Debian has this menus program. When you install a X program on Debian, a new menu item will be created which is available no matter which WM you are using (I tried KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment and WindowMaker).
Debian also supports dependency checks and downloads.
Well, I don't know if it counts, but LucasArts recently released Monkey Island (Escape from Monkey Island). Still funny as heck.
And they fixed the main problem with going over to mouse, IMO.
In the old adventure games, you have to know what to pick up, to pick up something, like type "Pick up key". The problem with mouse, was that you could just move the mouse over the screen and right click on whatever to pick it up. In Monkey Island, they fixed it so that, Treepod has to look at something before it is visible to be picked up. Works great.
Moderator wanted people to toe the party line: America great, everybody else, sucks, unless told otherwise by an American (American being defined as anybody who is a citizen of USA, and pastywhite)
When did "Flame" ever stand for "an intelligent, almost literary rebuttal"? Please take off your rosy, romantic glasses and look at the past as it was.
Look at DECSS - a 16 year old cracked it without too much trouble.
In the DECSS case, a 16 years old didn't crack it without trouble. The group he was part of cracked it. The guy only wrote the front end, and a 40 years old guy in Italy who wrote the actual DECSS code, but the media focused on the 16 years old, because it looks cooler.
My understanding is that v1.0 of the specs specified http as the protocol, and version v1.1 got rid of that specification. I don't think v1.1 of the specifications are out yet (might be wrong).
My point is, it's *stupid* to ask legal advice on a public forum because you don't know the quality of the advice you're getting.
With the FSF, you know the quality of the advice, and they could have clarified any questions you might have on the license, especially what they mean by owner etc.
Why don't you ask the FSF since they wrote the license, about advice? WHy ask/. where the answer might or might not mean anything, and the value of the answer is questionable at best.
Debian does not commit a Red Hat-ism and package such awful software renames like kgcc
Really? I could have sworn that OpenSHH was renamed ssh, and ssh renamed ssh-NON-FREE. Which, of course, was an improvement over previously, where ssh was called ssh2.
How come most/.'ers are falling over eachother telling how it's a) Microsoft's fault, b) users' fault, c) it doesn't really costs money (all excaggarated anyways), but when it comes to spam it suddenly cost money?
Both cases, admin can do something about it (reject spam mail by subscribing to MAPS, don't allow VBS attachments), and the user has to do something (delete the file when it arrives).
Could it be because viruses for the most part hits Microsoft OS, while spam affects everybody?
Couple of points (which seems to fly over your head):
1) One of the points with free software and napster is that me using/sharing the music/software has no effect on you. You don't lose anything by me sharing the music because you can still sell your copy. I keep hearing this argument cropping up again and again.
Does it dawn on you yet what I'm trying to get at?
Microsoft using the BSD TCP/IP stack has no effect on *BSD. The code doesn't magically disappear because Microsoft use it.
How is this different from Redhat using GPL code?
Or is the objection mostly because Microsoft is using the code?
In both cases, you have commercial entities using code, in such a way which the license allows them too.
instead of coding themselves, it took less time to take someone else's free code, change the license and sell it.
2) On the BIND thread, some people are suggesting forking the code and slapping the GPL on it. How is that different? Both times you go against the implicit wishes of the original author.
If it was Linux code it would be called theft
RMS calls it misuse, not theft.
Do you even code, or are you mostly one of those cheerleaders who don't contribute anything but flames?
Yes, see Microsoft Windows TCP/IP.
Where's the source?
I'm confused. So, the BSD people had rewrite the TCP/IP when Microsoft started using the BSD TCP/IP? Or did the fact that Microsoft starting using the BSD TCP/IP have NO EFFECT on *BSD at all?
It's insurance that control of the free OS world won't be captured by some corporation(s).
Please explain how a corporation can 'capture' *BSD? Does the code suddenly disappear when a corporation distribute a binary without releasing the source?
If you're going to believe the discussion from two days back, it seems most people are willing to continue using BIND because
a) it's GPL (which overrides any securiy problems anytime)
b) the secure alternative is not GPL
c) it's been pounced on so much so far, surely it has to be secure by now (well, until the next security bug shows up at least. Go back to a) if you have any doubts).
Slashdot Mirror
b) and c) is already supported on Debian.
Debian has this menus program. When you install a X program on Debian, a new menu item will be created which is available no matter which WM you are using (I tried KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment and WindowMaker).
Debian also supports dependency checks and downloads.
Well, I don't know if it counts, but LucasArts recently released Monkey Island (Escape from Monkey Island). Still funny as heck.
And they fixed the main problem with going over to mouse, IMO.
In the old adventure games, you have to know what to pick up, to pick up something, like type "Pick up key". The problem with mouse, was that you could just move the mouse over the screen and right click on whatever to pick it up. In Monkey Island, they fixed it so that, Treepod has to look at something before it is visible to be picked up. Works great.
