I'm not so sure I would go as far as saying anyone is wrong to trade as much copyrighted music as possible, for two reasons:
1) A lot of parties want desperately to make sure intermachine communication never becomes "protected". For example, making it a crime to snoop network traffic between personal (as in "not at work") computers. Traditionally, "pirates" made money selling bootlegs. It is a modern phenomena that freely traded software and music (no profit motive) has become a crime. After all, the radio stations pay a pittance (and they earn PROFITS) for the right to distribute music to millions of people. Trading all music freely, and boycotting CDs, is a great way to bring this issue to the forefront -- "Does the government, or any other entity, have the right to control the information passed between two privately owned personal computers?" I say no -- if they suspect a crime, they need a warrant, etc. This decision, one way or the other, will have to come about some day.
2) Western tradition has many instances of "The People" getting fed up with racketeering capitalistic monopolies and taking the law in their own hands. People like you say "Well, if someone rips you off, don't buy anything there--just turn your back". This action may be valid for you, but not necessarily for someone else. Our culture has a long history of hatred, violence and law-breaking in the name of freedom or just exhaustion from the "gutting" these (few?) renegade corporations do to us. I simply WILL NOT abide by the rules as laid down by the RIAA. In my opinion, they are a far more criminal organization than any person trading copyrighted CDs for free. By their actions, thay may set a precedent for legalized corporate intrusion to our personal computers -- machines with microphones, and sometimes cameras attached--that will take hundreds of years to roll back.
The goal, as I see it, is for intermachine communication, of a non-commercial nature, be as protected as speech. No intrusion, for any reason, without a warrant, on a case-by-case basis. Let Let Lars, Mustaine, Dre and the RIAA search door-to-door for all I care. They have to ask for permission to enter my house--at least through the door. They can get their fscking nose out of my network.
By the way, here's a great piece of art that sums up what the RIAA thinks of your freedoms.
i was just using them as an example. some people like 'em.
as far as #1 being theft, i'm not so sure. i know the law is against the idea, but radios and libraries give away music all the time, and that is legal.
in my opinion, and i know it's probably against the law, as long as i don't profit from giving away music, even someone else's, or claim the product to be my own, it's legal.
that is my moral position. just as someone drives down the street blasting music out of their convertible, just as radio stations blast music to millions of listeners (and get charged a small fee while earning their revenue via advertising), just as libraries loan out CDs for no cost, i firmly have the belief i can distribute copywrited material from my personal server for other's personal use -- as long as there is no profit motive.
Websites serve copywrited material all the time. it travels through all kinds of devices and eventually resides on my machine. i do not claim to "own" it, by my machine may cache it (think squid) for others.
when my neihbors have a block party, they roll out the Altecs and crank up the Yamaha. i've never had to pay for that music.
well, in this case, i think a rousing chorus of "F*CK THE MAN" is in order. these are our machines, our servers, and bandwidth we paid for. as long as i don't claim to "own" the copyright, or profit from the distribution, or sell the CDs, i honestly thing the man can go f*ck himself.
why does a library, someone driving a car down the street, or (to a certain extent) a radio station have more "rights" than an computer-owning individual? they don't, they shouldn't and the b*llshit stops now.
i have already stopped buying new CDs of any kind. i plan on *carefully* buying CDs again at some point in the future, when i can verify that the RIAA does not have their hooks in it.
one reason i'm so hot on all this (and this is off-topic, i know) is the ongoing debate on legalizing drugs, particularly marijuana. seriously, i am convinced that there is a lot of money in enforcing these laws against non-violent/non-criminal users -- and to deny a mentally (or terminally) ill person marijuana is absolutely ludicrous. this is just another form of the same class of stupidity. it's control of your personal life for a profit motive.
the horrendous cost of all the police, lawyers, prisons, lost productivity due to the criminalization of drugs, not to mention the black market violence that it supports -- really, i'm starting to think orgs like "netPD" could make the net go the same way.
this has to stop! somehow, people need to consider how to stop this from steamrolling into (what could be) another drug war. some judge, or maybe the ACLU, has to step in soon and demand that personal, not-for-profit intermachine communication is STRICTLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH under the constitution. that means NO EAVESDROPPING without a court order, and NO CRIME unless there is money changing hands or a false claim of ownership.
Given that the RIAA has stolen and gouged customers and musicians for decades, there is only one reasonable way to stop them -- use ONLY free music.
