Mac OS X has had this "prelink" stuff since 10.0. Apple calls it "prebinding". It happens during the "optimisation" stage of installing software. You have to build your program properly for it to being able to be prebound, however.
* Patent law. This is probably Microsoft's best bet, but it's terribly thin. You patent a process, a way of doing something. Even software/algorithm patents get a lot of criticism, though they're still a process. An API is static. There are not changes involved, nothing to patent.
The API should indeed be irrelevant as far as patent law is concerned, but that doesn't matter. All they have to do is include a patented (e.g. encryption) algorithm in their communications protocol, and you're hosed. Because of this, you can patent any protocol and file format (just require some patented algorithm to read it). If software patents are legalised in Europe, that is.
Which they hopefully won't, and to accomplish that, I would urge everyone who can to join us in a demonstration in Brussels (press release) on 14th April, as well as to participate in another online demonstration like last September whereby websites go on strike.
Preparations are still in progress, hopefully we'll be with more info soon on slashdot's front page:)
I have a public IP-address (I'm not behind a NAT gateway), but I'm behind a firewall that blocks any and all incoming connections (except to port 8080, where Apache is listening). I have full access to the outside however. Given this situation,
a) How are other clients able to send upload requests at all? Do other clients send upload requests in the same TCP/IP connection where I'm downloading from them? When I look at the output of netstat, nobody is indeed connected to port 6881-6889 on my machine, but some connections have quite large Send-Q values. b) How come I'm getting such a low download rate while I'm uploading so much? Aren't those clients detecting that I'm uploading to them or so? (I have plenty of bandwidth left)
I'm using BitTorrent 3.4.1a.
FWIW: before this firewall was installed, I could easily get 100kb/sec upload, 300kb/sec downloads (and more). The firewall does not rate limit (normal downloads actually go a lot faster than before, because our outside connection was upgraded at the same time).
coming from northern ireland, i would be really annoyed if scottish people started coming over and voting for one of the hard-line parties without knowing the full score. so i feel guilty voting for him. but he does share my views on the copyright battles in the EU, and he stands every chance of getting in every year.
You're right that Sir Neil MacCormick is really great as far as the software patents and IPR-stuff is concerned. He even mentioned the conflict of interest of Janelly Fourtou (wife of CEO Vivendi-Universal, who guided the IPR-directive through parliament) in the plenary session.
Like the AC above says, in general the Greens at the European level are indeed the best as far as copyright, patents and in general the concerns of the people (as opposed to big companies) are concerned. However, there are also several national delegations of other parties which are very good, such as the Finish conservatives (Kauppi), some independents (Cappato, Italy), liberals (Boogerd-Quaak, The Netherlands), socialists (all Flemish socialists),...
For the software patents directive, you can see the score of each individual MEP here. A similar table will be made for the IPR-vote, though you can expect a lot more red:(
Certain systems in standby-mode with wake-on-lan still consume a fair amount of power. The Dells we have here consume about 70 Watts when operating normally and 18-20 Watts in standby mode. That's still about 30% of the normal usage.
the organised crime syndicate will get the same treatment as Joe Schmuck the MP3 dowloader?
I meant that the law did not discriminate between the two. The potential punishment and measures should simply be relative to the seriousness of the crime. This has nothing to do with whether or not having much money makes sure you'll be better off when you have to appear before a court of law.
Let me see if I understand this line of thinking correctly: you people want a revolution because you can't download movies and music that you didn't pay for?
More like because big businesses don't want to allow us to publish the programs we've written ourselves, because they claim to own the ideas that we used.
Because big businesses don't want to have to do that pesky dealing with the police, and want to get the search warrants themselves and have them carried them out by their private agents.
Because big businesses want to have the right to seize all equipment of an ISP (without informing him beforehand) if they suspect that some customers of his have illegally downloaded copyrighted material, and keep that equipment for up to 31 days without detailing what their complaints actually are.
Because big businesses want to have the right freeze all bank accounts and assets of suspected infringers, even before said alleged infringers have been heard by a court.
The first is obviously about software patents, the other points come more or less literally from the new IPR-enforcement directive that's currently being lead through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou... who happens to be the wife of the CEO of Vivendi-Universal.
The directive would apply to *any* kind of IP, going from trade secrets over patents to copyright, and at any scale. So someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use, someone who publishes a program that uses a patented algorithm and an organised crime organisations that massively counterfeits mark clothing, music etc... would all get the same treatment.
