I put my embedded work under GPL and actually managed to get some funding. If it's GPL, people have to talk to you to use it commercially, you know?
No, I dont know. Sounds like you should talk to a lawyer to explain what the GPL actually does. No-one needs to talk to you to use your GPL'd stuff commercially. That fact that they do, means that either those companies dont have competant programmers in your coding area, or they dont have competant lawyers:->
So choose wisely, chose GPL.
Choose poorly (you'll probably stay poor, like the LRP guy!), choose GPL.
In quickly scanning through the scant info they have on the new core developers site, it looks like they have a slightly adapted "internet bubble business plan":
1. Dedicate self to just doing "Open Source" work 2. ??? 3. Profit!
Yeah, okay, they are associated with existing projects. But the site makes it sound like they are running a business, but they as yet have no proven business *product* unique to themselves.
well, more of a movie projection,I guess. But Knotts Berry Farm (I think) in southern california, has (had?) a display with an alleged old indian shaman as narrator, that was effectively a 3d movie, without special glasses or anything. Quite solid-looking. It's really weird that the company hasnt been more prominent. I think the company was called "Virtual Light" or something like that.
The whole thing was done up to look like a stage presentation, behind a glass box, elevated to the middle of a wall. Except if you looked at the depth of the wall from outside, there was no way the stage would fit in the wall;-) It was that realistic, that you would really have no idea just by looking at it. They had fancy fake smoke effects, which were the obvious "illusion". but I think the shaman himself was also a recording. If so, that makes it a really really good holo-display.
So Debian is not a GPLed distro? I thought you could do whatever you felt like with GLPed stuff?
You can change the code however you want. You can redistribute it however you want. But you cant change it, AND call it debian, without the permission of Debian. That's trademark infringement, and has little or nothing to do with copyright. GPL is about copyright.
"Trusted Debian" is calling it Debian.
"Trusted Deb" would be marginal, but possibly pass, as might "TrustyDeb" or something like that.
Oh, and by the way, "Debian" != "GPL". There is GPL code in the Debian distro, but that does not mean everything in Debian is GPL. Just as "GPL" is NOT interchangable with "Free Software" is not interchangable with "Open Software" is not the same as "Open Source".
And for you math weenies; no, "Free Software" != "Open Source" as well;-)
Good point. But if that is the case, they should not be able to have "Debian" in the name. They should only be able to use "Debian" in a product name, if it has been approved by Debian. (And I mean 'should' in the LEGAL sense, not just the moral sense)
I forgot to mention in my original article, that "Trusted BSD" strives to meet the same security standards that Trusted Solaris does. "Mandatory Access Controls" and all that fun stuff.
The naming of this subproject is either poorly thought out, or just downright underhanded.
"Trusted Debian" is clearly targetted to compete with "Trusted Solaris" and "Trusted(?name right?) BSD". However, "Trusted Solaris" has been CERTIFIED to meet B2 level security criteria. There is no mention of any such certification, either performed, or in progress, on the project's home page. It is just a collection of security enhancements and tweaks that is "hoped" will merit the system being trusted, but I see no formal proof or audit of that.
Re:lost of links to lots of places.
on
XFree86 Politics
·
· Score: 1
"Compared to KDE"??
yes, lets compare KDE. There were patches submitted for KDE to compile using Sun's compiler, for KDE3.0.
no, it's not really because he fixes cars. It's just a 'PeeCee' (heh) excuse he uses to justify his not trusting you because you're a girl. I'm sorry for you.
PS: You might say the subject line of this thread is particularly apropos to your situation. heh.
That bit killed the book for me. Pi is a universal number, it contains all the patterns that you want. Moreover God could not change the value of Pi even if He wanted to. (let Pi be three. Right).
You've missed two very fundamental things:
1. The premise was, I believe, that the universe was made that way in the first place, not that pi was "changed".
2. what the heck gives you insight into what God can and cannot do with the universe??? your extensive cosmos creation experience?
These days, it is easy to both put together semi-realistic computer-simulated worlds, then play with "what happens if the frictional coefficient is x.5 instead of x?" The Creator of EVERYTHING, should have no more difficulty doing such a thing to the "real" world.
This one should not require much "thinking" to sort out.
Most of the biblical laws are for our own good. If we dont keep them, we just hurt ourselves a bit.
But on the other side of the spectrum, there arent too many things that are both against the biblical law, AND are described as an abomination before God. Homosexual acts are squarely in that very small category.
A postscript to all those kneejerk "activists" who use this sort of a reply as "See! those durn bible-thumpers, blindly hating homosexuals..."
The bible says that homosexual acts are aginst God, and bad. It doesnt say that people with homosexual tendancies, or preferences, are inherently evil. It says that the decision to act upon those feelings is bad. [in other words, "hating homosexuals" is unbiblical. Or at least, unChristian]
Just as merely thinking about a crime doesnt get you put in jail, but actually committing a crime does... thinking or having feelings that way is not the main part of the issue in the bible, but acting on them certainly is.