Here are some ideas:
1) Check out as many cd's as possible from local libraries. Reduce them to mp3 format and place them on your own server. If you do not have access to a server for the necessary amount of time, burn copies of CDs and distribute them to your friends.
2) If you must buy CDs, do so only from used music stores or thrift shops that do not carry new CDs and are not paying the corporate music machine. This cuts the revenue stream to the RIAA corporations.
3) Enjoy free music from the mp3.com independant bands, rather than RIAA supported corporate music.
4) Consider researching/finding a radio plugin card that works under your OS of choice. Set it up such that a simple tap of a key starts/stops recording. With a decent radio station (that doesn't voice over the start and finish of songs) this could be an excellent source of free music for distribution via CD or server.
5) Above all, ridicule 'tallica and dre whenever and however possible -- independence and freedom were great things when these musicians were hungry, but know that they've had a taste of corporate greed, there's no way back.
The only way to stop the machine once the legal system starts supporting it is direct noncompliance. Insure that on a daily basis, you act to reduce the RIAA member's revenue streams wherever possible.
Should reasonable alternatives raise their head (limp bizkit) don't shy from buying their stuff! these are the musicians with guts.
Re:J. Edgar Hoover is a *perfect* example.
on
Product Placement
·
· Score: 2
that, and he looked good in a short skirt with high heels.
i never pay more than $200 or so for a car stereo, so as soon as a mp3 player hits that sweet spot i'm off to frys.
the CAJUN thing is cool, but it's too big for my vehicle.
mp3's are great, on some classical music i can really hear the difference (soft strings) otherwise i have reduced my entire collection of about 150 cd's onto about 12 cd's (not done yet).
i have put a hold on all new cd purchases until i see how the whole 'tallica/riaa/mp3 shit turns out.
mostly, i borrow all the cd's i can from my friends and reduce them to mp3 format, then give them a huge cd of mp3's.
radio stations pay relatively little for the right to serve your music to millions on a daily basis.
those people receiving the music often copy it onto tapes, play it for friends, blast the music out their windows while they drive the streets.
you say nothing about radio, but you're chomping at the bit to have laws passed that could literally devastate personal freedom on the internet.
i honesty think you have failed to understand the breadth/depth of the situation, and followed a course (on the advice of a lawyer) that may yield you great short term profits at the expense of long term...anything!
Regardless of distro, I always remove K* and qt* from it right away.
As I recall, it's something like $1550 per developer to develop closed source or commercial applications using the QT libs. That's a showstopper here.
Isn't gnome and glibc LGPL? that obviates the issue. If only there were some way to hack all the various C++/C libraries out there into something to replace Qt.
For a lot less than $1550 you can get a new copie of Win2K and VisualC++ pro, last time I checked pricewatch.
Otherwise, I'd be using KDevelop tomorrow...but nooooooooooo......
just out of curiosity, does it embarass you to go off on a completely off-topic tirade?
first of all, motif is not ugly when done right. netscape has a pleasant appearance; it's functional issues are netscape bugs, not Motif. if you don't realize how shitty the logic is in your reply, well, i'm not suprised.
there are third party file selectors that are much better. i agree i don't like the standard one, but that is neither here nor there. the actual look of most Motif projects is bad -- not because of Motif, but a failure of the programmer to understand the resources.
i will never understand how someone like you can read a post about Motif and go off on some bizarre tangent about Netscape's bugs.
communicator does not crash in 3 minutes -- it will, however, crash every time it hits a web page with one of several well-known netscape bombs. once again, absolutely nothing to do with Motif.
my god, at least you realized it was a joke. what are the requirements to moderate? here they are:
1) Recent lobotomy (credit for ECT) 2) Totally humorless (credit for cluelessness) 3) Blind 4) Stupid 5) Poke at keyboard with cane.
it was soooo obviously a joke...oh well. knowing my luck i'll probably end up trying to teach one of these chumps to program one day...take a deep breath...start over at the beginning...keep trying to break through...arrrrgh.
...i program all three, together, almost every day.
i admit it's butt ugly if the programmer is clueless. but a programmer who has used it for awhile can get by most of the visual issues by setting resources properly, etc.
Netscape isn't a terrible looking application, after all -- Motif.
