the intent, why did the KDE/Qt lib supports get so bent out of shape when RedHat and Debian expressed doubts about the use of the Qt libs?
>>Emmett, why must you emphasize the nationality of a project or its >>leaders? >This problem goes much beyond Emmett. Whereever I see open source or >Free Software mentioned, I invariably see the nationalities of the >authors prominently mentioned, as though their native countries were >more important than their names. >Well, they're not. It does not reflect well on GNOME or Free Software >to have its name tied to such nationalist, Balkanizing, almost racist >sentiments, and I'd like to be the first to call for the immediate >cessation of this unfortunate trend.
I think it's a wonderful trend. It may be something that offends WASPS like yourself, but I think it's important that it should be pointed out that open source or free Software movement isn't being driven by WASPS living in USA or Europe, but rather in fact that it is something that is *International* in scope and that NON-WASPS in fact can and *are* making major contrbutions to it.
Re:But look at what was said about the community..
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
>"[T]here are currently no products - and that there are not likely >to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of >computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC >operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings >18-29"
It's right. Just look at how Windows Users bitch and scream at the mere idea of reading the documention to something.....
>Do you people not get it? Big Microsoft is the best thing for Linux. >Microsoft is big and slow. Baby Microsofts are bad for Linux. Baby >Microsofts are rich and quick. Big Microsoft created the need for >Linux. Baby Microsofts will destroy Linux. Microsoft would have fallen >on its own. After Microsoft is no longer a target, they will go after >the Internet.
Here's question for you Astrotufer.....Will any version of Microsoft be able to port any version of Windows to anything other than a Intel processor?
>I am also convinced that the DOJ acted just in time to prevent >Microsoft from really throwing its weight around hardware vendors. >When I say "hardware vendors", I mean companies that make processors, >video cards, sound cards, and other components, not OEMs like Compaq >and Dell. I imagine many of you Linux users have been ticked off when >you found that your favorite component you used under Windows won't >work under Linux because only Windows drivers have been released, and >the part's specs are under an NDA.
I've never really quite understood the logic behind making and selling a printer or modem that will only work under Windows 95/98,especially when you also selling similar products that will work on Macs,Amiga,PC's runing Linux,OS/2,Windows 3.1,NT ect... Always seemed rather silly.
>I'm going to watch with great interest what happens IF the DoJ does >succeed in breaking up Microsoft (but that could not happen until at >least the Supreme Court settles the case some 18 to 30 months from >now; if George W. Bush gets elected, you can forget about the breakup >EVER happening).
You're forgetting about Hatch and the others. There are quite a few in the Repub. party who don't like Microsoft any more than the DOJ do....
>I'm perfectly aware of the differences between freedom and things that >cost no money. What does this have to do with anything addressed in my >original post? I still haven't seen an answer to my question, which is >why so many people here seem to think the Open-Source model is the >next Messiah.
Because we're not forced to deal with or buy software from people like you....
>One thing that I've found odd about antitrust law is that a company >doesn't really know it's a monopoly until long after the fact, and >probably after a violation has occurred. How is a company supposed to >know when it becomes a monopoly?
Lousy argument because Microsoft always intended to become a monopoly. Let's use Word for an example. When the Amiga 1st came out, a lot of software created software for it, even Microsoft. As the Amiga became more popular, people began asking Mircosoft to port Word to it, as it would cause the Amiga to become even more accepted, especially among PC users. Microsoft hemmed and hawed and never released a Amiga version of Word. Why? Because the Amiga would then have become a serious threat to Windows. You see, even back then you had Microsoft Astroturfers and magazines like PC Mag running around "advising" people not to consider the Amiga because of it's "lack of software" and other nonsense. Sound familar? It should.
>>This will be the ultimate IT manager nightmare, because they will have >>be current on multiple competing versions of Windows, Linux, BeOS and >>whatever x86-compatible operating system comes along the line. > >Oh, how horrible. Idiot IS goons will have to choose!
What's truely horrible is that Idiot IS goons will actually have to *DO* the job they're getting paid for instead of watching Baywatch. You can see the panic starting already at places like PC Week Labs....
>Unless I am mistaken most slashdoters are Libertarian. Then >look at democarat ideology. it's a no brainer choice.
Wrong. The vast majority of slashdoters *ARE NOT* Libertarians, just like like the vast majority of the population of the US *ARE NOT* Libertarians. That's why the psudo-Libertarian arguments the Microsoft Astroturfers kept trying to make here kept hitting a brick wall. Nobody was really stupid enough to fall for them. The real Libertarians were smart enough to steer clear of these guys, and everybody else recongized the Microsoft stooges's bullshit for what it was.
