"Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work:"
No it isnt. specifically, GPL is. But not all "free software" is GPL'd or equivalent.
"The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free"."
personally, as a software author, I'd rather have, "at least my code, will always be MINE". The GPL takes that away from me, and substitutes, "my code, will now always belong to everyone ELSE"(ie: pure communism). Which is why I avoid the GPL. Not because I am anti-communism specifically, but simply because I like My code,to STAY My code.
And yet ironically, getting a Philosophy degree is just dumb!
[It screams, "Hi! I have no intention of actually *working* for a living, I like to just sit around depressing myself with how much belly button lint I have"]
Basically, they want people doing game design courses to practice on their engine and not something free.
Which is a really really important strategic move. Because the primary motivator for creation of free software, is NEED. So if they reduce, or better yet eliminate, the "need" for people doing classwork to have a free-software based engine, then they have significantly reduced potential future competition in the engine market. Potential competition that will eventually always "win", all other things being equal, because... it's free, ya know.
I personally LIKE the redirect. I LIKE only inputting my credit card/whatnot information to paypal.com directly, instead of some random site that I'm doing a one-time transaction with and will probably never see again.
it would sound ridiculous... because to "replace women with blacks or gays" is a ridiculous thing to do.
"Hey I know, lets take an article about eskimos, and replace 'eskimo', with 'pregnant teenager'. Wow, it sounds totally off! Well that must mean the original article is totally wrong then."
if you cant debate an article on the specific points of the article, rather than making ludicrous comparisons, or kneejerk labelling them "sexist", then you've already lost the argument.
One issue is, "why are the number of female FOSS developers so low?"
The other is, "are open software developers sexist?"
I would suggest that the "answer" to the latter one, is "no more than a random sample of males of similar age groups and location"
I would also suggest that the "answer" to the former one is, "because most women just arent interested in doing it". At its core, "FOSS" software, starts as a project by an individual. There are ZERO barriers to entry for a woman interested in doing so. You dont need anyone's permission. You dont need money. All you need is Time, and Interest in doing so.
Women generally arent interested in "hard science" type stuff. Sure, SOME are, but the majority simply are not INTERESTED. feminazis will want to scream that is sexist, blah blah. But simple facts, are not sexist. they simply are. Reinforcement of this can be found by looking at the small areas where women ARE getting involved in open source the most. I havent done an extensive study on this, but I've noticed a trend on the handful of "women in open source" articles over the last few months. The women pulled up as examples, are primarily working on... social networking/forum/blog type software.
Hmm. startling news. Not. Women get involved in what interests them. That sort of stuff interests them. But the majority of FOSS projects, do not interest them. So, they dont participate. Mystery solved.
Feminists always seem to be desperate to prove that "men and women are the same", reguardless of facts. Well guess what? They are NOT THE SAME. This is obvious to any 5 year old, unless they fall into the clutches of the "womyn" brainwashing troups.
I have a fujitsu tablet running "xp tablet edition".
the handwriting recognition is actually VERY GOOD.
It's just slower than I type. since I type fast, and i type a lot, this is a drawback. But when I'm on the road, and not expecting to do a LOT of typing... i like the tablet.
The real question is, why should everyone in the world give a creator a monopoly over his work, merely because he created it? The natural state of a work is the public domain, where everyone can enjoy it.
"natural" isnt always best. It's better to go by what is best for society overall.
A few historical analysises were done, on why technology spread and developed so well in Europe, compared to China. There were certain technologies developed in China, that were major "breakthroughs" in some areas... yet never really took off, until that technology was brought to Europe, and developed further.
The general consensus among scholars would seem to be that it was because of societal motivations, or lack thereof. In China at the time, there was a rigid "caste" like system. Once a peasant, always a peasant, and so on. There was only minimal motivation to "better yourself".. because there wasnt much of a place to go, if you did.
In contrast, once the merchants started taking off in europe, it was seen that if you could make money, you could get somewhere. better house, better life, etc. So there was much more of a drive to innovate and "get ahead".
