Actually, one of the posts very blatantly violates Microsoft's copyright.
While most of the posts in question just quote portions, or don't quote the documents at all.. one of the posts reproduces a whole document verbatim, including Microsoft's copyright notice!
Most people who post about *spam* (both solicited email and non solicited email) have the attitude that advertisements in the email form are somewhere being near breaking one of the 10 commandments. They argue with the appearance that what these advertisers are doing is morally wrong. While they don't intend to sound as such, that's the way most come across.
Spammers are violating one of the 10 commandments, should you happen to have the christian worldview. Spammers are STEALING my bandwidth, disk space, and time, to get their message across to me. I get NOTHING from them for that privledge.
I believe that some of the tactics that email marketers use is blatantly abusive of the end user, but most are not. Have you considered suing slashdot, or perhaps andover for compensation for the bandwidth that it took to download the banner ad at the top of the page you're seeing now? if not...why? you didn't ask for the banner ad. It's a blantant infringement of your rights as an internet user.
If Slashdot used my email address to send me ads without my permission, and sold that address to others, I would gladly sue Andover.
Your comparison between advertising graphics, and emails, is invalid. When I download an ad, I am making an active effort, to make a connection to slashdot.org's server, to download the ad. When I receive an email, though, that was something *sent* to me by the advertiser, without my knowledge or consent.
Besides, I have slashdot's ad server in my junkbuster block list, and I browse without images anyway!
Most people who are violently against any type of advertisement in their email are the same who don't realize the way economics work. Nothing is for free. Even slashdot isn't free. The price you pay for the content is the banner ad at the top of the page. I am willing to dispense a little of my time, or my ever so precious bandwidth to support sites like slashdot. These guys have to make a living somehow. And to keep the site free to us (at least monetarily speaking) is to sell some of their space to advertisers. Depending on the needs of the site, company, or what have you, and the service it produces. It may be necessary to ask you if you want to recieve some other ads in the mail. If you don't...you get to click a button that says you don't want it. But for people to criticize a practice that keeps alot of the things i like free, is just, ill informed.
Why don't you stick to the issue at hand, unsolicited emails? Arguing about advertising in general is off the topic. I never said anything against ads in general; only against unsolicited emailings.
Besided, what are those emails funding, pray tell, that I am using? Making money fast? Take CmdrTaco's example: ads for toner, when he doesn't even have a printer. Or the ads I always get, offering to "give my web site credit card accepting ability". What is that funding, that I am enjoying?
How can you defend spammers? How can any "email marketing firm" be doing the "right thing", when the whole idea of using *my* bandwidth, without paying me for it, is wrong in itself?
Or are there email marketing firms out there, that pay the people they send emails to, upon request?
Well, it seems to me that GNOME gets more stories than KDE, because GNOME seems to attract more ideological crusaders than KDE does. Thus, GNOME supporters tend to be more likely to be activists, and more willing to submit more stories.
Throw in the fact that the illustrious Commander uses Debian, and Debian is carrying out a (in my opinion silly and childish) boycott of Qt and KDE, and you get an easy to understand picture of why slashdot shows more GNOME.
It doesn't really seem like bias to me; just a consequence of the personalities involved.
There *is* competiton in the.com/.org/.net domain registration business, after all.
Though, when I think about it, maybe it's not obvious. Some people haven't gotten the idea yet.
[rs.internic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.1
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC. Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com Name Server: NS1.ANDOVER.NET Name Server: NS2.ANDOVER.NET Updated Date: 08-feb-2000
Junkbusters does so much more, though... Yes, it takes a little more setup. But, I have it set to be started and stopped in my KPPP setup, so it's not that bad, after the initial go.
None of those ad systems can be blocked with a hostname-based system. So it seems worthwhile to me, to go through the effort of a one-time hour of setup.
Actually, I can go download the code to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or whatever any time I want!
I actually don't happen to be one of those BSD haters. I *like* the BSD license, and actually prefer it to the GPL.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD share their code as much as Linux does, and more, if you consider that the BSD license is compatible with more open licenses than the GPL is.
I wonder if this is the reply you were looking forward to.
Having two threads only makes things faster *if* the processing load is split such that each processor takes on a significant percentage of the cpu load.
If one thread is doing only a few minor GUI things, and the other thread is doing all the work, then there will be little measurable difference.
Plus, all the context switching might make things worse on the processor caches, in certain circumstances. Linux doesn't require a GUI, when you're doing really heavy lifting. Doe BeOS have a gui-free mode?