>Oh, yes, I think there should be no more tying. IE should be separate, >and so should the office stuff. >I was just pondering the implications of that statement... does that >mean Be would no longer be able to ship NetPositive (their web >browser), sound recorder, CD burner, etc. with the OS? Or would the >ruling apply only Microsoft because they were the ones guilty of >predatory marketing?
Not if BE handles the "tying" in the same fashion the way RedHat "ties" a WM or any other software into it's dists. Microsoft got into trouble because it wanted to *FORCE* people into using it's products....
>Why Open Source Doesn't Work for Writers: Your suggestion doesn't >work >for books for several reasons: 1. Writing isn't a group effort. One >person writes the whole novel himself.
Bullshit. Just look at the Undocumented Features fanfiction project. http://www.eyrie-productions.com
These guys have been doing this since 1991. And they aren't the only such people doing this kind of thing.
>Reverse engineering might be tolerable to have a dvd-player run on >some more platforms (as well as on other *nix-OSes). >However, porting a dvd-player to the S/390 sounds rather absurd and >funny to me: >"Honestly, your honour, I just wanted to watch 'The Matrix' on my >S/390!"
Well, since you can run 41,000 copies of linux on an S/390, why not have a couple of linux desktops running on the machine?
>If they are selling it for 'Linux' and we try an run it on something >like ARM Linux - we could have a very good case.
Yes, because it'll bring the interoperbilty question bettween various versions of Linux (which should pretty much negate the piracy issue) into play. Remember unlike Windows, Linux actually is a operating system that runs on more than one type of computer hardware. And things like beowulf clusters and the IBM S/390 port of linux only serves to illustrate this point.
>You really want to claim that ix86 Linux does not make up 95% of all >Linux installations, possibly more?
For now, maybe ix86 Linux does make up 95% of Linux installations, but when Intel and the others release the non-ix86 processors? you're going to see these things get adopted by Linux and other non-Windows users at a much higher rate than by Windows users simply because people who create software under Windows won't have an OS that support these processors. Where is Microsoft support for the Alpha and Sparc platforms? Redhat and Mandrake will support them.
>Just to let you know there are those of us who have been using Linux >as our only OS for years now. We don't go screaming around open source >this and open source that, but we are pleased when things are open >sourced. We would appreciate a dvd player for linxu so we don't need >to buy a copy of another OS or a dvd player.
How much were you paid by the MPAA to plant your comments here?
>by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @06:38AM EST (#17) >One area where Linux falls down is its support for DirectX API. This >is the de-facto standard for all 3d graphics work. Linux can never >become the OS of choice for the hardcore gamer, until it has better
Who really gives a shit about you gamer losers? You want to play games, buy a Playstation.
>This will be the end to all hopes for an open source player. Now they >can say "but you have a player, you don't need to reverse-engineer >it", and the decss will be buried.
Not if it's never released. This thing sounds more and more like vaporware. Even if it isn't vaporware it sound like it will only run on hardware from this particular company. Not much use if you have a DVD player from an diffrent manufacturer. Also doesn't adress the fact that linux runs on non-x86 processors.
>Folks, >I personally believe that the reason why Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson >is NOT issuing a judgement today is simple: he may have come to his >senses and realize it appears that the Department of Justice's >Antitrust Division under Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein is NOT >wanting any form of settlement.
Jackson's just giving Mircosoft more rope to hang themselves with for any possible appeals of his ruling by appearing to bend over backwards to encourgage a settlement in the case. Remember Microsoft stated during the trial it couldn't remove the browser from the OS. Now all of a sudden Microsoft is making the offer?
>One thing most people seem to assume is that once you release under >the GPL, you cannot change your license. That is not true.
Actually when you changed the license, you forked what was being licensed. There are now *TWO* versions of whatever was being licensed. This holds true for anything under a GPL or BSD type-license agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
>Well, haven't heard that. But what I did hear looked and sounded like
>mortally-wounded-buffalo opera.
Hey, Listening to Meat Loaf sure beats the hell out of listening to that techno bullshit losers like yourself like...
>Angelina Jolie was once in a music video by Meat Loaf. Now, have any
>of you ever seen or listened to Mr. Loaf? If so, can you offer some
>sort of explanation for his existence? I'm waiting...
We're all waiting for the end of time so we can end our time with *YOU*......
>Good for you for being a digital musician. I'm sure you make some phat
>sounds with your samples and loop CDs. Sure gets around that tedious
>business of actually playing an instrument, doesn't it?
I wouldn't use the term "musician" to describe these guys.....
>Hum. When launching KDE, you don't run an umpty megabyte executable.