Sun's awt doesn't look too bad -- Motif.
it's amazing how much hate can be directed toward a product by the ignorant.
that said, all you have to do is read Doug Young's book on C++/Motif or Kilgard's book on OpenGL and X, and you quickly learn that mistakes were made in the visual inheritance hierarchies. but they are well-known, and the tricks are documented.
pls. remember that motif was out before most teenagers were born, before win95...i think it predates win3.1
i've built up a small set of software components that simply replace a form -- it's as easy as subbing the form, and realizing the component. we have a lot of standard things we do here, and i can crank out a new app in days that runs much faster than anything scripted or interpreted.
give motif a break. it has lived a long life and had a successful career, and donated a lot of good infrastructure into all the toolkits that came after.
The issue is not whether we should use open document formats.
The issue is a failure of the global populace to standardize their computing platforms.
If you people would just keep your software updated and standardize on Microsoft products, this would be a non-issue.
If all computer users would just vote republican in November, we could get a decent man in the White House who will put a stop to the DOJ madness, and show that twerp RMS the true meaning of freedom -- the freedom to use a single product and vendor.
If you could just put your personal issues aside and trust Bill Gates, everything will run smoother, and people will love and smile again.
heh caldera sucks! that ransom love link definately has me shying away from all things caldera. too bad; they have some good people. "Extremism in the face of tyranny is no vice". B. Goldwater....and it is tyranny, when the protocols, the pipe, and the software which use them are kept secret. look at other disciplines -- architecture, mechanical engineering -- you can't hide that. you can go to a library and look up every detail on how it's done. but the proprietary protocols used in a number of areas in the software industry are an anathema to this freedom.
...cuz it'll only take a couple weeks. it's not like their developers haven't already been tainted by the code.
why shouldn't an open source driver be tainted by nvidia's binaries?
fo all the people who say "give them a break, no one should sue them" just remember how fast their lawyers would flock to your anus if you disassembled or otherwise reverse engineered a single line of their linux driver.
but in closing, i have to say it's up to the FSF and RMS, or the developer. if they say a 2 week violation is okay with them, then i'm all for letting it slide.
sheesh, anyone else notice their $250 MSRP boards are getting marked up to $360+? maybe some of that cold cash could get diverted to open source...oops, i'm dreaming again.
first off, the person is asking about EPROMS, not EEPROMS.
and yes, you do "burn" eproms. it's been called that for years. it's a pseudonym for programming them.
EPROMS and EEPROMS do not, in general, have a "proprietary burner". there are a plethora of EPROM/EEPROM burners on the market that work with many devices; indeed, some of them allow you to define new devices on the fly by entering the information from the manufacturer's data sheet.
there is no reason that unix or linux could not program a device. the drivers are more difficult to write since you must be priveledged to access the hardware. there are ways around this; either run the program as root or write a proper device driver.
by bumping up the process priority and/or running the burn software as root (as most CD burning software for linux does) the context switching issues become moot. i have never seen a eprom burner that does not have some type of buffer to handle latency issues.
the reason they're mostly written for dos is : it's simple, a non-moving target and nearly everyone has a copy of DR-DOS or MS-DOS or whatever laying around.
more burners are coming with windos s/w now, as DOS continues to fade into the past. I used to sell xeltek programmers, and i just checked their (website) and they have both DOS and WIN drivers for their devices.
I know of no company supporting Linux for their EPROM burners.
Having said all that, I seem to recall that you can setup "dosemu" such that it can run dos programs which access a series of I/O ports and utilize interupts. I have yet to try this with my burner, which currently runs under Caldera's DOS/DRDOS on it's own partition. It may work.
Leave some kind of reply if you are interested, and I will try and get to it and post the results back.
> Microsoft still has gone from a split-adjusted > US$.21 (?) at IPO to US$69.75 today, so quit > your whining. If all you wanted to do was make > money, you still did fine.
I own no MSHAFT stock, and never have. In fact, at least one conservative investment institution has never bought MSHAFT since they viewed the company as "not well managed".
> Bill may be gambling that the gov't will not > want to tank the economy as well as the pension > funds of all those voters, and thus will let him > off easy.
Bill's been making that gamble all along -- with a lot of other people's money.
The money does not go "poof". It either gets invested elsewhere, or liquidated -- provided people weren't stupid enough to continue holding their stock while the price plummeted. There are no guarantees in the stock market.
For the most part, it's still money. It's just no longer invested in MSHAFT.
As the case approaches the point where it is in the hands of the judical, the legislative and executive branches (and thus the voters) will have little to say about the case either way. A widespread election of conservatives might get some states to drop their suit, but California (as one example) won't drop it. Orrin Hatch, a strong conservative, despises MSHAFT -- his state (Utah) has Novell and Caldera, I believe.
