no, actually they put a few different open source licenses on their blacklist by name, including the GPL and MPL.
In the EULA recently mentioned here on slashdot (and since removed from the Microsoft site), Microsoft also named the LGPL and Perl's Artistic License as being on their blacklist. Neither license is a "copyleft" (or "viral") license, despite Microsoft's claim to the contrary.
The truth is, Microsoft is made of people (just like Soylent Green). Some of those people understand the distinctions between the different open source license. Some of those people do not. Some of those people know which open source license are free, and which are copyleft, and some of those people don't have a clue.
But like in all debates, it's very important to listen to what Microsoft is actually saying, and not just what you hope they're saying. They are not making a distinction between the different types of license, hey are making no effort to clarify the licenses, and they often muddle the differences. Much of the muddling is probably unintentional.
But for many, many, many people, this is the first time they're hearing about the different types of "open source" or "free" or "copyleft" software license, and it's a confusing picture, and Microsoft is making no effort to make it less confusing, and is making some effort to make it more confusing.
No. Go back and read what Microsoft actually says. They say that "open source" is viral.
Since anyone with any inkling at all of what open source is about understands that such a claim is complete nonsense, most people fill in gaps and think "oh, they say open source, but to make sense they must mean GPL."
Sure, they may mean GPL. Their marketing stuff makes some sense if you read GPL. But in general, they do not say GPL -- they say open source.
bullshit, quasi-informative troll about BSD elided...
Wow. You sound like a really smart guy. I bet you can think of all sorts of reasons why BSD is dying. Why don't you share some with the slashdot community?
They're leaving the business that made them rich, in favour of a business that nobody else has succeeded in getting rich in.
Well, they really had no choice. Nasdaq is going to delist them soon.
I'm assuming, of course, that you understand that "the business that made them rich" was selling stock. They've never made a dime selling hardware or software, and this announcement is an admission that they can't possibly see any way to make a dime selling the hardware.
There's a pretty good chance that they're not going to make much money selling software, either. But, as they say in the announcement, they'll lose less money doing it.
Hmm... perhaps someone with unlimited moderator points modded you down. Perhaps it was someone who spends all day, every day, reading slashdot. Perhaps you were moderated down by someone who is trying to protect the reputation of OSDN in a heavy-handed, amateurish way.
I personally can not imagine why you were moderated down, or who would have done so.
Maybe the standard says different and it's just all the... C++ book writers that are "wrong", heh.
Yes. Many of the books you'll find in the computer section of your local bookstore are painfully incorrect, often on the most basic topics. It's almost a joke, really, how much money is charged for many books that are full of paper that is too hard and scratchy to use for toilet paper, but not useful as anything else.
The C++ FAQ recommends a few good books on C++, if you're actually interested in learning the language.
Despite all the media yowling about violence in the movie, there really isn't much. There's hardly a drop of blood in the movie, and the shooting and kicking are cartoonish, not explicit.
Thak god for this. I think it's really important that movies show a lot of shooting, kicking, and general mayhem, but emphasize that there's no consequences to this.
It really pisses me off, the way Hollywood usually spends so much time emphasizing the shattered lives, broken bodies, and lost dreams that accompany real lethal violence. I'm glad this movie has chosen to take a stand, and make the point that you can shoot people without any blood, much less diminishing the world.
Jesus holy shit fuck christ. If a student submitted this study in any undergraduate research class, he'd be laughed right out of the damned building.
They use the world "methodology", and then have a paragraph that doesn't describe their methodology at all. They neglect to mention what their questions were, or how they selected respondents, or what the completion rate was, or what any of the results might have been. They say "Respondents were asked what percentage of their server purchases consisted of Linux servers." If that's what they asked, then how the hell did they get "percentage of redhat", or the total dollar value of the servers? If it's not what they asked, then why the hell won't they tell us what the did fucking ask?
The whole thing is a crock of steaming fetid shit, and anyone with an IQ over 95 would know it if they read it. The very best way to live up to the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" bullshit is to publish dick like this, where you refuse to say how the study was conducted (or even what, precisely, you were studying), and then cherry-pick a limited subset of the results. It stinks, and everyone at the Gartner Group knows it stinks, and they'll all go to hell for being such weaselicious fucks.