>It seems you were not knowing far about KDE. KDE is built on top of Qt
>for mere practical reasons: the aim was not to create a desktop
>environment with non-gpl foundations, but t develop quickly a coherent
>desktop environment. Qt is, technically speaking, a really great
>toolkit for component programming.
Heh. KDE orginally was nothing but a backdoor for the people involved with the Qt libs to try and pull a fast one with the Qt libs and linux. If it wasn't the intent, why did the KDE/Qt lib supports get so bent out of shape when RedHat and Debian expressed doubts about the use of the Qt libs?
>>Emmett, why must you emphasize the nationality of a project or its
>>leaders?
>This problem goes much beyond Emmett. Whereever I see open source or
>Free Software mentioned, I invariably see the nationalities of the
>authors prominently mentioned, as though their native countries were
>more important than their names.
>Well, they're not. It does not reflect well on GNOME or Free Software
>to have its name tied to such nationalist, Balkanizing, almost racist
>sentiments, and I'd like to be the first to call for the immediate
>cessation of this unfortunate trend.
I think it's a wonderful trend. It may be something that offends WASPS like yourself, but I think it's important that it should be pointed out that open source or free Software movement isn't being driven by WASPS living in USA or Europe, but rather in fact that it is something that is *International* in scope and that NON-WASPS in fact can and *are* making major contrbutions to it.
>"[T]here are currently no products - and that there are not likely
>to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of
>computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC
>operating systems without incurring substantial costs. Findings
>18-29"
It's right. Just look at how Windows Users bitch and scream at the mere idea of reading the documention to something.....
>Do you people not get it? Big Microsoft is the best thing for Linux.
>Microsoft is big and slow. Baby Microsofts are bad for Linux. Baby
>Microsofts are rich and quick. Big Microsoft created the need for
>Linux. Baby Microsofts will destroy Linux. Microsoft would have fallen
>on its own. After Microsoft is no longer a target, they will go after
>the Internet.
Here's question for you Astrotufer.....Will any version of Microsoft be able to port any version of Windows to anything other than a Intel processor?
>I am also convinced that the DOJ acted just in time to prevent
>Microsoft from really throwing its weight around hardware vendors.
>When I say "hardware vendors", I mean companies that make processors,
>video cards, sound cards, and other components, not OEMs like Compaq
>and Dell. I imagine many of you Linux users have been ticked off when
>you found that your favorite component you used under Windows won't
>work under Linux because only Windows drivers have been released, and
>the part's specs are under an NDA.
I've never really quite understood the logic behind making and selling a printer or modem that will only work under Windows 95/98,especially when you also selling similar products that will work on Macs,Amiga,PC's runing Linux,OS/2,Windows 3.1,NT ect... Always seemed rather silly.
>I'm going to watch with great interest what happens IF the DoJ does
>succeed in breaking up Microsoft (but that could not happen until at
>least the Supreme Court settles the case some 18 to 30 months from
>now; if George W. Bush gets elected, you can forget about the breakup
>EVER happening).
You're forgetting about Hatch and the others. There are quite a few in the Repub. party who don't like Microsoft any more than the DOJ do....
>I'm perfectly aware of the differences between freedom and things that
>cost no money. What does this have to do with anything addressed in my
>original post? I still haven't seen an answer to my question, which is
>why so many people here seem to think the Open-Source model is the
>next Messiah.
Because we're not forced to deal with or buy software from people like you....
>One thing that I've found odd about antitrust law is that a company
>doesn't really know it's a monopoly until long after the fact, and
>probably after a violation has occurred. How is a company supposed to
>know when it becomes a monopoly?
Lousy argument because Microsoft always intended to become a monopoly. Let's use Word for an example. When the Amiga 1st came out, a lot of software created software for it, even Microsoft. As the Amiga became more popular, people began asking Mircosoft to port Word to it, as it would cause the Amiga to become even more accepted, especially among PC users. Microsoft hemmed and hawed and never released a Amiga version of Word. Why? Because the Amiga would then have become a serious threat to Windows. You see, even back then you had Microsoft Astroturfers and magazines like PC Mag running around "advising" people not to consider the Amiga because of it's "lack of software" and other nonsense. Sound familar? It should.
>>This will be the ultimate IT manager nightmare, because they will have
>>be current on multiple competing versions of Windows, Linux, BeOS and
>>whatever x86-compatible operating system comes along the line.
>
>Oh, how horrible. Idiot IS goons will have to choose!
What's truely horrible is that Idiot IS goons will actually have to *DO* the job they're getting paid for instead of watching Baywatch. You can see the panic starting already at places like PC Week Labs....
>Unless I am mistaken most slashdoters are Libertarian. Then
>look at democarat ideology. it's a no brainer choice.