Without SOME form of copyright, etc, it takes away the drive to do that sort of thing. Without that profit motivator, you are stuck with a feudal China type model, where only the people who are wealthy, and live a life of leasure, will have any incentive to tinker with the more "out there" type of things. Because if there's no profit motive to do that sort of thing.... then only people who dont need any more money... will be able to afford to do so.
FYI: solaris (Sun UNIX) allows you to set up a "custom scheduling class". you can define a process to get no more than X out of Y 'ticks' of the cpu , where you define both the 'X' and 'Y'.
Your "either/or" argument is flawed, because there are other possibilities for the bible, homosexuality, and God's intent.
There are lots of conditions where people are "born that way". For example, Science makes a claim that some people are "born" to be alchoholics.
That doesnt mean that those people are somehow "forced" to go drink 10 bottles of booze a day, or get government protection and subsidies for any booze habit they bring on themselves.
Whether or not someone is predisposed to be addicted to alchohol, does not force them to pick up a bottle and drink every day.
Similarly, whether or not someone is predisposed to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex or not, is irrelevant. What matters is what they choose to do about it. You may as well say, "well, God made me get born into a poor family. we have no money, so CLEARLY, God wants me to steal. Stealing must be ok with God, because I was born poor, and I gotta have money to live".
You may have waaaay more incentive to steal than others. but whether or not you steal, is a choice.
Attraction is involuntary. Having sex with someone, is a choice.
The bible doesnt say, "choose to do whatever makes you feel good". It asks us to choose to act in a manner that makes God pleased with us. Doing those actions (or refraining from those actions) may be more difficult for some people than for others. but it is still a choice on each person's part.
Whether or not someone is predetermined to have a sexual preference one way or the other, thus has no bearing on whether God approves or disapproves of it.
There. You now have "Debian userland, with Solaris's volume manager and kernel:-)
Re:Where are the differences? - not blastwave
on
Debian GNU/Solaris
·
· Score: 1
Solaris has an existing package management system and all the dependencies in this system are ignored or overwritten by the new system. Alternatively the new package management system will take over and require that it be used exclusively.
Blastwave uses the exact same package management and dependancy system as standard solaris: pkgadd/pkgrm.
it just uses a different delivery system: pkg-get.
Furthermore I need a method of doing a simple mass upgrade of packages.
"pkg-get upgrade".
(which covers all non-OS packages, ie: blastwave packages)
embryonic stem cell research is getting funding. its just not getting FEDERAL funding. So dont claim "oh, it would work great if it just got more money".
If you just look at the numbers, then "large numbers of people" pretty much ensures that a large percentage OF those people, are stupid. So if anything, open sources projects with large numbers of people, are MORE likely to be stupid.
To put it another way... someone famous said, "An individual is intelligent. But 'people' are dumb"
"And YES, religion is separate from government, and NO, there are no exceptions."
This is unacceptibly stated. People have taken things like this to mean, "no person who is not an atheist, may hold public office". Or along the same lines, "If someones personal values overlap with a common religious denomination's values, that value is somehow 'invalid'".
Neither of the above interpretations is appropriate for the current constitution, nor should they be acceptible for any future constitution.
George Bush has nothing against stem cell funding.
he's for stem cell research. He's just against
Embryonic stem cell research.
And so what? non-embryonic stem cell research is the stuff that's actually doing useful things!
Actually curing people!
The special interests just want embryonic research to forward cloning research. but they're selling it falsely as "the thing that would have saved Christopher Reeve" and the like. That is so phony... and yet the liberal media is playing right along and not pointing out the facts that there is a different in the first place, and that it is the adult stem cell research that shows the most promise in those areas.
"open source politics", basically can be restated as "democracy".
Note that the US does **NOT** have democracy. It has a republic. Note that most people in the US have actually said this hundreds of time without thinking: ".. and to the Republic, for which it stands..."
