You are unclear on what "derivative work" means, it seems. In the example I provided, the work is not derived from Readline, it merely calls on Readline to perform certain functions. This is Readline's purpose.
And I explained why you are wrong. "Calling" a library is not legally different to including the source code of the library in your program. In both cases you need permission from the library author. You seem to think it's different because in one scenario you compile the source into object code, and in the other scenario the library distributor compiled the source into object code. But copyright applies to object code just as well as it applies to source code. You have no more right to "call" my library than you have right to copy my library. Your continued assertion that copyright doesn't apply if you just "call" a library is simply baffling. The third party library market is proof enough that you're wrong.
Try and link against any non-free library and argue in court that you are just "calling" their library and therefore don't need to arrange for licensing with the vendor. The judge won't just laugh at you; he'll fine you.
I've already explained this all in meticulous detail. So have about 3 dozen other people. Your continued insistence that licensing doesn't apply because you're just linking is unbelievable. What possible reason could you have for thinking that you have to right to link to whatever library you choose without agreeing to the license? Are you perhaps confused because you've only ever dealt with libraries that have permissive licensing? Is the entire cause of your confusion simply your lack of experience with real-world licensing? Have you never linked against a proprietary library? I have a friend who worked with a state-of-the-art 3D library; the licensing fees were 6 digits! Can you imagine his employer trying to argue that he doesn't need to pay the licensing fees because the program only "called" the library? Get real! The court wouldn't even bother hearing his argument before fining him.
Now, let's be perfectly clear about this: I am not creating a derivative work of anything. I sit down and write an entirely new (if hardly original) program from scratch, one that happens to call Readline.
You have created a derivative work of the readline library. If you haven't created a derivative work then you can prove it by not linking against the readline library.
The confusion here is that you seem to think "calling" code is legally different to cut and pasting code. However in both cases you are executing somebody elses code from within your code. The legality of the situation is the same even if the mechanics are slightly different. There's no way you can sensibly dispute this: the rather large market for third party proprietary libraries is proof that the legal situation is well understood. You cannot link - dynamically or statically - against any library without first agreeing to the license. If you linked - dynamic or static - against a commercial library with a strict "no distribution" policy and then tried to sell your product, you would be in court faster than you could link. It falls under the same laws as if you illegally copied the source code.
You are further confused because many operating systems have very permissive licensing for core libraries. For example, Microsoft permits anybody to link against their system libraries without having to pay royalties. The fly in your ointment is that not all libraries are like that. Purchase a commercial maths library (eg, WSTS) and link it against your program - static or dynamic linking. You are now bound by the licensing conditions of that library. Typically this involves a payment of money to the library author. With the GPL you can optionally forego that monetary payment by making a licensing decision; but that's just another form of payment. You are paying back to the community with code rather than paying back to the author with money. You could try negotiating a monetary payment instead; Trolltech is one company that follows that model.
No, he isn't. He is using "viral" to mean "infects others". If you have some BSD code, and you compile that BSD code but link it to a GPL library then *poof* that BSD code is now GPL. The GPL has "infected" the BSD licenced code.
Then he should use the word "infectious". To write "viral" when he means "infects others" is simply stupid; viral means much more than simple infection.
Also you're wrong. The BSD code is not GPL. The BSD code retains its BSD license. The derivative product - the combination of the BSD code and the GPL code - is what is GPL.
If I send you a Microsoft Word document and you open it, your SurfWriter documents do not suddently become Microsoft Word documents, do they?
I'd suggest you take some time to study logic a little closer. Perhaps brush up on your reading and English skills, too.
Fools in glass houses... I never claimed that Word documents had anything to do with licenses. You would do well to read the names attached to each post before making yourself look foolish. I don't appreciate your snide remarks about reading skills when you can't even distinguish between 2 different people.