Free software is software with no restrictions that prevent you from using the software to its fullest, nor any restrictions preventing you from helping others use it to its fullest.
Well, jiminy jillikers, Radioactive Man! Sourceforge is relased GPL! You can't get any more "Free software" than the license endorsed by the guy who coined the phrase "Free speech, not free beer"!
So what if they're using a closed development model? "Bazaar" development is not a defining characteristic of free software, after all.
If you think that an open development process would make sourceforge's code even better, for your site, start hacking yourself, put up a webpage describing what you've done, and start a mailing list! (I bet you might even be able to host it on sourceforge!:-)
If, however, you think that the Sourceforge coders are doing a good enough job, lay off!
Also, I'd suggest a read of the Mythical Man-Month. There's no saying that adding more coders to the Sourceforge project would make things faster.
I don't see it making much of a difference, though. If the BeOS library calls are the most processor-intensive tasks being done, then it could be important that they be able to run on multiple processors simultaneously.
However, most real apps do their work in the application code. Rendering HTML, recalculating a spreadsheet, figuring out where the Strogg demon is going to walk next.. those are the tasks that really use the CPU most, and multithreaded OS calls won't make a difference there.
Now, if you want to argue that X is a slow means of providing a desktop GUI, I'll agree with you. If you say that its network transparency as implemented adds so much overhead, that linux desktops will never seem crisp as-is, I'll not argue with you.
Neither of those criticisms of X, though, have anything to do with being multithreaded or not, though.
Arabic spreadsheets, word processing, calendar, and such will all come once KDE 2 is far enough along that development on those can grow. After all KOffice and such all use the same basic technology that Konqueror does.
And, with a hard freeze of kdelibs approaching, that's probably coming faster than you think.
I like my books to be full of detailed, convincing characters who engage in wity, sharp conversations that make them sound like real people.
But real people don't always carry out witty, sharp conversations. Even if you get one person to make a good comeback, the other will be left stuttering.:-)
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Aha! The key phrase here is clearly any associated interface definition files.
The way I read it, that applies to headers associated with "all modules it contains", where "it" is the GPL code. And, I wouldn't say that Qt is a module of KDevelop at all.
Secondly, reading further down the paragraph, the GPL blows away the argument further:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
KDE is the default desktop of SuSE, Caldera, and Mandrake, of distributions off of the top of my head. It also is included with Red Hat, and Slackware. Thus Qt is normally distributed with the operating system. And, Qt itself does not accompany the executible (since it's dynamically linked), so the special exception applies.
Thirdly, you mention that the GPL does not prohibit use of the program. Distributing a tarball of Qt-using GPL code does not violate the GPL. Distributiong a dynamically linked binary of Qt-using GPL code does not violate the GPL. It's just that distributing such things is, in essense, distributing a kit for violating the GPL.
So what if a staticly linked version of KDevelop would break the GPL when distributed? In the grand tradition of computing, the answer is "Don't do that!"
Bah.. Why use emacs, when you can use/bin/sh? It has cat built-in, after all. Type in your code in one go. Real programmers don't write bugs.
Don't even get me started on what kind of people use makefiles and debuggers.
Re:New Features? Working well with existing projec
on
KDevelop 1.2 is out
·
· Score: 1
Well.. you could always re-create your custom directory structure within KDevelop.
Yeah, it's a bit of work... but if you like the tools KDevelop provides, it'd be worth it.
KDevelop's not really targeted at that sort of thing, though. It's an answer to Microsoft Visual C++ and Visual Basic, for managing projects of a certain form.
Can you actually point to a phrase in the GPL that could prohibit an end user from dynamically linking (via ld.so or some other mechanism) a GPL app to a QPL library?
It's not as if they're distributiong staticly linked binarys. Those would be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, one of the posts very blatantly violates Microsoft's copyright.
While most of the posts in question just quote portions, or don't quote the documents at all.. one of the posts reproduces a whole document verbatim, including Microsoft's copyright notice!
Most people who post about *spam* (both solicited email and non solicited email) have the attitude that advertisements in the email form are somewhere being near breaking one of the 10 commandments. They argue with the appearance that what these advertisers are doing is morally wrong. While they don't intend to sound as such, that's the way most come across.
Spammers are violating one of the 10 commandments, should you happen to have the christian worldview. Spammers are STEALING my bandwidth, disk space, and time, to get their message across to me. I get NOTHING from them for that privledge.
I believe that some of the tactics that email marketers use is blatantly abusive of the end user, but most are not. Have you considered suing slashdot, or perhaps andover for compensation for the bandwidth that it took to download the banner ad at the top of the page you're seeing now? if not...why? you didn't ask for the banner ad. It's a blantant infringement of your rights as an internet user.