The bible also says that you should stone adulters to death. Just because we dont do that any more, doesnt mean adultery is suddenly "okay" now by christian standards.
The article you link to is an uninformed one. It claims/implies that the judeo-christian bias against homosexuality is because "all sex must take place within a marriage and then denies that state of marriage to homosexuals. " (and thus, homosexuality is bad, simply because it is "sex outside of marriage")
The judeo-christian viewpoint against homosexuality is not because of cute little legalities like that one, but because in the bible, God explicitly prohibits homosexual acts.
As an example, my work uses a censorware package that blocks access to some sites related to breast cancer. That might be OK in an office, but it's a big problem for us because we're a cancer hospital with a research institute.)
The problem is not that your office uses an internet filter. THe problem is that your office uses a BAD internet filter.
A goodfilter would allow you to submit a request, and the product maintainers would update the online site block lists in a day.
If this sort of thing is crutial to your operations, then you hire a full-time person to field those requests in-house, and then you should be able to get access to the sites in an hour or less.
The problem is not filtering, the problem is stupid (or cheap) filtering.
But in libraries, that is not a problem.
Internet access is a secondary thing. libraries are supposed to be where people go to READ BOOKS.
If internet access for everyone is *THAT* important, it should be important enough to have separate unfiltered, vs filtered, rooms for internet access.
If the issue isnt important enough to go to those lengths, then it just plain isnt important enough for this whole "discussion". Get rid of those stupid lawyers, and stop bogging down the public library system with the costs of lawsuits like this.
you're right. there arent 5 linux kernel forks. There are MORE THAN 5 kernel forks. There are three "well-known" ones, and I'm sure there are hordes (heh) of lesser known ones.
we [linux users] still use Nvidia: because Nvidia supports our grass roots movement more.
How ironic (and actually close to the true meaning of ironic, for once.)
Yes, nvidia "supports linux". But I thought the "grass roots movement" was about "free, opensource software". Nvidia's support certainly does NOT fall into that category.
you might say that microsoft has an "outsourced" R&D department. the only thing is, the guys on the outside of microsoft, dont actually realize they're doing the work for microsoft at the time...
Slashdot Mirror
No, I dont know. Sounds like you should talk to a lawyer to explain what the GPL actually does. No-one needs to talk to you to use your GPL'd stuff commercially. That fact that they do, means that either those companies dont have competant programmers in your coding area, or they dont have competant lawyers :->
So choose wisely, chose GPL.
Choose poorly (you'll probably stay poor, like the LRP guy!), choose GPL.
In quickly scanning through the scant info they have on the new core developers site, it looks like they have a slightly adapted "internet bubble business plan":
1. Dedicate self to just doing "Open Source" work
2. ???
3. Profit!
Yeah, okay, they are associated with existing projects. But the site makes it sound like they are running a business, but they as yet have no proven business *product* unique to themselves.
well, more of a movie projection,I guess. But Knotts Berry Farm (I think) in southern california, has (had?) a display with an alleged old indian shaman as narrator, that was effectively a 3d movie, without special glasses or anything. Quite solid-looking. It's really weird that the company hasnt been more prominent. I think the company was called "Virtual Light" or something like that.
;-) It was that realistic, that you would really have no idea just by looking at it. They had fancy fake smoke effects, which were the obvious "illusion". but I think the shaman himself was also a recording. If so, that makes it a really really good holo-display.
The whole thing was done up to look like a stage presentation, behind a glass box, elevated to the middle of a wall. Except if you looked at the depth of the wall from outside, there was no way the stage would fit in the wall
You can change the code however you want. You can redistribute it however you want. But you cant change it, AND call it debian, without the permission of Debian. That's trademark infringement, and has little or nothing to do with copyright. GPL is about copyright.
"Trusted Debian" is calling it Debian. "Trusted Deb" would be marginal, but possibly pass, as might "TrustyDeb" or something like that.
Oh, and by the way, "Debian" != "GPL". There is GPL code in the Debian distro, but that does not mean everything in Debian is GPL. Just as "GPL" is NOT interchangable with "Free Software" is not interchangable with "Open Software" is not the same as "Open Source".
And for you math weenies; no, "Free Software" != "Open Source" as well ;-)
They are? I dont remember seeing any mass gripes about it on debian-devel. Or private, for that matter.
Good point. But if that is the case, they should not be able to have "Debian" in the name. They should only be able to use "Debian" in a product name, if it has been approved by Debian. (And I mean 'should' in the LEGAL sense, not just the moral sense)
Microsoft got C2 certification for a specific NT configuration a while back, and only when NOT CONNECTED TO A NETWORK!!
'C' levels are nowhere close to 'B' levels.
I forgot to mention in my original article, that "Trusted BSD" strives to meet the same security standards that Trusted Solaris does.
"Mandatory Access Controls" and all that fun stuff.