The word "inheritance" cannot be reasonably applied to the GPL, however, because it doesn't merely affect "child classes," to use your metaphor. The GPL doesn't only apply to derived works; it applies to works that merely link GPL-licensed object code.
If you link in a library then you are creating a derivative work. Imagine you have written Product A and you chose the FOO license. Now you want to extend product A to use code exposed by Library B. The final product is no longer Product A; it has become product A v2.0.
That distinction is very important. Your original Product A is still under the FOO license. It is only the NEW Product A v2.0 that is licensed under the GPL. It is important to realise that v1 of a product and v2 of a product are two different products. Don't believe me? Try and justify to Microsoft that your Windows 95 license gives you the right to use Windows XP on your computer. It doesn't work that way. They are different products even if they do share some code in common (though I'd wonder how much code is still shared between Windows 95 and Windows XP).
Now could you claim that linking against Library B is not "worthy enough" to determine the license for Product A v2.0? Sure. But then you lose your right to link against Library B. That's your choice.
The GPL is viral, as everyone knows by now, because introducing it into a project as part of a linked component means that the entire project must carry the GPL; it is not possible to use the GPL for library X and use some other license, or indeed no source code license at all, for the body of your program. The GPL itself prohibits this. So when the GPL is introduced to a project, it spreads to encompass the entire project. Ergo, viral.
But once again you're just using the word "viral" to mean "spreads". Why not just use the word "spreads"? Why do you have to use an incorrect term with negative connotations like "viral"? I mean, look at your last sentence. You explicity say "... it spreads... Ergo, viral". I don't see the connection.
I'm going to focus on your first sentence:
... because introducing it into a project as part of a linked component means that the entire project must carry the GPL; it is not possible to use the GPL for library X and use some other license, or indeed no source code license at all, for the body of your program.
But so what? All licenses are like this. Why don't you go include some Microsoft code in your project and then try and pick your own license. You'll find Microsoft on your back so quick that your head will spin. That's the point of all copyright; if you want to use my code then you have to agree to my terms. The GPL dictates the terms as being you must make the derivative product GPL'd as well. Note that it's only the derivative product, not the original product. Your original product is under whatever license you choose. It's only the derivative product that is affected. This is no different than if you incorporated any other licensed work into your project.
So the GPL is only viral if you concede that ALL copyright is viral. I don't think you want to claim that. So what's your argument?
PS: I agree with you that Microsoft Office formats are not viral (which idiot thought that stupid idea up!) but neither is the GPL. The GPL is just a license. You can choose to use it, or choose not to use it, but with a virus you don't get the choice. That's the difference.
Noooo.... "Replicating" is not the right word to apply here. We're talking about something that, when introduced as a part of a system, spreads autonomously to all parts of that system. "Infectious?" Maybe. "Genetic?" Absolutely not; that's just silly.
Genetic is a good description because it shows that the licensing only affects derivative works. Basically GPL'd product A plus non-GPL'd product B gives birth to GPL'd product C. And even after the union, B is still non-GPL'd. It's only C that is now forced to use GPL (and even then only if you distribute it). To continue the analogy, the GPL is a dominant licensing gene that overrides any other licensing when you combine products. So the GPL is not infectious in that sense because with an infection it would be possible for product B to become GPL'd; even with the GPL the product B is never GPL'd, only product C is GPL'd.
I stand by my assertion: "viral" is the best word I've found so far to describe the behavior of the GPL, connotations or no connotations.
The motivation behind the original choice of the word "viral" to describe the GPL is certainly up for debate, but ultimately it makes no difference. "Viral" is, connotations notwithstanding, the best word for the job.
No it's not. The word "viral" means "caused by a virus". A virus is literally an organism that infects and destroys other organisms. Figuratively a virus is something that poisons or corrupts. See dict.org for both definitions. The commonality is that a virus is destructive. This is why the anti-GPL crowd likes to abuse the word "virus": it has severe negative connotations.