If the loss of a single corporation can "tank" the economy, it's in much worse shape than anyone imagines. Besides, the government is actually *adding* a corporation (sorry).
If anyones pension fund is invested solely in MSHAFT stock, they need to get a lawyer. That would be one of the most egregious mishandlings of fund I have ever heard of. Perhaps you mean MSHAFT employees losing value in their matched assets? As I said earlier, they should have spoken up when the lawsuit approached.
> For him, this gamble is a better solution than > compromising his right to run his company any > way he wants.
He does not have a right to run his company anyway he wants. His heavy-handed poor judgement appears to have cost some employees and some unfortunates a lot of money. They should be angry at BG, not me, Linux, DOJ, Sherman, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Slashdot or whatever. Bill is the problem.
laissez faire and libertarianism are interesting political ideals, but like communism and capitalism (and all extreme/simple political ideas), they tend to fall apart in practice.
A strong free market, on the other hand, is a good thing(tm). Sometimes our government has to step in. Around the turn of the last century, an incredibly small number of Americans controlled the majority of the wealth. Like it or not, Sherman came to being (more or less) to redistribute some of that wealth. The rich became less rich, and a lot of poor became middle class. Those middle class people bought a lot of goods and services, while the rich just held the wealth and watched it grow.
In the Depression, a lot of public programs came into being to help the destitute. Like it or not, Roosevelt did far more to restore a sane economy *by acting* rather than watching the "Hoovervilles" grow.
At this time, the USA is once again facing a crisis of wealth. Less than 5% of the population control more than 40% of the wealth. If the trend continues as it has since the early 1980's, you can expect another round of liberal government intervention -- like it or not. The constitution says they serve *the people*, not *a corporation*, and the people tend to vote their pocketbook.
The Sherman Antitrust Act is pretty specific. AOL and and Cisco are monopolies, but AFAIK/IANAL have not committed the various acts necessary to be held accountable under Sherman.
Microsoft, on the other hand, violated a consent decree with the DOJ, has something like a 5% hidden API that gives it's own "clone" applications an advantage over anything their competitor's innovate, and then there's the gory history of settling out of court for:
stealing stacker code; brain draining borland; novell networking code distributed with win3.x; code stolen from ibm; modifying sun's java api; apple look and feel.
since they settled these cases, none can be used against them in court. but clearly, they have broken a variety of laws to obtain a monopoly, and have continued to do so to maintain it. that behavior is *deep in sherman territory*.
if anyone is to blame for the drop in Microsoft's share price, there is one man : Bill Gates. he rubber stamped all the illegal behavior, and refused to back off even when faced with devastating lawsuits.
another group to blame are the Microsoft employees and shareholders who refused to stand up and say "Why the hell is this company doing these things?" For that, all of them deserve to lose their ass(ets).
I worked for a $40B company, and they were tightly regulated due to the nature of their business. When executives crossed the line, they were forced to retire or fired. Even without tangible proof. Why? because the company's image was at stake, and that company had an obligation to it's shareholders to follow the law.
Your problem is Bill Gates. He screwed Microsoft investors, other companies, the DOJ, the consumer and cost us all a lot of money in a huge lawsuit.
The myth about consumer benefit is ludicrous. Several years ago I could buy a copy of DR-DOS and Borland C++ for about $150 or so. Now, it's about $360 for Win2K and VC++ Pro.
Go write Gates an email, if you lost money of Microsoft. He's the guy who caused all this.
might want to re-read that...the breakup, if it goes through, will have seperate ownership, and any information passed between the two entities has to be available to third parties.
Although some are saying GPL software is exempt from the new MD law, others are saying companies like RedHat are not.
There's a pretty long tradition in technology disclaiming things like "Merchantability", "Fitness", "Liability". Go Read a HP license on one of their instruments, for example.
I remain concerned about the integrity of the GPL and other licenses in the face of UCITA.
And what of Sun, Microsoft, et. al? Their licenses have the traditional disclaimers as well.
Slashdot Mirror
1) A lot of parties want desperately to make sure intermachine communication never becomes "protected". For example, making it a crime to snoop network traffic between personal (as in "not at work") computers. Traditionally, "pirates" made money selling bootlegs. It is a modern phenomena that freely traded software and music (no profit motive) has become a crime. After all, the radio stations pay a pittance (and they earn PROFITS) for the right to distribute music to millions of people. Trading all music freely, and boycotting CDs, is a great way to bring this issue to the forefront -- "Does the government, or any other entity, have the right to control the information passed between two privately owned personal computers?" I say no -- if they suspect a crime, they need a warrant, etc. This decision, one way or the other, will have to come about some day.