I don't think I'm the only person here who is reluctant to install software on Windows machines. Far too many programs have broken installers or uninstallers, and far too often the solution for degraded systems is "just re-install windows." Far too often, the worse offenders are the games that were not hits, and were pushed out too soon by the publishing house long before the testing was done, but shortly after they realized they weren't every going to make any money. A system that makes it easier to install and uninstall dozens of these games isn't going to be good for anyone.
Other than the generally poor quality of many games, and Windows installation programs in general, two things worry me about this system. First, one of my co-workers has tried it, and was disappointed to learn it didn't work under Win2K. I'm extra reluctant to endorse Windows softwarwe that isn't even 100% compatible with Windows -- it's usually a good sign that the publisher is less than committed to a quality, bug free product.
Second, it's probably targeted towards the casual gamer -- the person who doesn't have seperate, dedicated productivity machines and game machines. I'm certain I'm not alone in having entirely seperate computers (or partitions), one on which I'll install any stupid Windows program that comes along, and one on which I'll do real work (uhh... guess which one runs linux). This is targetted towards the kind of person who always looks so crestfallen when they learn the vendor-approved way to fix most WinME problems is to simply re-format the hard drive and re-install everything. Ironically, the casual gamer is often the home user that has the most to lose when the computers craps out, but is the person most likely to do stuff that will crap out their computer.
A cobbled up system that allows casual users to install and un-install dozens of games, across possibly unreliable network connections, in a way that's not entirely Windows compatible, is just a good way to ensure that even more people will discover the internet just isn't worth the damned trouble. Well, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
At work, I have a Linux workstation and a Windows desktop running side by side. Visitors to my office always comment on how much more crisp and readable and faster Mozilla 0.9 is on Linux versus Explorer 5.0 on Windows. It can be done, but it takes a little effort.
Yes, this happens in my office also. The machine running Windos is a 386sx16, with 8 mb of RAM and a 240 mb MFM hard drive, running W2K and an IE 6 pre-alpha build I snagged from my latest 'leet hack of hotmail. Since the powersupply gave out on this machine three years ago, I forced to allow an autistic four year old child draw on the 10-year old 14" monitor, in crayon, what he thinks a webpage might look. I only give him brown and green crayons.
The other machine is a screaming fast dual athalon running linux, with the latest nightly build of mozilla (you have to get the nightly builds, every night). It still loads much slower than I'd like, and doesn't render tables quite as fast as the four year old child, but my soft and fragile ego as a wanna-be geek forces me to point out to everyone who comes by my office just how 'leet and skinnable and cool mozilla is, and how much more featureful it is than IE. They always pretend to be impressed, just before they leave.
I'm going to submit a story to ask Slashdot: "Why doesn't anyone ever vist my cube anymore?"
What the bleeping heck... the javascript on supercables.com checks to see if you're running Netscape version 4.x, and if not basically does the equivilant of <FRAMESET onLoad="document.location.href = document.location.href">
I'm not sure why you would want to send every browser except netscape 4.x into an in infinite redirect loop, and I'm not sure why IE doesn't fall for it, but it sure is some strange programming.
I'd like to know -- was the administration upset about the crapflood of offensive comments that you passed off as a message board on their server, or were they upset to discover they were responsible for hosting photos of a guy with a giant gaping asshole?
As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux.
Yes. Netscape runs (barely) on headless servers. But Internet Explorer works reasonably well on anything I'd plug a monitor and keyboard into -- Macs and Windows machines.
Ok... I don't understand this at all. One of your clients only wants to use supported tools and is willing to pay tens or even hundres of thousands of dollars for support. At the same time, you have a fast, flexible solution that works, you have all the source code for that solution, you have every legal right to use and modify the source code for that solution, and you have the knowledge and ability to maintain that solution.
So why are you asking us what to do? The answer is simple -- sell your clients a support contract, and support the tools yourself. You have the source code -- what the hell do you think it's for?
Re:GIMP has it's work cut out for it...