You use the word "viral" as if it just meant "replicates" but there's more to a virus than that. If all you meant was "replicate" then you could use the word "replicate". The real reason for using the word "viral" is to spread FUD. You might as well say that Microsoft Licensing is "draconian" or "fascist". It's just as silly and just as incorrect.
Now if you said "infectious" or "genetic" then you'd be much closer to the truth. I personally prefer "genetic" because it conveys the truth that only derivative works must inherit the GPL "gene".
Linux is about the only... major OS that doesn't have some kind of filesystem-snapshot support.
You do realise that dump doesn't give you a filesystem snapshot? Even on Solaris - the most venerable of modern UNIX - the manpage for ufsdump clearly states:
When running ufsdump, the file system must be inactive; otherwise, the output of ufsdump may
be inconsistent and restoring files correctly may be impossible.
There's a good reason why nobody seriously uses dump anymore.
And Linux does support filesystem snapshots. The Linux LVM explicitly lists it as a feature.
Moderators, this person was not informative, they were simply wrong.
... but this just goes to show you that it's NOT just Microsoft that falls prey to holes and exploits. If it runs an OS, there's a chance it'll be cracked. Simple as that.
Well, duh. You make it sound like you only realised this last week. Welcome to the 1960s, kid.
I have been extremely happy with Amanda. Single centralised backup server running amanda-server. Multiple workstations running the amanda-client. Amanda automagically schedules backups based on sensible heuristics. I just tell Amanda how many tapes I have, how many workstations I have, and Amanda does all the hard work of working out how much tape capacity is required and how often it should schedule incrementals/fulls.
The server/client protocol has been designed to avoid reliance on dangerous security holes like rsh. The server sends the client a "send me your dump" message. The client then connects back to the server and delivers it the output from dump or tar. You can configure exclusion lists on the client if you're worried about sending certain files or filesystems. You can also encrypt the data stream and/or use Kerberos for authentication.
If I forget to load a blank tape then Amanda plays it safe. It doesn't overwrite last night's backup: instead it stores incrementals into the "holding disk". Amanda will then flush the held backups to the next blank tape.
Amanda emails me reports after every backup with a neat summary of what went right/wrong. It also gives you several hours advance warning if you forget to load a blank tape or if any of the workstations are offline.
The only downside of Amanda is that it is fiddly to setup. The documentation is poor and the configuration files are cryptic. But if you're willing to invest some time and effort then you can't do much better (for free) than Amanda.
Nicholas Petreley worked with Evans Data Corporation on a survey which asked Linux developers about there preferences, and he learned that 50% of them were no longer developing Windows software.
Somehow from these figures, Petreley concluded that Windows has signifigantly less developer mindshare than Linux.
You are not insightful. This is not what Petreley concluded. He found that the majority of "new blood" in Linux were previously developing for Windows, not other UNIX. The conclusion is that Linux is eroding the Windows market faster than the UNIX market. Your strawman is amusing but completely out of touch with reality.
Google says here [google.com] that Linux only accounts for 1% of search hits on google. Anyone doing searches on the internet is,by my definintion, a "Desktop User" and this is probably the most impartial measurment of Linux usage one can get. So for Linux to double to 2% is not that special. "grandmothers" will probably not be a large chunk of that 2%.
But what's the problem here? It's 1 percent. Let's repeat that. Linux on the desktop is 1 percent. That's amazing. I'm... wow, it's incredible. Apparently lots of people are thinking "glass is 99% empty" but I'm thinking "wow, the glass exists and it's 1% full". Can't you see how amazing it is that a hobby OS built by enthusiasts with collaboration over the Internet is now 1% of the desktop market? That's freaking incredible. If you'd asked me 10 years ago I would have said "yeah, I use it, but it'll never have more than a few 100 hardcore UNIX users". Now it's one whole freaking percent. That's millions of desktops. It's bloody amazing.
Don't be fooled by marketshare. Linux is now 1% of the desktop. That's mind boggling.