2) Western tradition has many instances of "The People" getting fed up with racketeering capitalistic monopolies and taking the law in their own hands. People like you say "Well, if someone rips you off, don't buy anything there--just turn your back". This action may be valid for you, but not necessarily for someone else. Our culture has a long history of hatred, violence and law-breaking in the name of freedom or just exhaustion from the "gutting" these (few?) renegade corporations do to us. I simply WILL NOT abide by the rules as laid down by the RIAA. In my opinion, they are a far more criminal organization than any person trading copyrighted CDs for free. By their actions, thay may set a precedent for legalized corporate intrusion to our personal computers -- machines with microphones, and sometimes cameras attached--that will take hundreds of years to roll back.
The goal, as I see it, is for intermachine communication, of a non-commercial nature, be as protected as speech. No intrusion, for any reason, without a warrant, on a case-by-case basis. Let Let Lars, Mustaine, Dre and the RIAA search door-to-door for all I care. They have to ask for permission to enter my house--at least through the door. They can get their fscking nose out of my network.
By the way, here's a great piece of art that sums up what the RIAA thinks of your freedoms.
Before using any lame or sulaco.org product, be careful to review the RIAA mp3 warning. It could save you from a MAJOR lawsuit.
the photos are lame cuz my crack addict neighbors have scarier weapons that that. get some real props.
2medium.jpg -- okay, never, ever pose her with her legs cocked like that again.
with better props, and IF she has a a good mixture of script, director and attitude, she can make it. in other words, this will be a failure.
i was just using them as an example. some people like 'em.
as far as #1 being theft, i'm not so sure. i know the law is against the idea, but radios and libraries give away music all the time, and that is legal.
in my opinion, and i know it's probably against the law, as long as i don't profit from giving away music, even someone else's, or claim the product to be my own, it's legal.
that is my moral position. just as someone drives down the street blasting music out of their convertible, just as radio stations blast music to millions of listeners (and get charged a small fee while earning their revenue via advertising), just as libraries loan out CDs for no cost, i firmly have the belief i can distribute copywrited material from my personal server for other's personal use -- as long as there is no profit motive.
Websites serve copywrited material all the time. it travels through all kinds of devices and eventually resides on my machine. i do not claim to "own" it, by my machine may cache it (think squid) for others.
when my neihbors have a block party, they roll out the Altecs and crank up the Yamaha. i've never had to pay for that music.
well, in this case, i think a rousing chorus of "F*CK THE MAN" is in order. these are our machines, our servers, and bandwidth we paid for. as long as i don't claim to "own" the copyright, or profit from the distribution, or sell the CDs, i honestly thing the man can go f*ck himself.
why does a library, someone driving a car down the street, or (to a certain extent) a radio station have more "rights" than an computer-owning individual? they don't, they shouldn't and the b*llshit stops now.
i have already stopped buying new CDs of any kind. i plan on *carefully* buying CDs again at some point in the future, when i can verify that the RIAA does not have their hooks in it.
one reason i'm so hot on all this (and this is off-topic, i know) is the ongoing debate on legalizing drugs, particularly marijuana. seriously, i am convinced that there is a lot of money in enforcing these laws against non-violent/non-criminal users -- and to deny a mentally (or terminally) ill person marijuana is absolutely ludicrous. this is just another form of the same class of stupidity. it's control of your personal life for a profit motive.
the horrendous cost of all the police, lawyers, prisons, lost productivity due to the criminalization of drugs, not to mention the black market violence that it supports -- really, i'm starting to think orgs like "netPD" could make the net go the same way.
this has to stop! somehow, people need to consider how to stop this from steamrolling into (what could be) another drug war. some judge, or maybe the ACLU, has to step in soon and demand that personal, not-for-profit intermachine communication is STRICTLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH under the constitution. that means NO EAVESDROPPING without a court order, and NO CRIME unless there is money changing hands or a false claim of ownership.
phew!
Given that the RIAA has stolen and gouged customers and musicians for decades, there is only one reasonable way to stop them -- use ONLY free music.
Here are some ideas:
1) Check out as many cd's as possible from local libraries. Reduce them to mp3 format and place them on your own server. If you do not have access to a server for the necessary amount of time, burn copies of CDs and distribute them to your friends.