If Slashdot used my email address to send me ads without my permission, and sold that address to others, I would gladly sue Andover.
Your comparison between advertising graphics, and emails, is invalid. When I download an ad, I am making an active effort, to make a connection to slashdot.org's server, to download the ad. When I receive an email, though, that was something *sent* to me by the advertiser, without my knowledge or consent.
Besides, I have slashdot's ad server in my junkbuster block list, and I browse without images anyway!
Most people who are violently against any type of advertisement in their email are the same who don't realize the way economics work. Nothing is for free. Even slashdot isn't free. The price you pay for the content is the banner ad at the top of the page. I am willing to dispense a little of my time, or my ever so precious bandwidth to support sites like slashdot. These guys have to make a living somehow. And to keep the site free to us (at least monetarily speaking) is to sell some of their space to advertisers. Depending on the needs of the site, company, or what have you, and the service it produces. It may be necessary to ask you if you want to recieve some other ads in the mail. If you don't...you get to click a button that says you don't want it. But for people to criticize a practice that keeps alot of the things i like free, is just, ill informed.
Why don't you stick to the issue at hand, unsolicited emails? Arguing about advertising in general is off the topic. I never said anything against ads in general; only against unsolicited emailings.
Besided, what are those emails funding, pray tell, that I am using? Making money fast? Take CmdrTaco's example: ads for toner, when he doesn't even have a printer. Or the ads I always get, offering to "give my web site credit card accepting ability". What is that funding, that I am enjoying?
Hello there.
How can you defend spammers? How can any "email marketing firm" be doing the "right thing", when the whole idea of using *my* bandwidth, without paying me for it, is wrong in itself?
Or are there email marketing firms out there, that pay the people they send emails to, upon request?
Well, it seems to me that GNOME gets more stories than KDE, because GNOME seems to attract more ideological crusaders than KDE does. Thus, GNOME supporters tend to be more likely to be activists, and more willing to submit more stories.
Throw in the fact that the illustrious Commander uses Debian, and Debian is carrying out a (in my opinion silly and childish) boycott of Qt and KDE, and you get an easy to understand picture of why slashdot shows more GNOME.
It doesn't really seem like bias to me; just a consequence of the personalities involved.
There *is* competiton in the .com/.org/.net domain registration business, after all.
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
Though, when I think about it, maybe it's not obvious. Some people haven't gotten the idea yet.
[rs.internic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.1
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: SLASHDOT.ORG
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.ANDOVER.NET
Name Server: NS2.ANDOVER.NET
Updated Date: 08-feb-2000
Junkbusters does so much more, though... Yes, it takes a little more setup. But, I have it set to be started and stopped in my KPPP setup, so it's not that bad, after the initial go.
*.*/adclick.html
*.*/adclick
*.*/ads
*.*/Ads
*.*/*/banners
*.*/BannerAds
*.*/banner1.gif
*.*/groupbanners.phtml
*.*/img/ads
*.*/RealMedia/ads
None of those ad systems can be blocked with a hostname-based system. So it seems worthwhile to me, to go through the effort of a one-time hour of setup.
I never said that sharing code was the #1 prirority of the LSB, now did I?
I just said that SCO will always be a second-class citizen in the free software world, that's all.
Ignore my earlier reply; I somehow mis-read what you said, mr.
Actually, I can go download the code to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or whatever any time I want!
I actually don't happen to be one of those BSD haters. I *like* the BSD license, and actually prefer it to the GPL.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD share their code as much as Linux does, and more, if you consider that the BSD license is compatible with more open licenses than the GPL is.
I wonder if this is the reply you were looking forward to.
Having two threads only makes things faster *if* the processing load is split such that each processor takes on a significant percentage of the cpu load.
If one thread is doing only a few minor GUI things, and the other thread is doing all the work, then there will be little measurable difference.
Plus, all the context switching might make things worse on the processor caches, in certain circumstances. Linux doesn't require a GUI, when you're doing really heavy lifting. Doe BeOS have a gui-free mode?
Free software is software with no restrictions that prevent you from using the software to its fullest, nor any restrictions preventing you from helping others use it to its fullest.
:-)
Well, jiminy jillikers, Radioactive Man! Sourceforge is relased GPL! You can't get any more "Free software" than the license endorsed by the guy who coined the phrase "Free speech, not free beer"!
So what if they're using a closed development model? "Bazaar" development is not a defining characteristic of free software, after all.