It saddens me that so many people have this attitude. I do tech support for a lot of the people in my (extended) family.
However, in my family, if you can do it, you just do it. My uncle who is a plumber gave my hundreds of dollars worth of pipe, etc when I was remodeling (not to mention lots of advice). And he's roto-rooted our drain for free. Another uncle lets me hunt his 40 acres of prime forest. My in-laws sanded and refinished our floors. I could go on and on.
You just help out if you have the skills, and don't worry about what your getting in return. It all comes around.
Abso-fucking-lutely. I did free tech support for years. No gripes. No complaints. No demands for money. Then it all starts paying off. One relation is a seamstress and suddenly I'm getting free shirts. Another relation is a carpenter and builds me a TV cabinet. And if you help out people without these skills you will still find yourself with a case of beer, a bottle of wine, or a free meal. Maybe not immediately, or even after a few support days, but it's like an inevitable tide of gifts.
The problem is, you are still getting spam. The filter may block you from seeing most of it, and it may stop you from getting tags with linked images, etc... but it's still coming in.
You, and your ISP, are paying for the bandwidth it uses.
Shrug. The monetary cost is small. I waste more money downloading the latest games trailers off IGN than I get from spam in a month. The real cost of spam is my time. That's why I installed SpamAssassin (and I'm very happy with it).
The saying is "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Statisticians are mathematicians and statistics is as rigorous as any other field of mathematics. The problem with statistics stems from non-statisticians who *think* they understand statistics, but really they don't. Don't denigrate the statisticians. They've got enough on their plate trying to defend their work from misinterpretation. They shouldn't have to defend themselves as well.
The simple fact of the matter is that buildings are made of stuff, and some of this stuff gets on our skin and into our lungs. If the stuff is bad for you, why use it. This problem is worse in energy efficient houses.
Huh? How do you figure that facing your windows north (in oz), double glazing your windows, building on a concrete slab, and putting wool insulation into your wall cavities, is somehow making the problem worse?
It makes sense to avoid building materials that produce toxic dust (silicone, asbestos, fiberglass)
Asbestos hasn't been used in housing for decades.
Don't demonise energy efficient housing. You Americans are wasteful enough as it is. There's no need for you to run around scaring people into thinking there's some benefit to wasting energy.
that they should put the good of the students ahead of any politics. That being said, the gift should be politely turned down. The best education these students could receive is a broad one.
The gift should definitely not be "politely turned down". It's $2.5million and the university administrators owe it to the students to at least pursue a compromise with the benefactor. I don't think the current demands are reasonable, but with a little effort they might be able to reach an agreement that both sides are happy with. I'd hate to think how rich you are that you go "pfft, $2.5million, not worth the effort" but I can make a strong bet that the university is not as well off as you.
A kilometers-long shaft means the steam would condense again long before it reached the surface, especially since it has to come up the same hole liquid water is coming down (natural geothermal avoids that by feeding water in from the water table). And even if you could solve that problem, you can't use that steam directly, it'd be way too dirty.
I think it's great how you've managed to prove that these things don't work and therefore don't exist. Why don't you spend five minutes with Google before posting next time?
And deserts may be flat and clear, but you're still talking about putting square miles under shade that wouldn't be there otherwise. There will be an environmental impact.
I dont know where Australians get the idea that their petrol is expensive. Its actually really really cheap in Australia (at around AUD $1/L). In Europe it's around AUD $2.50/L.
Woops. I'd mentally converted gallons into litres and made a mess of it. Seems Australia is paying roughly the same as Americans for petrol. It's the UK and Germany that are getting the raw end of the stick.
Yet power transmission is 50% efficient, and another 50% is lost charging the batteries. Net result - electric cars double the CO2 emissions.
No, they do not double the C02 emissions. They are always reduced, though the amount of reduction depends on the source of the electricity. But even the dirtiest power plants still result in less pollution overall. Read this.