2) If you must buy CDs, do so only from used music stores or thrift shops that do not carry new CDs and are not paying the corporate music machine. This cuts the revenue stream to the RIAA corporations.
3) Enjoy free music from the mp3.com independant bands, rather than RIAA supported corporate music.
4) Consider researching/finding a radio plugin card that works under your OS of choice. Set it up such that a simple tap of a key starts/stops recording. With a decent radio station (that doesn't voice over the start and finish of songs) this could be an excellent source of free music for distribution via CD or server.
5) Above all, ridicule 'tallica and dre whenever and however possible -- independence and freedom were great things when these musicians were hungry, but know that they've had a taste of corporate greed, there's no way back.
The only way to stop the machine once the legal system starts supporting it is direct noncompliance. Insure that on a daily basis, you act to reduce the RIAA member's revenue streams wherever possible.
Should reasonable alternatives raise their head (limp bizkit) don't shy from buying their stuff! these are the musicians with guts.
that, and he looked good in a short skirt with high heels.
> to the parts of the Windows operating system
> code used by independent software companies
but not the 5% hidden api that lets MS-created sw hop win versions?
and make MS apps run faster?
what a pathetic joke.
i never pay more than $200 or so for a car stereo, so as soon as a mp3 player hits that sweet spot i'm off to frys.
the CAJUN thing is cool, but it's too big for my vehicle.
mp3's are great, on some classical music i can really hear the difference (soft strings) otherwise i have reduced my entire collection of about 150 cd's onto about 12 cd's (not done yet).
i have put a hold on all new cd purchases until i see how the whole 'tallica/riaa/mp3 shit turns out.
mostly, i borrow all the cd's i can from my friends and reduce them to mp3 format, then give them a huge cd of mp3's.
radio stations pay some fees, but nothing even close to paying full price for every track every person hears.
i can tune into a radio station and hear free music all day, record it on a cassette, play it in my car, at a party or for my friends.
but the judge say "no, you can't tune into MP3.COM" sheesh. that seems like heavy discrimination to me.
radio stations pay relatively little for the right to serve your music to millions on a daily basis.
those people receiving the music often copy it onto tapes, play it for friends, blast the music out their windows while they drive the streets.
you say nothing about radio, but you're chomping at the bit to have laws passed that could literally devastate personal freedom on the internet.
i honesty think you have failed to understand the breadth/depth of the situation, and followed a course (on the advice of a lawyer) that may yield you great short term profits at the expense of long term...anything!
translation : no.
Regardless of distro, I always remove K* and qt* from it right away.
As I recall, it's something like $1550 per developer to develop closed source or commercial applications using the QT libs. That's a showstopper here.
Isn't gnome and glibc LGPL? that obviates the issue. If only there were some way to hack all the various C++/C libraries out there into something to replace Qt.
For a lot less than $1550 you can get a new copie of Win2K and VisualC++ pro, last time I checked pricewatch.
Otherwise, I'd be using KDevelop tomorrow...but nooooooooooo......
thanks, i verified motif was developed in 1989, although i am not sure it was released in that year (per Kenton Lee's Motif FAQ).
win 3.0 was released in 1990, and 3.1 in 1992 (per the timeline on the M$.com website).
thx,
S.D.
just out of curiosity, does it embarass you to go off on a completely off-topic tirade?
first of all, motif is not ugly when done right. netscape has a pleasant appearance; it's functional issues are netscape bugs, not Motif. if you don't realize how shitty the logic is in your reply, well, i'm not suprised.
there are third party file selectors that are much better. i agree i don't like the standard one, but that is neither here nor there. the actual look of most Motif projects is bad -- not because of Motif, but a failure of the programmer to understand the resources.
i will never understand how someone like you can read a post about Motif and go off on some bizarre tangent about Netscape's bugs.
communicator does not crash in 3 minutes -- it will, however, crash every time it hits a web page with one of several well-known netscape bombs. once again, absolutely nothing to do with Motif.
my god, at least you realized it was a joke. what are the requirements to moderate? here they are:
1) Recent lobotomy (credit for ECT)
2) Totally humorless (credit for cluelessness)
3) Blind
4) Stupid
5) Poke at keyboard with cane.
it was soooo obviously a joke...oh well. knowing my luck i'll probably end up trying to teach one of these chumps to program one day...take a deep breath...start over at the beginning...keep trying to break through...arrrrgh.
...i program all three, together, almost every day.
i admit it's butt ugly if the programmer is clueless. but a programmer who has used it for awhile can get by most of the visual issues by setting resources properly, etc.