The thing is, if everyones vote was required on every issue... many issues would either not get properly voted on, or would get voted on badly.
And then there's the old Roman perspective. Something along the lines of "Let the people vote, and all they will vote for is bread and circuses". [eg: all short term pleasure with no long-term responsabilities].
Unfortunately, that sort of thing assumes that the rational alternative is to have responsible people in charge, making rational decisions for the benefit of the nation.
Too bad that it seems inevitable that in any nation of decent size, the corrupt will always band together to get power, rather than the "benevolent ruler(s)" perspective often wished for.
think about what if someone took GPL code, reformatted it, and then renamed every variable.
THere is then not a single line of code that is the same as the original. SO pearpc might actually have a strict definition sense of "It isnt PearPC code".
How does [the catholic church reprimanding someone who claims to be a follower of it, not following catholic doctrine] equal "the catholic church wants to be very much in control of the state" ?
The catholic church is attempting to show equal enforcement of its rules, by insisting that someone who claims to be a member, stick to the actual rules that members of the catholic church are supposed to follow. If they didnt, they'd be hyppocrites. But since they do, it's just Kerry that's a Hyppocrit.
(It's ludicrous for him to claim he is a catholic. His PARENTS were catholic, but he is anything but. For many reasons, but in this subtopic, because he is openly pro-abortion. It's one thing to not be "strongly pro-life". But to be vocally AGAINST it, is to disqualify yourself from being a Catholic. Just as being for "no-fault divorce" would, for example.)
Slashdot Mirror
well, if you want "fast and simple to use [install of software packages]", you can use pkg-get and opencsw.org, for solaris.
(regular, or opensolaris)
"Free software is one of the few examples in the world of successful communism at work:"
No it isnt. specifically, GPL is. But not all "free software" is GPL'd or equivalent.
"The emotional lozenge of the GPL: "at least my code, and anything based on it, will always be free"."
personally, as a software author, I'd rather have, "at least my code, will always be MINE".
The GPL takes that away from me, and substitutes, "my code, will now always belong to everyone ELSE"(ie: pure communism). Which is why I avoid the GPL.
Not because I am anti-communism specifically, but simply because I like My code,to STAY My code.
not true.
A subset of "quality", in the software world, is "consistency of interface".
For those people who want "frobnotz -a" to always work the same way, GUARANTEED, that is a very important aspect of "quality" that they care about.
Now, not everyone has the same criteria by which they judge "quality". Obviously, this isnt one of yours. But it is one for other people/businesses.
how do you feel about an "open source fork of your work, without your consent"?
If you are okay with one, but not the other.. why?
And yet ironically, getting a Philosophy degree is just dumb!
[It screams, "Hi! I have no intention of actually *working* for a living, I like to just sit around depressing myself with how much belly button lint I have"]
Basically, they want people doing game design courses to practice on their engine and not something free.
Which is a really really important strategic move. Because the primary motivator for creation of free software, is NEED. So if they reduce, or better yet eliminate, the "need" for people doing classwork to have a free-software based engine, then they have significantly reduced potential future competition in the engine market.
Potential competition that will eventually always "win", all other things being equal, because... it's free, ya know.
I personally LIKE the redirect. I LIKE only inputting my credit card/whatnot information to paypal.com directly, instead of some random site that I'm doing a one-time transaction with and will probably never see again.
it would sound ridiculous... because to "replace women with blacks or gays" is a ridiculous thing to do.
"Hey I know, lets take an article about eskimos, and replace 'eskimo', with 'pregnant teenager'. Wow, it sounds totally off! Well that must mean the original article is totally wrong then."
if you cant debate an article on the specific points of the article, rather than making ludicrous comparisons, or kneejerk labelling them "sexist", then you've already lost the argument.
That happens regularly in the United States already. Every 4 years, in fact.
There are actually two issues buried in the one
One issue is, "why are the number of female FOSS developers so low?"
The other is, "are open software developers sexist?"