Modern hot-rock does not require very rare geology. I'm not talking about naturally forming hot springs which is "traditional" geothermal. I'm talking about multi-kilometre deep bores where you pump your own water down.
Solar doesn't pollute the atmosphere, but it requires square miles of land to be clear-cut in order to produce a reasonable amount of electricity, a footprint bigger than fossil fuel plants by orders of magnitude.
(1) Solar takes up less place if you also factor in the amount of land wasted by open cut coal mines.
(2) You don't need to clear-cut land. You can use house roofing (free space) or deserts (flat enough).
In the end, you get sucky performance for a couple times the energy cost. The idea of an electric car is utterly absurd, and I can't understand why it happened at all.
(1) Power plants are more efficient than your car engine (typically twice as efficient).
(2) Oil is not universally cheap. I pay 4-5x more for petrol than you do. I think Europe has a similar high price for oil.
(3) Dense cities cannot cope with pollution from fuel-burning cars. A perfect example is your own LA. Moving the pollution away is good for the city even if it doesn't greatly help the planet.
(4) Power plants don't have to burn oil or gas or coal. There are plenty of alternatives (though none of them quite as cheap as oil or gas or coal, yet). Hot rock and solar are my personal bets for the future of electricity production; both have potential to be cheaper than fuel-burning plants.
(5) It takes decades to develop technology from concept to production line. It's important that research into EV continues so that the technology is fully developed when (if) the cheap sources of electricity finally appear. This may seem "absurd" to you but many people thought the Altair was absurd too. Look where it got Bill Gates. Being on the bleeding edge can often pay off in the long run. Companies with deep pockets (ie, GM) are willing to sink billions into "absurd" concepts because every now and then one of those crazy ideas will pay off big.
Like the java thing all those years ago. They got their office suite *working* in java. I tried it. It was buggy and it was slow, but it was beta, and it was *there*.
Amen. I remember trying it out on a P200 and it sucked mightily. It was slow. It was buggy. But it worked. And TODAY it would be just fine. Java is faster. Computers are faster. If Corel had stuck it out then today they'd have an office suite that ran on Macintosh, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows CE,... probably even bloody Palm Pilot. Instead they gave up at the first hurdle. Yes, it will always be slower on Windows than a native app written in C++ using MFC. It doesn't matter. I use interpreted applications all the time. They should have stuck to their guns. They are a victim of their own insecurity.
Slashdot Mirror
And I explained why you are wrong. "Calling" a library is not legally different to including the source code of the library in your program. In both cases you need permission from the library author. You seem to think it's different because in one scenario you compile the source into object code, and in the other scenario the library distributor compiled the source into object code. But copyright applies to object code just as well as it applies to source code. You have no more right to "call" my library than you have right to copy my library. Your continued assertion that copyright doesn't apply if you just "call" a library is simply baffling. The third party library market is proof enough that you're wrong. Try and link against any non-free library and argue in court that you are just "calling" their library and therefore don't need to arrange for licensing with the vendor. The judge won't just laugh at you; he'll fine you.
I've already explained this all in meticulous detail. So have about 3 dozen other people. Your continued insistence that licensing doesn't apply because you're just linking is unbelievable. What possible reason could you have for thinking that you have to right to link to whatever library you choose without agreeing to the license? Are you perhaps confused because you've only ever dealt with libraries that have permissive licensing? Is the entire cause of your confusion simply your lack of experience with real-world licensing? Have you never linked against a proprietary library? I have a friend who worked with a state-of-the-art 3D library; the licensing fees were 6 digits! Can you imagine his employer trying to argue that he doesn't need to pay the licensing fees because the program only "called" the library? Get real! The court wouldn't even bother hearing his argument before fining him.
You have created a derivative work of the readline library. If you haven't created a derivative work then you can prove it by not linking against the readline library.