Moderator wanted people to toe the party line: America great, everybody else, sucks, unless told otherwise by an American (American being defined as anybody who is a citizen of USA, and pastywhite)
When did "Flame" ever stand for "an intelligent, almost literary rebuttal"? Please take off your rosy, romantic glasses and look at the past as it was.
Flames have always stood for personal attacks.
Look at DECSS - a 16 year old cracked it without too much trouble.
In the DECSS case, a 16 years old didn't crack it without trouble. The group he was part of cracked it. The guy only wrote the front end, and a 40 years old guy in Italy who wrote the actual DECSS code, but the media focused on the 16 years old, because it looks cooler.
My understanding is that v1.0 of the specs specified http as the protocol, and version v1.1 got rid of that specification. I don't think v1.1 of the specifications are out yet (might be wrong).
Well, it's not like there are any good alternatives to Forte C++ compiler on Solaris.
Hopefully, this will change when GCC3.0 gets releases...
Agree that the price is somewhat steep though.
With the resurgence of Robotech (heard they are
making a 3D Robotech ala Transformers), what's
the chance of reviving the Sentinels storyline?
I read the books, and they would be awesome (read
some of the comic books based on the outlines too).
My point is, it's *stupid* to ask legal advice on a public forum because you don't know the quality of the advice you're getting.
With the FSF, you know the quality of the advice, and they could have clarified any questions you might have on the license, especially what they mean by owner etc.
Why don't you ask the FSF since they wrote the license, about advice? WHy ask /. where the answer might or might not mean anything, and the value of the answer is questionable at best.
It's both. It's turn based when you play the board, and when you attack an, it's real-time while you organize your troops.
Think Master of Orion, but with real time battles.
Did you read the article?
The Mercury article is more mainstream than say, Slashdot or LinuxNews. Not everybody knows what the FSF stands for.
I thought he made it pretty clear, and though I disagree with some of the stuff RMS and FSF says, I thought the article was pretty good.
And HURD wasn't mention at ALL.
No problem here. I compile my kernels using gcc 2.95.2 (from Debian potato).
I don't think you can compile it with the 'new' compiler that came with Redhat 7.0, but I'm not sure.
How do you steal a BSD licensed software?
Do you forbid the author from further development of his software or something?
Time to set my source.list file to sid :-0
sxpert wrote that "applications that rely on bugs should die and be forgotten".
Should Linux die and be forgotten?
On my system, I have 558 different packages. To compile all of them from source would take days, if not weeks (I know compiling X would 3+ hours).
It's nice that you have the time to recompile all your programs from source. I don't.
Then these (badly written) applications that rely on bugs should die and be forgotten
Didn't earlier version of the Linux kernel (I think pre-2.2) rely on bugs in GCC to compile?
One of the reasons you can't take the latest GCC and compile pre-2.2 with.
Really? I could have sworn that OpenSHH was renamed ssh, and ssh renamed ssh-NON-FREE. Which, of course, was an improvement over previously, where ssh was called ssh2.
How come most /.'ers are falling over eachother telling how it's a) Microsoft's fault, b) users' fault, c) it doesn't really costs money (all excaggarated anyways), but when it comes to spam it suddenly cost money?
Both cases, admin can do something about it (reject spam mail by subscribing to MAPS, don't allow VBS attachments), and the user has to do something (delete the file when it arrives).
Could it be because viruses for the most part hits Microsoft OS, while spam affects everybody?
Hypocritical maybe?
Yes. Does UserFriendly ring a bell?
1) One of the points with free software and napster is that me using/sharing the music/software has no effect on you. You don't lose anything by me sharing the music because you can still sell your copy. I keep hearing this argument cropping up again and again. Does it dawn on you yet what I'm trying to get at?
Microsoft using the BSD TCP/IP stack has no effect on *BSD. The code doesn't magically disappear because Microsoft use it.
How is this different from Redhat using GPL code? Or is the objection mostly because Microsoft is using the code?
In both cases, you have commercial entities using code, in such a way which the license allows them too.
instead of coding themselves, it took less time to take someone else's free code, change the license and sell it.
2) On the BIND thread, some people are suggesting forking the code and slapping the GPL on it. How is that different? Both times you go against the implicit wishes of the original author.
If it was Linux code it would be called theft
RMS calls it misuse, not theft.
Do you even code, or are you mostly one of those cheerleaders who don't contribute anything but flames?
Where's the source?
I'm confused. So, the BSD people had rewrite the TCP/IP when Microsoft started using the BSD TCP/IP? Or did the fact that Microsoft starting using the BSD TCP/IP have NO EFFECT on *BSD at all?
Please explain how a corporation can 'capture' *BSD? Does the code suddenly disappear when a corporation distribute a binary without releasing the source?
If you're going to believe the discussion from two days back, it seems most people are willing to continue using BIND because
a) it's GPL (which overrides any securiy problems anytime)
b) the secure alternative is not GPL
c) it's been pounced on so much so far, surely it has to be secure by now (well, until the next security bug shows up at least. Go back to a) if you have any doubts).