I would suggest that the "answer" to the latter one, is "no more than a random sample of males of similar age groups and location"
I would also suggest that the "answer" to the former one is, "because most women just arent interested in doing it".
At its core, "FOSS" software, starts as a project by an individual. There are ZERO barriers to entry for a woman interested in doing so. You dont need anyone's permission. You dont need money. All you need is Time, and Interest in doing so.
Women generally arent interested in "hard science" type stuff. Sure, SOME are, but the majority simply are not INTERESTED.
feminazis will want to scream that is sexist, blah blah. But simple facts, are not sexist. they simply are.
Reinforcement of this can be found by looking at the small areas where women ARE getting involved in open source the most.
I havent done an extensive study on this, but I've noticed a trend on the handful of "women in open source" articles over the last few months. The women pulled up as examples, are primarily working on... social networking/forum/blog type software.
Hmm. startling news. Not.
Women get involved in what interests them. That sort of stuff interests them. But the majority of FOSS projects, do not interest them. So, they dont participate. Mystery solved.
Feminists always seem to be desperate to prove that "men and women are the same", reguardless of facts.
Well guess what? They are NOT THE SAME. This is obvious to any 5 year old, unless they fall into the clutches of the "womyn" brainwashing troups.
I have a fujitsu tablet running "xp tablet edition".
the handwriting recognition is actually VERY GOOD.
It's just slower than I type. since I type fast, and i type a lot, this is a drawback.
But when I'm on the road, and not expecting to do a LOT of typing... i like the tablet.
The real question is, why should everyone in the world give a creator a monopoly over his work, merely because he created it? The natural state of a work is the public domain, where everyone can enjoy it.
"natural" isnt always best. It's better to go by what is best for society overall.
A few historical analysises were done, on why technology spread and developed so well in Europe, compared to China.
There were certain technologies developed in China, that were major "breakthroughs" in some areas... yet never really took off, until that technology was brought to Europe, and developed further.
The general consensus among scholars would seem to be that it was because of societal motivations, or lack thereof.
In China at the time, there was a rigid "caste" like system. Once a peasant, always a peasant, and so on. There was only minimal motivation to "better yourself".. because there wasnt much of a place to go, if you did.
In contrast, once the merchants started taking off in europe, it was seen that if you could make money, you could get somewhere. better house, better life, etc. So there was much more of a drive to innovate and "get ahead".
Without SOME form of copyright, etc, it takes away the drive to do that sort of thing.
Without that profit motivator, you are stuck with a feudal China type model, where only the people who are wealthy, and live a life of leasure, will have any incentive to tinker with the more "out there" type of things. Because if there's no profit motive to do that sort of thing.... then only people who dont need any more money... will be able to afford to do so.
FYI: solaris (Sun UNIX) allows you to set up a "custom scheduling class". you can define a process to get no more than X out of Y 'ticks' of the cpu , where you define both the 'X' and 'Y'.
Your "either/or" argument is flawed, because there are other possibilities for the bible, homosexuality, and God's intent.
There are lots of conditions where people are "born that way". For example, Science makes a claim that some people are "born" to be alchoholics.
That doesnt mean that those people are somehow "forced" to go drink 10 bottles of booze a day, or get government protection and subsidies for any booze habit they bring on themselves.
Whether or not someone is predisposed to be addicted to alchohol, does not force them to pick up a bottle and drink every day.
Similarly, whether or not someone is predisposed to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex or not, is irrelevant. What matters is what they choose to do about it.
You may as well say, "well, God made me get born into a poor family. we have no money, so CLEARLY, God wants me to steal. Stealing must be ok with God, because I was born poor, and I gotta have money to live".
You may have waaaay more incentive to steal than others. but whether or not you steal, is a choice.
Attraction is involuntary. Having sex with someone, is a choice.
The bible doesnt say, "choose to do whatever makes you feel good". It asks us to choose to act in a manner that makes God pleased with us.