The confusion here is that you seem to think "calling" code is legally different to cut and pasting code. However in both cases you are executing somebody elses code from within your code. The legality of the situation is the same even if the mechanics are slightly different. There's no way you can sensibly dispute this: the rather large market for third party proprietary libraries is proof that the legal situation is well understood. You cannot link - dynamically or statically - against any library without first agreeing to the license. If you linked - dynamic or static - against a commercial library with a strict "no distribution" policy and then tried to sell your product, you would be in court faster than you could link. It falls under the same laws as if you illegally copied the source code.
You are further confused because many operating systems have very permissive licensing for core libraries. For example, Microsoft permits anybody to link against their system libraries without having to pay royalties. The fly in your ointment is that not all libraries are like that. Purchase a commercial maths library (eg, WSTS) and link it against your program - static or dynamic linking. You are now bound by the licensing conditions of that library. Typically this involves a payment of money to the library author. With the GPL you can optionally forego that monetary payment by making a licensing decision; but that's just another form of payment. You are paying back to the community with code rather than paying back to the author with money. You could try negotiating a monetary payment instead; Trolltech is one company that follows that model.
Then he should use the word "infectious". To write "viral" when he means "infects others" is simply stupid; viral means much more than simple infection.
Also you're wrong. The BSD code is not GPL. The BSD code retains its BSD license. The derivative product - the combination of the BSD code and the GPL code - is what is GPL.
Fools in glass houses... I never claimed that Word documents had anything to do with licenses. You would do well to read the names attached to each post before making yourself look foolish. I don't appreciate your snide remarks about reading skills when you can't even distinguish between 2 different people.
If you link in a library then you are creating a derivative work. Imagine you have written Product A and you chose the FOO license. Now you want to extend product A to use code exposed by Library B. The final product is no longer Product A; it has become product A v2.0.
That distinction is very important. Your original Product A is still under the FOO license. It is only the NEW Product A v2.0 that is licensed under the GPL. It is important to realise that v1 of a product and v2 of a product are two different products. Don't believe me? Try and justify to Microsoft that your Windows 95 license gives you the right to use Windows XP on your computer. It doesn't work that way. They are different products even if they do share some code in common (though I'd wonder how much code is still shared between Windows 95 and Windows XP).
Now could you claim that linking against Library B is not "worthy enough" to determine the license for Product A v2.0? Sure. But then you lose your right to link against Library B. That's your choice.
But once again you're just using the word "viral" to mean "spreads". Why not just use the word "spreads"? Why do you have to use an incorrect term with negative connotations like "viral"? I mean, look at your last sentence. You explicity say "... it spreads... Ergo, viral". I don't see the connection.
I'm going to focus on your first sentence:
But so what? All licenses are like this. Why don't you go include some Microsoft code in your project and then try and pick your own license. You'll find Microsoft on your back so quick that your head will spin. That's the point of all copyright; if you want to use my code then you have to agree to my terms. The GPL dictates the terms as being you must make the derivative product GPL'd as well. Note that it's only the derivative product, not the original product. Your original product is under whatever license you choose. It's only the derivative product that is affected. This is no different than if you incorporated any other licensed work into your project.
So the GPL is only viral if you concede that ALL copyright is viral. I don't think you want to claim that. So what's your argument?
PS: I agree with you that Microsoft Office formats are not viral (which idiot thought that stupid idea up!) but neither is the GPL. The GPL is just a license. You can choose to use it, or choose not to use it, but with a virus you don't get the choice. That's the difference.
Genetic is a good description because it shows that the licensing only affects derivative works. Basically GPL'd product A plus non-GPL'd product B gives birth to GPL'd product C. And even after the union, B is still non-GPL'd. It's only C that is now forced to use GPL (and even then only if you distribute it). To continue the analogy, the GPL is a dominant licensing gene that overrides any other licensing when you combine products. So the GPL is not infectious in that sense because with an infection it would be possible for product B to become GPL'd; even with the GPL the product B is never GPL'd, only product C is GPL'd.