Note that I'm not claiming that someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use does not have to be punished. But that is already illegal, and it's beyond all reasonable proportions that such an action can result in the freezing of all his assets and the seizure of his ISP's equipment. And on top of that, it gives the SCO's of this world the means to abuse straight from their wildest dreams.
Repeat after me: software patents are absolutely not in the least specifically detrimental to free (or open source) software! They are bad for virtually *all* small scale and/or independent software developers. This includes pretty most SME's. Of course, free/open source developers are also often among them, but definitely not always (think IBM).
If you want to have even the smallest chance of convincing a majority of politicians about the fact that they should vote against software patents, you have to stop spreading this misconception. Software patents are bad for innovation, bad for SME's and as such bad for society as a whole. That's the core message. Free software is just a small part of all that, and most certainly not the most important as far as most decision makers are concerned.
Perhaps their latest rash of applications are more defensive than offensive.
If that were the case, then why are they lobbying so heavily in favour of software patents in Europe? They even went as far as going to individual MEPs and asking them what they wanted (things like free licenses for schools in their constituency etc) in return for supporting the swpat directive. They also went to governments (together with national member organisations from EICTA), urging them to support the swpat directive, because excluding software from patentability would somehow be very bad for our economy.
Can MS-Office be ported to Linux technically? I would say yes, because they were able to make a Mac OS X port, which has BSD-Unix underpinnings. Pretty much anything than can be done on BSD can be done on Linux. So no great feat of technology would be involved on getting MS-Office ported to Linux.
MS Office for Mac OS X doesn't use the BSD's api directly (except maybe an open() here and there or so). It's based on Carbon, the re-entrant version of the classic Mac OS API that Apple developed for Mac OS X to make porting easier. You'd have to port all of Carbon (and probably Quicktime along with it, neither of which is open source) to Linux to even get somewhere in the neighbourhood of doing a port with "no great feat of technology".
Look again. As the previous poster said: System Preferences/Keyboard & Mouse/Keyboard Shortcuts. Go to All applications, click on + and select your application from the pop-up menu. Then add you keyboard shortcut.
I really think I'm going blind here:) When I do that, I get, just like before, the ability to assign a shortcut to a menu item of either all programs, or the program selected from the pop-up menu. If you do not fill in the "menu title" field, you cannot add the shortcut.
So I still fail to see how this can be used to launch a program...
Please try to wrap your head around the fact that this is a nested/threaded discussion board, not a linear system where you always reply always to the most recent post.
Ironically, this was implemented in Mac OS 9, but not (yet) carried over to X. There are however several third-party utilities that allow you to do this.
Mac OS 10.3 has this - go to System Preferences\Keyboard & Mouse\Keyboard Shortcuts - you can add it.
How? I can only add menu item shortcuts, not shortcuts to launch applications. I did check there before I wrote my reply. In fact, I had first written a "Yes", before I went to check and discovered otherwise.
To switch between open Apps, you can always use Apple-Tab... If you want your cursur to 'disappear', what don't you just push it down into the lower right corner of the screen (assuming that you haven't set that as a hot zone for Expose')? Seems like you're picking at nits here - is the presnece of a curor on the screen really sooo distracting? Oh well...
I think you wanted to flame the original poster. I've never used hotkeys to launch applications (not even under Mac OS 9) and I'm content with the fact that the cursor only disappears when I start to type something or when I use keyboard navigation.
If I'm not using the cursor, I'd like it to disappear. Does MacOS X 'just work' for me in that way?
Partly. If you start entering text, or scroll e.g. a browser window using an arrow key, the cursor immediately disappears (i.e. if key event occurs that does something in the current context, the mouse cursor gets hidden).
Oh, and I like hotkeys. Will MacOS X allow me to easily set up the combination of ctrl-j + l to switch to my web browser, and if that web browser doesn't exist, launch it?
Ironically, this was implemented in Mac OS 9, but not (yet) carried over to X. There are however several third-party utilities that allow you to do this.
So e.g. game reviewers giving a negative opinion on a game are vigilantes because they suggest you shouldn't buy that game, and as such it's an attack on the game publisher's business? So by extension, also all consumer organisations are vigilantes?
Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X has had this "prelink" stuff since 10.0. Apple calls it "prebinding". It happens during the "optimisation" stage of installing software. You have to build your program properly for it to being able to be prebound, however.