Doing those actions (or refraining from those actions) may be more difficult for some people than for others. but it is still a choice on each person's part.
Whether or not someone is predetermined to have a sexual preference one way or the other, thus has no bearing on whether God approves or disapproves of it.
you run sun's "patchmanager". autograbs "the latest" patches and installs if thats what you want.
verify this patch cluster doesn't break any of your Sun applications
As opposed to "verifying the latest linux kernel patch doesnt break app [foo]". no win for linux there either.
# pkg-get install all
b in:$PATH
:-)
$ PATH=/opt/csw/bin:/opt/csw/kde-gcc/bin:/opt/csw/s
There. You now have "Debian userland, with Solaris's volume manager and kernel
Blastwave uses the exact same package management and dependancy system as standard solaris: pkgadd/pkgrm. it just uses a different delivery system: pkg-get.
Furthermore I need a method of doing a simple mass upgrade of packages.
"pkg-get upgrade".
(which covers all non-OS packages, ie: blastwave packages)
embryonic stem cell research is getting funding. its just not getting FEDERAL funding.
So dont claim "oh, it would work great if it just got more money".
If you just look at the numbers, then "large numbers of people" pretty much ensures that a large percentage OF those people, are stupid. So if anything, open sources projects with large numbers of people, are MORE likely to be stupid.
To put it another way... someone famous said,
"An individual is intelligent. But 'people' are dumb"
This is unacceptibly stated. People have taken things like this to mean, "no person who is not an atheist, may hold public office". Or along the same lines, "If someones personal values overlap with a common religious denomination's values, that value is somehow 'invalid'".
Neither of the above interpretations is appropriate for the current constitution, nor should they be acceptible for any future constitution.
George Bush has nothing against stem cell funding. he's for stem cell research. He's just against Embryonic stem cell research.
And so what? non-embryonic stem cell research is the stuff that's actually doing useful things! Actually curing people!
The special interests just want embryonic research to forward cloning research. but they're selling it falsely as "the thing that would have saved Christopher Reeve" and the like. That is so phony... and yet the liberal media is playing right along and not pointing out the facts that there is a different in the first place, and that it is the adult stem cell research that shows the most promise in those areas.
"open source politics", basically can be restated as "democracy".
.. and to the Republic, for which it stands..."
Note that the US does **NOT** have democracy. It has a republic. Note that most people in the US have actually said this hundreds of time without thinking:
"
The thing is, if everyones vote was required on every issue... many issues would either not get properly voted on, or would get voted on badly.
And then there's the old Roman perspective. Something along the lines of "Let the people vote, and all they will vote for is bread and circuses".
[eg: all short term pleasure with no long-term responsabilities].
Unfortunately, that sort of thing assumes that the rational alternative is to have responsible people in charge, making rational decisions for the benefit of the nation.
Too bad that it seems inevitable that in any nation of decent size, the corrupt will always band together to get power, rather than the "benevolent ruler(s)" perspective often wished for.
think about what if someone took GPL code, reformatted it, and then renamed every variable.
THere is then not a single line of code that is the same as the original. SO pearpc might actually have a strict definition sense of "It isnt PearPC code".
How does [the catholic church reprimanding someone who claims to be a follower of it, not following catholic doctrine] equal "the catholic church wants to be very much in control of the state" ?
The catholic church is attempting to show equal enforcement of its rules, by insisting that someone who claims to be a member, stick to the actual rules that members of the catholic church are supposed to follow. If they didnt, they'd be hyppocrites. But since they do, it's just Kerry that's a Hyppocrit.
(It's ludicrous for him to claim he is a catholic. His PARENTS were catholic, but he is anything but. For many reasons, but in this subtopic, because he is openly pro-abortion. It's one thing to not be "strongly pro-life". But to be vocally AGAINST it, is to disqualify yourself from being a Catholic. Just as being for "no-fault divorce" would, for example.)
I never said anything about majorities, and lawmaking thereof. I spoke of reason. "the majority" has made quite a few stupid laws.