there's no way that 99% of them have the ability (skill) to customize source (let alone that management is going to let them do that), but they all (in theory, maybe half in practise) have the ability to make a few simple edits to an X resource file. (And many of them did.)
Well, then I was wrong. X resources aren't an excuse to avoid giving away source. They're a way of avoiding giving away source, AND avoiding having to write a decent UI.:-)
This is taken from http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/current-stable.htm l
18.2.1.1. What is FreeBSD-CURRENT?
FreeBSD-CURRENT is, quite literally, nothing more than a daily snapshot of the working sources for FreeBSD. These include work in progress, experimental changes and transitional mechanisms that may or may not be present in the next official release of the software. While many of us compile almost daily from FreeBSD-CURRENT sources, there are periods of time when the sources are literally un-compilable. These problems are generally resolved as expeditiously as possible, but whether or not FreeBSD-CURRENT sources bring disaster or greatly desired functionality can literally be a matter of which part of any given 24 hour period you grabbed them in!
Not long ago, there was a slashdot post about the Linux Kernel 2.4 to-do list.
Someone complained that the list was proof that linux kernel development, and open source development overall, is bad.
The argument was that any decent system would keep everything working all the time. My reply was that innovation doesn't come easily, and that you can't improve a system, while keeping all of its parts working the entire time.
It's no wonder that closed software gets so bad and bloated; they're all probably doing the very things listed in this ball of mud article. "Daily builds" can sound like such a good idea, but they do lead to problems.
Nope. They don't have to include the source with their distribution at all. The non-commercial clause only 3c.
3b says they satisfy the requirement if they...
Accompany [the software distribution] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of [the GPL] on a medium customarily used for software interchange....
So, if they didn't include an offer to supply the source, Abit broke the GPL. But, if they make the offer in the future, and attempt to make the offer to those who purchased it before, then I'd say that all would be well.
Re:Take another look at *the* picture
on
Sim Plague
·
· Score: 1
Why stop there? Why not make the capton "Federal rescue team saves child from potential molesters"?
I can't believe so many people are defending a gross abuse of power, committed with a neglect of the courts.
I'm not surprised that Reno ordered it, though, as she has a long history of such acts.
Going into a house, in the way those agents did, was just asking for somebody to be killed. If people suddenly find that agents have broken into a house, and are pointing automatic weapons at them, people will often react defensively.
We *do* still have a right to keep arms in our house, and bear them to defend ourselves.
I don't think you understand the philosophy of linux kernel development.
Every part of the kernel is to have a maintainer. When something changes, like the VFS layer, the maintainers of the components depending on that layer, like UMSDOS, must update their components to work with the changes.
If a particular thing isn't working, because of a change, it's probably because 1) there is no maintainer for that part or 2) the maintainer is lazy/busy/no longer interested.
As for other kinds of problems... that's the price of innovation. Linux kernel development, in in the development trees, trys to improve. You don't innovate,and manage to keep *Everything* working *perfectly* the whole time.
Keep that in mind. Maintainers do their own code. When something big changes, it gets announced on the mailing list. Someone who changes X isn't expected to go fix Y, Z, Q, A, and B that depend on it. The kernel is simply too big for that kind of process to be expected.
Also, if you're the type of slashdot reader that opposes closed APIs protected by copyright law, then you probably don't want to support 3dfx, because of their attempts to monopolize the 3D card market with Glide.
If you do that, please make it available to the world!
I'd build my own mozilla, turning off all debug, turning on full optimisations, and turning off all but the composer and browser, but I haven't the disk space necessary for the build!
Re:Great! I get to re-install windows...
on
Carmack Speaks
·
· Score: 1
Voodoo 2 cards can be had for reasonable costs, if you're the kind of person who wouldn't mind supporting an evil company like 3dfx.:-)
Having a closed server, and an open client, makes it more likely that one is FORCED to design the protocols well (i.e. not trusting the client with the time of day, let alone game information).
Well... whether the MAC option made it into the mainline Linus tree would depend on how ugly the code was, and how much #ifdef stuff it took, I suppose.
I would imagine that it all would have to be distributed as a separate patch, though, like the real time kernel, or the 8086-80286 kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
Following Sun's lead would probably call it Java 3!
there's no way that 99% of them have the ability (skill) to customize source (let alone that management is going to let them do that), but they all (in theory, maybe half in practise) have the ability to make a few simple edits to an X resource file. (And many of them did.)
Well, then I was wrong. X resources aren't an excuse to avoid giving away source. They're a way of avoiding giving away source, AND avoiding having to write a decent UI. :-)
give me a break
X Resources are a cheap cop-out for providing source, for real customisability.
But, if that's what you want... take a look at KDE 2's XML GUI.
This is taken from http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/current-stable.htm l
18.2.1.1. What is FreeBSD-CURRENT?
FreeBSD-CURRENT is, quite literally, nothing more than a daily snapshot of the working sources for FreeBSD. These include work in progress, experimental changes and transitional mechanisms that may or may not be present in the next official release of the software. While many of us compile almost daily from FreeBSD-CURRENT sources, there are periods of time when the sources are literally un-compilable. These problems are generally resolved as expeditiously as possible, but whether or not FreeBSD-CURRENT sources bring disaster or greatly desired functionality can literally be a matter of which part of any given 24 hour period you grabbed them in!