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 2
Dude, the guy you're responding to was trolling, or joking. The person who modded him insightful was certainly trolling. Go back and read his post again.
Pay careful attention to the part where he says his Pentium 120 is faster than a G4. Also notice the blatantly false assertion that Gimp does everything Photoshop does. He is clearly either joking or trolling, since anyone who could manage to believe what he wrote would be far too stupid to read, write, or post to slashdot.
It's more than just the size of the TV -- the problem is that your TV is painfully low resolution, the color bleeds all over the place, the damned thing flickers noticably 30 times a second, and in general everything on television looks like shit.
Reading subtitles on current televisions sucks. With most movies, it's fairly tolerable, and it's usually preferrable to a dub, but it still sucks.
On the other hand, I don't even notice subtitles in the theatre -- when people ask me after "were there subtitles?", I usually can't remember.
Hopefully, improvements in television resolution will significantly improve subtitles in movies.
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 2
OK... I'm confused by the term "remote server" in this context. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'll say that the X client is remote, the X server is local, the sshd server is remote, the ssh client is local.
You're saying that if I use a local ssh client, with X forwarding turned on, to connect to an untrusted remote sshd server, then that untrusted remote server can connect an X client back to my X server, and through that X client can run arbitrary code on my X server?
Slashdot Mirror
no, actually they put a few different open source licenses on their blacklist by name, including the GPL and MPL.
In the EULA recently mentioned here on slashdot (and since removed from the Microsoft site), Microsoft also named the LGPL and Perl's Artistic License as being on their blacklist. Neither license is a "copyleft" (or "viral") license, despite Microsoft's claim to the contrary.
The truth is, Microsoft is made of people (just like Soylent Green). Some of those people understand the distinctions between the different open source license. Some of those people do not. Some of those people know which open source license are free, and which are copyleft, and some of those people don't have a clue.
But like in all debates, it's very important to listen to what Microsoft is actually saying, and not just what you hope they're saying. They are not making a distinction between the different types of license, hey are making no effort to clarify the licenses, and they often muddle the differences. Much of the muddling is probably unintentional.
But for many, many, many people, this is the first time they're hearing about the different types of "open source" or "free" or "copyleft" software license, and it's a confusing picture, and Microsoft is making no effort to make it less confusing, and is making some effort to make it more confusing.
No. Go back and read what Microsoft actually says. They say that "open source" is viral.
Since anyone with any inkling at all of what open source is about understands that such a claim is complete nonsense, most people fill in gaps and think "oh, they say open source, but to make sense they must mean GPL."
Sure, they may mean GPL. Their marketing stuff makes some sense if you read GPL. But in general, they do not say GPL -- they say open source.
bullshit, quasi-informative troll about BSD elided...
Wow. You sound like a really smart guy. I bet you can think of all sorts of reasons why BSD is dying. Why don't you share some with the slashdot community?
Maybe we could strip him naked and put him on a webcam like that guy on the Japanese TV show...
Uhh... I don't know about you, but I'd pay good money to NOT see that. Ever.
They're leaving the business that made them rich, in favour of a business that nobody else has succeeded in getting rich in.
Well, they really had no choice. Nasdaq is going to delist them soon.
I'm assuming, of course, that you understand that "the business that made them rich" was selling stock. They've never made a dime selling hardware or software, and this announcement is an admission that they can't possibly see any way to make a dime selling the hardware.
There's a pretty good chance that they're not going to make much money selling software, either. But, as they say in the announcement, they'll lose less money doing it.
Hmm... perhaps someone with unlimited moderator points modded you down. Perhaps it was someone who spends all day, every day, reading slashdot. Perhaps you were moderated down by someone who is trying to protect the reputation of OSDN in a heavy-handed, amateurish way.
I personally can not imagine why you were moderated down, or who would have done so.
It has been proven that the smallest possible system that can simulate the Universe is the Universe itself, which is kind of obvious really.
I don't think you use this word "proof" in the same way a mathematician or computer scientist does.
If it really was intelligent, it wouldn't have stated that "People Magazine" would not make sense.
How would it possibly know that People Magazine doesn't make sense? Intelligent beings don't read People Magazine.