Netscape isn't a terrible looking application, after all -- Motif.
Sun's awt doesn't look too bad -- Motif.
it's amazing how much hate can be directed toward a product by the ignorant.
that said, all you have to do is read Doug Young's book on C++/Motif or Kilgard's book on OpenGL and X, and you quickly learn that mistakes were made in the visual inheritance hierarchies. but they are well-known, and the tricks are documented.
pls. remember that motif was out before most teenagers were born, before win95...i think it predates win3.1
i've built up a small set of software components that simply replace a form -- it's as easy as subbing the form, and realizing the component. we have a lot of standard things we do here, and i can crank out a new app in days that runs much faster than anything scripted or interpreted.
give motif a break. it has lived a long life and had a successful career, and donated a lot of good infrastructure into all the toolkits that came after.
The issue is not whether we should use open document formats.
The issue is a failure of the global populace to standardize their computing platforms.
If you people would just keep your software updated and standardize on Microsoft products, this would be a non-issue.
If all computer users would just vote republican in November, we could get a decent man in the White House who will put a stop to the DOJ madness, and show that twerp RMS the true meaning of freedom -- the freedom to use a single product and vendor.
If you could just put your personal issues aside and trust Bill Gates, everything will run smoother, and people will love and smile again.
find hookers, dealers, whatever you need. open source alternative lifestyles, i say!!
heh caldera sucks! that ransom love link definately has me shying away from all things caldera. too bad; they have some good people. "Extremism in the face of tyranny is no vice". B. Goldwater. ...and it is tyranny, when the protocols, the pipe, and the software which use them are kept secret. look at other disciplines -- architecture, mechanical engineering -- you can't hide that. you can go to a library and look up every detail on how it's done. but the proprietary protocols used in a number of areas in the software industry are an anathema to this freedom.
...cuz it'll only take a couple weeks. it's not like their developers haven't already been tainted by the code.
why shouldn't an open source driver be tainted by nvidia's binaries?
fo all the people who say "give them a break, no one should sue them" just remember how fast their lawyers would flock to your anus if you disassembled or otherwise reverse engineered a single line of their linux driver.
but in closing, i have to say it's up to the FSF and RMS, or the developer. if they say a 2 week violation is okay with them, then i'm all for letting it slide.
sheesh, anyone else notice their $250 MSRP boards are getting marked up to $360+? maybe some of that cold cash could get diverted to open source...oops, i'm dreaming again.
and yes, you do "burn" eproms. it's been called that for years. it's a pseudonym for programming them.
EPROMS and EEPROMS do not, in general, have a "proprietary burner". there are a plethora of EPROM/EEPROM burners on the market that work with many devices; indeed, some of them allow you to define new devices on the fly by entering the information from the manufacturer's data sheet.
there is no reason that unix or linux could not program a device. the drivers are more difficult to write since you must be priveledged to access the hardware. there are ways around this; either run the program as root or write a proper device driver.
by bumping up the process priority and/or running the burn software as root (as most CD burning software for linux does) the context switching issues become moot. i have never seen a eprom burner that does not have some type of buffer to handle latency issues.
the reason they're mostly written for dos is : it's simple, a non-moving target and nearly everyone has a copy of DR-DOS or MS-DOS or whatever laying around.
more burners are coming with windos s/w now, as DOS continues to fade into the past. I used to sell xeltek programmers, and i just checked their (website) and they have both DOS and WIN drivers for their devices.
I know of no company supporting Linux for their EPROM burners.
Having said all that, I seem to recall that you can setup "dosemu" such that it can run dos programs which access a series of I/O ports and utilize interupts. I have yet to try this with my burner, which currently runs under Caldera's DOS/DRDOS on it's own partition. It may work.
Leave some kind of reply if you are interested, and I will try and get to it and post the results back.
--- S.D.
> Microsoft still has gone from a split-adjusted
> US$.21 (?) at IPO to US$69.75 today, so quit
> your whining. If all you wanted to do was make
> money, you still did fine.
I own no MSHAFT stock, and never have. In fact, at least one conservative investment institution has never bought MSHAFT since they viewed the company as "not well managed".
> Bill may be gambling that the gov't will not
> want to tank the economy as well as the pension
> funds of all those voters, and thus will let him
> off easy.
Bill's been making that gamble all along -- with a lot of other people's money.
The money does not go "poof". It either gets invested elsewhere, or liquidated -- provided people weren't stupid enough to continue holding their stock while the price plummeted. There are no guarantees in the stock market.