Certainly. FWIW, we have something like the DMCA in Europe as well (the EUCD). I don't know its details, however.
Which they hopefully won't, and to accomplish that, I would urge everyone who can to join us in a demonstration in Brussels (press release) on 14th April, as well as to participate in another online demonstration like last September whereby websites go on strike.
Preparations are still in progress, hopefully we'll be with more info soon on slashdot's front page :)
These are my current BitTorrent stats:
saving: thebroken_3.avi (152.9 MB)
percent done: 26.2
time left: 43 min 29 sec
download to: thebroken_3.avi
download rate: 56.86 kB/s
upload rate: 73.17 kB/s
download total: 40.1 MiB
upload total: 73.5 MiB
I have a public IP-address (I'm not behind a NAT gateway), but I'm behind a firewall that blocks any and all incoming connections (except to port 8080, where Apache is listening). I have full access to the outside however. Given this situation,
a) How are other clients able to send upload requests at all? Do other clients send upload requests in the same TCP/IP connection where I'm downloading from them? When I look at the output of netstat, nobody is indeed connected to port 6881-6889 on my machine, but some connections have quite large Send-Q values.
b) How come I'm getting such a low download rate while I'm uploading so much? Aren't those clients detecting that I'm uploading to them or so? (I have plenty of bandwidth left)
I'm using BitTorrent 3.4.1a.
FWIW: before this firewall was installed, I could easily get 100kb/sec upload, 300kb/sec downloads (and more). The firewall does not rate limit (normal downloads actually go a lot faster than before, because our outside connection was upgraded at the same time).
For the software patents directive, you can see the score of each individual MEP here. A similar table will be made for the IPR-vote, though you can expect a lot more red :(
Certain systems in standby-mode with wake-on-lan still consume a fair amount of power. The Dells we have here consume about 70 Watts when operating normally and 18-20 Watts in standby mode. That's still about 30% of the normal usage.
Because big businesses don't want to have to do that pesky dealing with the police, and want to get the search warrants themselves and have them carried them out by their private agents.
Because big businesses want to have the right to seize all equipment of an ISP (without informing him beforehand) if they suspect that some customers of his have illegally downloaded copyrighted material, and keep that equipment for up to 31 days without detailing what their complaints actually are.
Because big businesses want to have the right freeze all bank accounts and assets of suspected infringers, even before said alleged infringers have been heard by a court.
The first is obviously about software patents, the other points come more or less literally from the new IPR-enforcement directive that's currently being lead through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou... who happens to be the wife of the CEO of Vivendi-Universal.
The directive would apply to *any* kind of IP, going from trade secrets over patents to copyright, and at any scale. So someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use, someone who publishes a program that uses a patented algorithm and an organised crime organisations that massively counterfeits mark clothing, music etc... would all get the same treatment.
Note that I'm not claiming that someone who illegally downloads an MP3 for personal use does not have to be punished. But that is already illegal, and it's beyond all reasonable proportions that such an action can result in the freezing of all his assets and the seizure of his ISP's equipment. And on top of that, it gives the SCO's of this world the means to abuse straight from their wildest dreams.
If you want to have even the smallest chance of convincing a majority of politicians about the fact that they should vote against software patents, you have to stop spreading this misconception. Software patents are bad for innovation, bad for SME's and as such bad for society as a whole. That's the core message. Free software is just a small part of all that, and most certainly not the most important as far as most decision makers are concerned.
Reminds me of this great spoof. The end is really terrific :)
So I still fail to see how this can be used to launch a program...
Please try to wrap your head around the fact that this is a nested/threaded discussion board, not a linear system where you always reply always to the most recent post.
I think you wanted to reply to the OP in this thread. Please read the last sentence of my previous post, I'm not interested at all in these things.
You're not alone.
It's nothing new. The US Patent Office even advertises the fact that it has such a "secret" plan on its website.
It's not about content, it's about consent. Anonymous consenting, not sure how that would work though...
So e.g. game reviewers giving a negative opinion on a game are vigilantes because they suggest you shouldn't buy that game, and as such it's an attack on the game publisher's business? So by extension, also all consumer organisations are vigilantes?
Thanks for the heads up... I guess ;) I guess in that case I just bought one of the most expensive TechtoolPro CD's one can find <g>