Maybe the standard says different and it's just all the... C++ book writers that are "wrong", heh.
Yes. Many of the books you'll find in the computer section of your local bookstore are painfully incorrect, often on the most basic topics. It's almost a joke, really, how much money is charged for many books that are full of paper that is too hard and scratchy to use for toilet paper, but not useful as anything else.
The C++ FAQ recommends a few good books on C++, if you're actually interested in learning the language.
Despite all the media yowling about violence in the movie, there really isn't much. There's hardly a drop of blood in the movie, and the shooting and kicking are cartoonish, not explicit.
Thak god for this. I think it's really important that movies show a lot of shooting, kicking, and general mayhem, but emphasize that there's no consequences to this.
It really pisses me off, the way Hollywood usually spends so much time emphasizing the shattered lives, broken bodies, and lost dreams that accompany real lethal violence. I'm glad this movie has chosen to take a stand, and make the point that you can shoot people without any blood, much less diminishing the world.
Jesus holy shit fuck christ. If a student submitted this study in any undergraduate research class, he'd be laughed right out of the damned building.
They use the world "methodology", and then have a paragraph that doesn't describe their methodology at all. They neglect to mention what their questions were, or how they selected respondents, or what the completion rate was, or what any of the results might have been. They say "Respondents were asked what percentage of their server purchases consisted of Linux servers." If that's what they asked, then how the hell did they get "percentage of redhat", or the total dollar value of the servers? If it's not what they asked, then why the hell won't they tell us what the did fucking ask?
The whole thing is a crock of steaming fetid shit, and anyone with an IQ over 95 would know it if they read it. The very best way to live up to the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" bullshit is to publish dick like this, where you refuse to say how the study was conducted (or even what, precisely, you were studying), and then cherry-pick a limited subset of the results. It stinks, and everyone at the Gartner Group knows it stinks, and they'll all go to hell for being such weaselicious fucks.
Now my kids will be exposed to all of the filth the Internet has to offer.
Yes. And you will undoubtedly allow them to play unsupervised in traffic, too.
I don't think I'm the only person here who is reluctant to install software on Windows machines. Far too many programs have broken installers or uninstallers, and far too often the solution for degraded systems is "just re-install windows." Far too often, the worse offenders are the games that were not hits, and were pushed out too soon by the publishing house long before the testing was done, but shortly after they realized they weren't every going to make any money. A system that makes it easier to install and uninstall dozens of these games isn't going to be good for anyone.
Other than the generally poor quality of many games, and Windows installation programs in general, two things worry me about this system. First, one of my co-workers has tried it, and was disappointed to learn it didn't work under Win2K. I'm extra reluctant to endorse Windows softwarwe that isn't even 100% compatible with Windows -- it's usually a good sign that the publisher is less than committed to a quality, bug free product.
Second, it's probably targeted towards the casual gamer -- the person who doesn't have seperate, dedicated productivity machines and game machines. I'm certain I'm not alone in having entirely seperate computers (or partitions), one on which I'll install any stupid Windows program that comes along, and one on which I'll do real work (uhh... guess which one runs linux). This is targetted towards the kind of person who always looks so crestfallen when they learn the vendor-approved way to fix most WinME problems is to simply re-format the hard drive and re-install everything. Ironically, the casual gamer is often the home user that has the most to lose when the computers craps out, but is the person most likely to do stuff that will crap out their computer.
A cobbled up system that allows casual users to install and un-install dozens of games, across possibly unreliable network connections, in a way that's not entirely Windows compatible, is just a good way to ensure that even more people will discover the internet just isn't worth the damned trouble. Well, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
my guess is that /. is running asci (sic) on the servers
Wow... seven bit servers. Where do you suppose they found those?
At work, I have a Linux workstation and a Windows desktop running side by side. Visitors to my office always comment on how much more crisp and readable and faster Mozilla 0.9 is on Linux versus Explorer 5.0 on Windows. It can be done, but it takes a little effort.