I think genetic is much closer.
No it's not. The word "viral" means "caused by a virus". A virus is literally an organism that infects and destroys other organisms. Figuratively a virus is something that poisons or corrupts. See dict.org for both definitions. The commonality is that a virus is destructive. This is why the anti-GPL crowd likes to abuse the word "virus": it has severe negative connotations.
You use the word "viral" as if it just meant "replicates" but there's more to a virus than that. If all you meant was "replicate" then you could use the word "replicate". The real reason for using the word "viral" is to spread FUD. You might as well say that Microsoft Licensing is "draconian" or "fascist". It's just as silly and just as incorrect.
Now if you said "infectious" or "genetic" then you'd be much closer to the truth. I personally prefer "genetic" because it conveys the truth that only derivative works must inherit the GPL "gene".
Oh, fair enough. The question mentioned the dumping of dump so I misunderstood. He's still wrong though.
You do realise that dump doesn't give you a filesystem snapshot? Even on Solaris - the most venerable of modern UNIX - the manpage for ufsdump clearly states:
There's a good reason why nobody seriously uses dump anymore.
And Linux does support filesystem snapshots. The Linux LVM explicitly lists it as a feature.
Moderators, this person was not informative, they were simply wrong.
Well, duh. You make it sound like you only realised this last week. Welcome to the 1960s, kid.
I have been extremely happy with Amanda. Single centralised backup server running amanda-server. Multiple workstations running the amanda-client. Amanda automagically schedules backups based on sensible heuristics. I just tell Amanda how many tapes I have, how many workstations I have, and Amanda does all the hard work of working out how much tape capacity is required and how often it should schedule incrementals/fulls.
The server/client protocol has been designed to avoid reliance on dangerous security holes like rsh. The server sends the client a "send me your dump" message. The client then connects back to the server and delivers it the output from dump or tar. You can configure exclusion lists on the client if you're worried about sending certain files or filesystems. You can also encrypt the data stream and/or use Kerberos for authentication.
If I forget to load a blank tape then Amanda plays it safe. It doesn't overwrite last night's backup: instead it stores incrementals into the "holding disk". Amanda will then flush the held backups to the next blank tape.
Amanda emails me reports after every backup with a neat summary of what went right/wrong. It also gives you several hours advance warning if you forget to load a blank tape or if any of the workstations are offline.
The only downside of Amanda is that it is fiddly to setup. The documentation is poor and the configuration files are cryptic. But if you're willing to invest some time and effort then you can't do much better (for free) than Amanda.
You are not insightful. This is not what Petreley concluded. He found that the majority of "new blood" in Linux were previously developing for Windows, not other UNIX. The conclusion is that Linux is eroding the Windows market faster than the UNIX market. Your strawman is amusing but completely out of touch with reality.
But what's the problem here? It's 1 percent. Let's repeat that. Linux on the desktop is 1 percent. That's amazing. I'm... wow, it's incredible. Apparently lots of people are thinking "glass is 99% empty" but I'm thinking "wow, the glass exists and it's 1% full". Can't you see how amazing it is that a hobby OS built by enthusiasts with collaboration over the Internet is now 1% of the desktop market? That's freaking incredible. If you'd asked me 10 years ago I would have said "yeah, I use it, but it'll never have more than a few 100 hardcore UNIX users". Now it's one whole freaking percent. That's millions of desktops. It's bloody amazing.
Don't be fooled by marketshare. Linux is now 1% of the desktop. That's mind boggling.
Abso-fucking-lutely. I did free tech support for years. No gripes. No complaints. No demands for money. Then it all starts paying off. One relation is a seamstress and suddenly I'm getting free shirts. Another relation is a carpenter and builds me a TV cabinet. And if you help out people without these skills you will still find yourself with a case of beer, a bottle of wine, or a free meal. Maybe not immediately, or even after a few support days, but it's like an inevitable tide of gifts.