Wrong. The vast majority of slashdoters *ARE NOT* Libertarians, just like like the vast majority of the population of the US *ARE NOT* Libertarians. That's why the psudo-Libertarian arguments the Microsoft Astroturfers kept trying to make here kept hitting a brick wall. Nobody was really stupid enough to fall for them. The real Libertarians were smart enough to steer clear of these guys, and everybody else recongized the Microsoft stooges's bullshit for what it was.
>Oh, yes, I think there should be no more tying. IE should be separate,
>and so should the office stuff.
>I was just pondering the implications of that statement... does that
>mean Be would no longer be able to ship NetPositive (their web
>browser), sound recorder, CD burner, etc. with the OS? Or would the
>ruling apply only Microsoft because they were the ones guilty of
>predatory marketing?
Not if BE handles the "tying" in the same fashion the way RedHat "ties" a WM or any other software into it's dists. Microsoft got into trouble because it wanted to *FORCE* people into using it's products....
>Why Open Source Doesn't Work for Writers: Your suggestion doesn't >work
>for books for several reasons: 1. Writing isn't a group effort. One
>person writes the whole novel himself.
Bullshit. Just look at the Undocumented Features fanfiction project. http://www.eyrie-productions.com
These guys have been doing this since 1991. And they aren't the only such people doing this kind of thing.
>Reverse engineering might be tolerable to have a dvd-player run on
>some more platforms (as well as on other *nix-OSes).
>However, porting a dvd-player to the S/390 sounds rather absurd and
>funny to me:
>"Honestly, your honour, I just wanted to watch 'The Matrix' on my
>S/390!"
Well, since you can run 41,000 copies of linux on an S/390, why not have a couple of linux desktops running on the machine?
>If they are selling it for 'Linux' and we try an run it on something
>like ARM Linux - we could have a very good case.
Yes, because it'll bring the interoperbilty question bettween various versions of Linux (which should pretty much negate the piracy issue) into play. Remember unlike Windows, Linux actually is a operating system that runs on more than one type of computer hardware. And things like beowulf clusters and the IBM S/390 port of linux only serves to illustrate this point.
>You really want to claim that ix86 Linux does not make up 95% of all
>Linux installations, possibly more?
For now, maybe ix86 Linux does make up 95% of Linux installations, but when Intel and the others release the non-ix86 processors? you're going to see these things get adopted by Linux and other non-Windows users at a much higher rate than by Windows users simply because people who create software under Windows won't have an OS that support these processors. Where is Microsoft support for the Alpha and Sparc platforms? Redhat and Mandrake will support them.
>Just to let you know there are those of us who have been using Linux
>as our only OS for years now. We don't go screaming around open source
>this and open source that, but we are pleased when things are open
>sourced. We would appreciate a dvd player for linxu so we don't need
>to buy a copy of another OS or a dvd player.
How much were you paid by the MPAA to plant your comments here?
>Too bad my video and sound cards don't have better support in Linux...
That's because most of us weren't *STUPID* enough to buy the cards you bought....
>by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @06:38AM EST (#17)
>One area where Linux falls down is its support for DirectX API. This
>is the de-facto standard for all 3d graphics work. Linux can never
>become the OS of choice for the hardcore gamer, until it has better
Who really gives a shit about you gamer losers? You want to play games, buy a Playstation.
>This will be the end to all hopes for an open source player. Now they
>can say "but you have a player, you don't need to reverse-engineer
>it", and the decss will be buried.
Not if it's never released. This thing sounds more and more like vaporware. Even if it isn't vaporware it sound like it will only run on hardware from this particular company. Not much use if you have a DVD player from an diffrent manufacturer. Also doesn't adress the fact that linux runs on non-x86 processors.
>I can't Imagine that Atari being able to handle the slashdot effect.
Why? The Atari 8-bits are a lot tougher than you think.
>Folks,
>I personally believe that the reason why Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
>is NOT issuing a judgement today is simple: he may have come to his
>senses and realize it appears that the Department of Justice's
>Antitrust Division under Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein is NOT
>wanting any form of settlement.
Jackson's just giving Mircosoft more rope to hang themselves with for any possible appeals of his ruling by appearing to bend over backwards to encourgage a settlement in the case. Remember Microsoft stated during the trial it couldn't remove the browser from the OS. Now all of a sudden Microsoft is making the offer?
>One thing most people seem to assume is that once you release under
>the GPL, you cannot change your license. That is not true.
Actually when you changed the license, you forked what was being licensed. There are now *TWO* versions of whatever was being licensed. This holds true for anything under a GPL or BSD type-license agreement.