Yes, this happens in my office also. The machine running Windos is a 386sx16, with 8 mb of RAM and a 240 mb MFM hard drive, running W2K and an IE 6 pre-alpha build I snagged from my latest 'leet hack of hotmail. Since the powersupply gave out on this machine three years ago, I forced to allow an autistic four year old child draw on the 10-year old 14" monitor, in crayon, what he thinks a webpage might look. I only give him brown and green crayons.
The other machine is a screaming fast dual athalon running linux, with the latest nightly build of mozilla (you have to get the nightly builds, every night). It still loads much slower than I'd like, and doesn't render tables quite as fast as the four year old child, but my soft and fragile ego as a wanna-be geek forces me to point out to everyone who comes by my office just how 'leet and skinnable and cool mozilla is, and how much more featureful it is than IE. They always pretend to be impressed, just before they leave.
I'm going to submit a story to ask Slashdot: "Why doesn't anyone ever vist my cube anymore?"
Can someone explain why this got modded down as a troll?
What the bleeping heck... the javascript on supercables.com checks to see if you're running Netscape version 4.x, and if not basically does the equivilant of <FRAMESET onLoad="document.location.href = document.location.href">
I'm not sure why you would want to send every browser except netscape 4.x into an in infinite redirect loop, and I'm not sure why IE doesn't fall for it, but it sure is some strange programming.
Flikx, in this thread at Geekizoid, you offer the use of university owned servers and bandwidth to slashdot trolls, for the purpose of hosting photos of the goat sex guy (for the love of god, do NOT hit that last link!)
I'd like to know -- was the administration upset about the crapflood of offensive comments that you passed off as a message board on their server, or were they upset to discover they were responsible for hosting photos of a guy with a giant gaping asshole?
Wow. The poster known as AoaNLA,T is trolling in a Katz article. That's sweet, sweet irony.
As I see it, Netscape is still unopposed when it comes to web browsers. Opera may be gaining, but no other company provides browsers that run on the wide variety of platforms like Netscape does. Netscape runs on AIX, HP-UX, SCO, SunOS, Solaris, Digital-Unix, Irix, Linux, Mac OS, and Linux.
Yes. Netscape runs (barely) on headless servers. But Internet Explorer works reasonably well on anything I'd plug a monitor and keyboard into -- Macs and Windows machines.
Please god tell me that the trolls haven't finally figured out that the best way to fsck with slashdot is to moderate.
Have you been living in the wilds of Maine for the last few years? The slashdot mod trolls have existed for quite some time.
Ok... I don't understand this at all. One of your clients only wants to use supported tools and is willing to pay tens or even hundres of thousands of dollars for support. At the same time, you have a fast, flexible solution that works, you have all the source code for that solution, you have every legal right to use and modify the source code for that solution, and you have the knowledge and ability to maintain that solution.
So why are you asking us what to do? The answer is simple -- sell your clients a support contract, and support the tools yourself. You have the source code -- what the hell do you think it's for?
Dude, the guy you're responding to was trolling, or joking. The person who modded him insightful was certainly trolling. Go back and read his post again.
Pay careful attention to the part where he says his Pentium 120 is faster than a G4. Also notice the blatantly false assertion that Gimp does everything Photoshop does. He is clearly either joking or trolling, since anyone who could manage to believe what he wrote would be far too stupid to read, write, or post to slashdot.
It's more than just the size of the TV -- the problem is that your TV is painfully low resolution, the color bleeds all over the place, the damned thing flickers noticably 30 times a second, and in general everything on television looks like shit.
Reading subtitles on current televisions sucks. With most movies, it's fairly tolerable, and it's usually preferrable to a dub, but it still sucks.
On the other hand, I don't even notice subtitles in the theatre -- when people ask me after "were there subtitles?", I usually can't remember.
Hopefully, improvements in television resolution will significantly improve subtitles in movies.
OK... I'm confused by the term "remote server" in this context. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'll say that the X client is remote, the X server is local, the sshd server is remote, the ssh client is local.
You're saying that if I use a local ssh client, with X forwarding turned on, to connect to an untrusted remote sshd server, then that untrusted remote server can connect an X client back to my X server, and through that X client can run arbitrary code on my X server?
Damn. That sucks.
Is this a theoretical attack, or is this real?