If you think that an open development process would make sourceforge's code even better, for your site, start hacking yourself, put up a webpage describing what you've done, and start a mailing list! (I bet you might even be able to host it on sourceforge!
If, however, you think that the Sourceforge coders are doing a good enough job, lay off!
Also, I'd suggest a read of the Mythical Man-Month. There's no saying that adding more coders to the Sourceforge project would make things faster.
It's not illegal to *download* a Metallica file, it's just illegal to *distribute* it.
Copy Right law restricts the Right to distribute Copies (for a cost or not) to the author, or other Copyright holder.
Tup... to make a parody of someone or something, you have to start with a likeness of your target, otherwise it's not a parody.
Parody has been long-recognized as a vital form of free-expression, and that's why it's protected in the (US) law.
Interesting...
I don't see it making much of a difference, though. If the BeOS library calls are the most processor-intensive tasks being done, then it could be important that they be able to run on multiple processors simultaneously.
However, most real apps do their work in the application code. Rendering HTML, recalculating a spreadsheet, figuring out where the Strogg demon is going to walk next.. those are the tasks that really use the CPU most, and multithreaded OS calls won't make a difference there.
Now, if you want to argue that X is a slow means of providing a desktop GUI, I'll agree with you. If you say that its network transparency as implemented adds so much overhead, that linux desktops will never seem crisp as-is, I'll not argue with you.
Neither of those criticisms of X, though, have anything to do with being multithreaded or not, though.
It's not the OS that determines whether apps are multithreaded.. it's the developers.
Can you give any technical reasons that BeOS gives better performance than Linux, given the same application on the same system?
Why is SCO a second-class citizen? They are, because SCO wants benefits, without sharing.
Once they share the code to SCO, in the way we share our code to Linux stuff, SCO will become a first-class citizen.
Arabic spreadsheets, word processing, calendar, and such will all come once KDE 2 is far enough along that development on those can grow. After all KOffice and such all use the same basic technology that Konqueror does.
And, with a hard freeze of kdelibs approaching, that's probably coming faster than you think.
I like my books to be full of detailed, convincing characters who engage in wity, sharp conversations that make them sound like real people.
But real people don't always carry out witty, sharp conversations. Even if you get one person to make a good comeback, the other will be left stuttering. :-)
cat just defaults to reading from the console.
type is brain damaged; you have to run
type cat > foo.c
So would you agree that the "special exception" applies?
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Aha! The key phrase here is clearly any associated interface definition files .
The way I read it, that applies to headers associated with "all modules it contains", where "it" is the GPL code. And, I wouldn't say that Qt is a module of KDevelop at all.
Secondly, reading further down the paragraph, the GPL blows away the argument further:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
KDE is the default desktop of SuSE, Caldera, and Mandrake, of distributions off of the top of my head. It also is included with Red Hat, and Slackware. Thus Qt is normally distributed with the operating system. And, Qt itself does not accompany the executible (since it's dynamically linked), so the special exception applies.
Thirdly, you mention that the GPL does not prohibit use of the program. Distributing a tarball of Qt-using GPL code does not violate the GPL. Distributiong a dynamically linked binary of Qt-using GPL code does not violate the GPL. It's just that distributing such things is, in essense, distributing a kit for violating the GPL.
So what if a staticly linked version of KDevelop would break the GPL when distributed? In the grand tradition of computing, the answer is "Don't do that!"
COMMAND.COM 's the shell that has type built-in.
So I guess DOS is the ideal environment, after all.
Bah.. Why use emacs, when you can use /bin/sh? It has cat built-in, after all. Type in your code in one go. Real programmers don't write bugs.
Don't even get me started on what kind of people use makefiles and debuggers.
Well.. you could always re-create your custom directory structure within KDevelop.
Yeah, it's a bit of work... but if you like the tools KDevelop provides, it'd be worth it.
KDevelop's not really targeted at that sort of thing, though. It's an answer to Microsoft Visual C++ and Visual Basic, for managing projects of a certain form.
I think it's great that it's taken half as many patches to get 2.2 rock-stable as it took for 2.0 to get nice.
Yes, 2.0 did have more time to grow, due to the long 2.1 cycle, but the frequency of 2.2 releases has been less than the 2.0 releases.
More developers, fewer bugs, world domination. Brought to you by open development, a subsidiary of free software.
Can you actually point to a phrase in the GPL that could prohibit an end user from dynamically linking (via ld.so or some other mechanism) a GPL app to a QPL library?
It's not as if they're distributiong staticly linked binarys. Those would be illegal.