For the most part, it's still money. It's just no longer invested in MSHAFT.
As the case approaches the point where it is in the hands of the judical, the legislative and executive branches (and thus the voters) will have little to say about the case either way. A widespread election of conservatives might get some states to drop their suit, but California (as one example) won't drop it. Orrin Hatch, a strong conservative, despises MSHAFT -- his state (Utah) has Novell and Caldera, I believe.
If the loss of a single corporation can "tank" the economy, it's in much worse shape than anyone imagines. Besides, the government is actually *adding* a corporation (sorry).
If anyones pension fund is invested solely in MSHAFT stock, they need to get a lawyer. That would be one of the most egregious mishandlings of fund I have ever heard of. Perhaps you mean MSHAFT employees losing value in their matched assets? As I said earlier, they should have spoken up when the lawsuit approached.
> For him, this gamble is a better solution than
> compromising his right to run his company any
> way he wants.
He does not have a right to run his company anyway he wants. His heavy-handed poor judgement appears to have cost some employees and some unfortunates a lot of money. They should be angry at BG, not me, Linux, DOJ, Sherman, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Slashdot or whatever. Bill is the problem.
laissez faire and libertarianism are interesting political ideals, but like communism and capitalism (and all extreme/simple political ideas), they tend to fall apart in practice.
A strong free market, on the other hand, is a good thing(tm). Sometimes our government has to step in. Around the turn of the last century, an incredibly small number of Americans controlled the majority of the wealth. Like it or not, Sherman came to being (more or less) to redistribute some of that wealth. The rich became less rich, and a lot of poor became middle class. Those middle class people bought a lot of goods and services, while the rich just held the wealth and watched it grow.
In the Depression, a lot of public programs came into being to help the destitute. Like it or not, Roosevelt did far more to restore a sane economy *by acting* rather than watching the "Hoovervilles" grow.
At this time, the USA is once again facing a crisis of wealth. Less than 5% of the population control more than 40% of the wealth. If the trend continues as it has since the early 1980's, you can expect another round of liberal government intervention -- like it or not. The constitution says they serve *the people*, not *a corporation*, and the people tend to vote their pocketbook.
The Sherman Antitrust Act is pretty specific. AOL and and Cisco are monopolies, but AFAIK/IANAL have not committed the various acts necessary to be held accountable under Sherman.
Microsoft, on the other hand, violated a consent decree with the DOJ, has something like a 5% hidden API that gives it's own "clone" applications an advantage over anything their competitor's innovate, and then there's the gory history of settling out of court for:
stealing stacker code;
brain draining borland;
novell networking code distributed with win3.x;
code stolen from ibm;
modifying sun's java api;
apple look and feel.
since they settled these cases, none can be used against them in court. but clearly, they have broken a variety of laws to obtain a monopoly, and have continued to do so to maintain it. that behavior is *deep in sherman territory*.
if anyone is to blame for the drop in Microsoft's share price, there is one man : Bill Gates. he rubber stamped all the illegal behavior, and refused to back off even when faced with devastating lawsuits.
another group to blame are the Microsoft employees and shareholders who refused to stand up and say "Why the hell is this company doing these things?" For that, all of them deserve to lose their ass(ets).
I worked for a $40B company, and they were tightly regulated due to the nature of their business. When executives crossed the line, they were forced to retire or fired. Even without tangible proof. Why? because the company's image was at stake, and that company had an obligation to it's shareholders to follow the law.
Your problem is Bill Gates. He screwed Microsoft investors, other companies, the DOJ, the consumer and cost us all a lot of money in a huge lawsuit.
The myth about consumer benefit is ludicrous. Several years ago I could buy a copy of DR-DOS and Borland C++ for about $150 or so. Now, it's about $360 for Win2K and VC++ Pro.
Go write Gates an email, if you lost money of Microsoft. He's the guy who caused all this.
might want to re-read that...the breakup, if it goes through, will have seperate ownership, and any information passed between the two entities has to be available to third parties.
Although some are saying GPL software is exempt from the new MD law, others are saying companies like RedHat are not.
There's a pretty long tradition in technology disclaiming things like "Merchantability", "Fitness", "Liability". Go Read a HP license on one of their instruments, for example.
I remain concerned about the integrity of the GPL and other licenses in the face of UCITA.
And what of Sun, Microsoft, et. al? Their licenses have the traditional disclaimers as well.
Comments?