You posted this too late, I suppose
This deserves to be at LEAST score: 3
exactly... people who want something that works, should use something that's LABELLED as working.
Hence, if you want a functional linux system, use 2.2.x, not 2.3.x
I'm sure things tend to break in FreeBSD-CURRENT as much as they do in Linux 2.(odd)
Not long ago, there was a slashdot post about the Linux Kernel 2.4 to-do list.
Someone complained that the list was proof that linux kernel development, and open source development overall, is bad.
The argument was that any decent system would keep everything working all the time. My reply was that innovation doesn't come easily, and that you can't improve a system, while keeping all of its parts working the entire time.
It's no wonder that closed software gets so bad and bloated; they're all probably doing the very things listed in this ball of mud article. "Daily builds" can sound like such a good idea, but they do lead to problems.
Nope. They don't have to include the source with their distribution at all. The non-commercial clause only 3c.
3b says they satisfy the requirement if they...
Accompany [the software distribution] with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of [the GPL] on a medium customarily used for software interchange....
So, if they didn't include an offer to supply the source, Abit broke the GPL. But, if they make the offer in the future, and attempt to make the offer to those who purchased it before, then I'd say that all would be well.
Why stop there? Why not make the capton "Federal rescue team saves child from potential molesters"?
I can't believe so many people are defending a gross abuse of power, committed with a neglect of the courts.
I'm not surprised that Reno ordered it, though, as she has a long history of such acts.
Going into a house, in the way those agents did, was just asking for somebody to be killed. If people suddenly find that agents have broken into a house, and are pointing automatic weapons at them, people will often react defensively.
We *do* still have a right to keep arms in our house, and bear them to defend ourselves.
I don't think you understand the philosophy of linux kernel development.
Every part of the kernel is to have a maintainer. When something changes, like the VFS layer, the maintainers of the components depending on that layer, like UMSDOS, must update their components to work with the changes.
If a particular thing isn't working, because of a change, it's probably because 1) there is no maintainer for that part or 2) the maintainer is lazy/busy/no longer interested.
As for other kinds of problems... that's the price of innovation. Linux kernel development, in in the development trees, trys to improve. You don't innovate,and manage to keep *Everything* working *perfectly* the whole time.
Keep that in mind. Maintainers do their own code. When something big changes, it gets announced on the mailing list. Someone who changes X isn't expected to go fix Y, Z, Q, A, and B that depend on it. The kernel is simply too big for that kind of process to be expected.
Go with Matrox.
The Utah-glx project will provide open drivers.
Also, if you're the type of slashdot reader that opposes closed APIs protected by copyright law, then you probably don't want to support 3dfx, because of their attempts to monopolize the 3D card market with Glide.
Levar Burton hosted Reading Rainbow before he was ever played Geordi LaForge.
Finally! A first post that.
1) Doesn't contain the words "first" or "post"
2) Is actually funny.
If you do that, please make it available to the world!
I'd build my own mozilla, turning off all debug, turning on full optimisations, and turning off all but the composer and browser, but I haven't the disk space necessary for the build!
Voodoo 2 cards can be had for reasonable costs, if you're the kind of person who wouldn't mind supporting an evil company like 3dfx. :-)
It's not as if these games are cheap, after all.
set it to filter to score: 1, or even score:2.
The trolls get moderated down, and the offtopic stuff does, too.
Not completely, but at least some is better than nothing.
Forget the whole market.. focus on the companies often discussed:
m l?tag=st.ne.1430735..1003-200-1697624
RHAT: Red Hat
LNUX: VA Linux Systems
CALD: Caldera
ANDN: Andover.net
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1697624.ht
Title of the CNet story: "Sour market pushes Linux stocks below IPO prices"
He did say he was toying with the idea...
Here's a dream idea: Whip up a top-notch CGB emulator, then sell the ROM.
Likely? naaah...
Don't forget Wolfenstein!
:-)
However, don't forget Commander Keen either!
Now, that would be fun! Run around blasting 3D rendered Vorticons!
Quake 2 Linux binaries were available, and Quake 3 retailed for linux. Why would you have to re-install Windows to try it?
id was doing linux (unofficially) before Loki ever existed.
Having a closed server, and an open client, makes it more likely that one is FORCED to design the protocols well (i.e. not trusting the client with the time of day, let alone game information).
Actually, Caldera owns DRDOS now, and they do have an upgrade: Caldera Linux. :-)
I doubt it.. but I wouldn't be surprised of Project Odin tried to support it.
Well.. you got #10 right. :-)
Well... whether the MAC option made it into the mainline Linus tree would depend on how ugly the code was, and how much #ifdef stuff it took, I suppose.
I would imagine that it all would have to be distributed as a separate patch, though, like the real time kernel, or the 8086-80286 kernel.