[www.trustedbsd.org]
So, "Trusted Debian" is the odd man out.
The naming of this subproject is either poorly thought out, or just downright underhanded.
"Trusted Debian" is clearly targetted to compete with "Trusted Solaris" and "Trusted(?name right?) BSD". However, "Trusted Solaris" has been CERTIFIED to meet B2 level security criteria. There is no mention of any such certification, either performed, or in progress, on the project's home page. It is just a collection of security enhancements and tweaks that is "hoped" will merit the system being trusted, but I see no formal proof or audit of that.
"Compared to KDE"??
yes, lets compare KDE. There were patches submitted for KDE to compile using Sun's compiler, for KDE3.0.
Did they make it into KDE3.0.x? no
Are they in KDE3.1? no.
Look at the bright side. Done right, the fork could give the green light to clear out some major cruft.
It could be the best thing to happen to UNIX graphics in a long time.
no, it's not really because he fixes cars. It's just a 'PeeCee' (heh) excuse he uses to justify his not trusting you because you're a girl. I'm sorry for you.
PS: You might say the subject line of this thread is particularly apropos to your situation. heh.
Depends if the "system administrator" position, is part "systems engineer"/"systems programmer".
The best sysadmins will know how to code, and code well. These days, that means they probably have a CS degree too.
But I'm not biased or anything ;-)
You've missed two very fundamental things:
1. The premise was, I believe, that the universe was made that way in the first place, not that pi was "changed".
2. what the heck gives you insight into what God can and cannot do with the universe??? your extensive cosmos creation experience?
These days, it is easy to both put together semi-realistic computer-simulated worlds, then play with "what happens if the frictional coefficient is x.5 instead of x?" The Creator of EVERYTHING, should have no more difficulty doing such a thing to the "real" world.
Most of the biblical laws are for our own good. If we dont keep them, we just hurt ourselves a bit.
But on the other side of the spectrum, there arent too many things that are both against the biblical law, AND are described as an abomination before God. Homosexual acts are squarely in that very small category.
A postscript to all those kneejerk "activists" who use this sort of a reply as "See! those durn bible-thumpers, blindly hating homosexuals..."
The bible says that homosexual acts are aginst God, and bad. It doesnt say that people with homosexual tendancies, or preferences, are inherently evil. It says that the decision to act upon those feelings is bad. [in other words, "hating homosexuals" is unbiblical. Or at least, unChristian]
Just as merely thinking about a crime doesnt get you put in jail, but actually committing a crime does... thinking or having feelings that way is not the main part of the issue in the bible, but acting on them certainly is.
Damn straight... I NEVER drink red wine! :-)
a nice Rhinewine could go well, I'd imagine...
Hey, that IS realistic. He was a contractor, wasnt he? :-)
The bible also says that you should stone adulters to death. Just because we dont do that any more, doesnt mean adultery is suddenly "okay" now by christian standards.
The article you link to is an uninformed one. It claims/implies that the judeo-christian bias against homosexuality is because "all sex must take place within a marriage and then denies that state of marriage to homosexuals. "
(and thus, homosexuality is bad, simply because it is "sex outside of marriage")
The judeo-christian viewpoint against homosexuality is not because of cute little legalities like that one, but because in the bible, God explicitly prohibits homosexual acts.
The problem is not that your office uses an internet filter. THe problem is that your office uses a BAD internet filter.
A goodfilter would allow you to submit a request, and the product maintainers would update the online site block lists in a day.
If this sort of thing is crutial to your operations, then you hire a full-time person to field those requests in-house, and then you should be able to get access to the sites in an hour or less.
The problem is not filtering, the problem is stupid (or cheap) filtering.
But in libraries, that is not a problem. Internet access is a secondary thing. libraries are supposed to be where people go to READ BOOKS.
If internet access for everyone is *THAT* important, it should be important enough to have separate unfiltered, vs filtered, rooms for internet access.
If the issue isnt important enough to go to those lengths, then it just plain isnt important enough for this whole "discussion". Get rid of those stupid lawyers, and stop bogging down the public library system with the costs of lawsuits like this.
When gnome was first developed, its fanatics^H^H^H^Hsupporters used to always claim "use GNOME, because it's less bloated than CDE!!!"
Funny how you dont hear that any more...
But mozilla uses gtk, so it doesnt completely ignore gnome.
you're right. there arent 5 linux kernel forks. There are MORE THAN 5 kernel forks. There are three "well-known" ones, and I'm sure there are hordes (heh) of lesser known ones.
How ironic (and actually close to the true meaning of ironic, for once.)
Yes, nvidia "supports linux". But I thought the "grass roots movement" was about "free, opensource software". Nvidia's support certainly does NOT fall into that category.
It's called "R&D"
you might say that microsoft has an "outsourced" R&D department. the only thing is, the guys on the outside of microsoft, dont actually realize they're doing the work for microsoft at the time...