Shrug. The monetary cost is small. I waste more money downloading the latest games trailers off IGN than I get from spam in a month. The real cost of spam is my time. That's why I installed SpamAssassin (and I'm very happy with it).
The saying is "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Statisticians are mathematicians and statistics is as rigorous as any other field of mathematics. The problem with statistics stems from non-statisticians who *think* they understand statistics, but really they don't. Don't denigrate the statisticians. They've got enough on their plate trying to defend their work from misinterpretation. They shouldn't have to defend themselves as well.
Huh? How do you figure that facing your windows north (in oz), double glazing your windows, building on a concrete slab, and putting wool insulation into your wall cavities, is somehow making the problem worse?
Asbestos hasn't been used in housing for decades.
Don't demonise energy efficient housing. You Americans are wasteful enough as it is. There's no need for you to run around scaring people into thinking there's some benefit to wasting energy.
The gift should definitely not be "politely turned down". It's $2.5million and the university administrators owe it to the students to at least pursue a compromise with the benefactor. I don't think the current demands are reasonable, but with a little effort they might be able to reach an agreement that both sides are happy with. I'd hate to think how rich you are that you go "pfft, $2.5million, not worth the effort" but I can make a strong bet that the university is not as well off as you.
I think it's great how you've managed to prove that these things don't work and therefore don't exist. Why don't you spend five minutes with Google before posting next time?
As opposed to the non-impact of coal mines?
Woops. I'd mentally converted gallons into litres and made a mess of it. Seems Australia is paying roughly the same as Americans for petrol. It's the UK and Germany that are getting the raw end of the stick.
Without trying to sound like a total weasel, the point is still valid if you consider prices in Britain instead of Australia.
No, they do not double the C02 emissions. They are always reduced, though the amount of reduction depends on the source of the electricity. But even the dirtiest power plants still result in less pollution overall. Read this.
Modern hot-rock does not require very rare geology. I'm not talking about naturally forming hot springs which is "traditional" geothermal. I'm talking about multi-kilometre deep bores where you pump your own water down.
(1) Solar takes up less place if you also factor in the amount of land wasted by open cut coal mines.
(2) You don't need to clear-cut land. You can use house roofing (free space) or deserts (flat enough).
(1) Power plants are more efficient than your car engine (typically twice as efficient).
(2) Oil is not universally cheap. I pay 4-5x more for petrol than you do. I think Europe has a similar high price for oil.
(3) Dense cities cannot cope with pollution from fuel-burning cars. A perfect example is your own LA. Moving the pollution away is good for the city even if it doesn't greatly help the planet.
(4) Power plants don't have to burn oil or gas or coal. There are plenty of alternatives (though none of them quite as cheap as oil or gas or coal, yet). Hot rock and solar are my personal bets for the future of electricity production; both have potential to be cheaper than fuel-burning plants.
(5) It takes decades to develop technology from concept to production line. It's important that research into EV continues so that the technology is fully developed when (if) the cheap sources of electricity finally appear. This may seem "absurd" to you but many people thought the Altair was absurd too. Look where it got Bill Gates. Being on the bleeding edge can often pay off in the long run. Companies with deep pockets (ie, GM) are willing to sink billions into "absurd" concepts because every now and then one of those crazy ideas will pay off big.
That sounds like a one-liner competition! I submit:
Giggle.
Amen. I remember trying it out on a P200 and it sucked mightily. It was slow. It was buggy. But it worked. And TODAY it would be just fine. Java is faster. Computers are faster. If Corel had stuck it out then today they'd have an office suite that ran on Macintosh, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows CE, ... probably even bloody Palm Pilot. Instead they gave up at the first hurdle. Yes, it will always be slower on Windows than a native app written in C++ using MFC. It doesn't matter. I use interpreted applications all the time. They should have stuck to their guns. They are a victim of their own insecurity.