It sounds like you're not too interested in other people using SPARC Linux, then. I for one couldn't have told you a good reason to use it until reading this thread. So now there's one more potential SPARC Linux devotee in the world.
Since the whole point of this article was about diminished support for SPARC, and it would be reasonable to assume that support has diminished because the user base has decreased, you're not helping yourself out by getting all offended when someone asks for good reasons to prefer Linux on SPARC rather than Linux on Intel.
Even if it was an ill-advised question for this article, that would make it "Offtopic", not "Troll".
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
On this page the hierarchical menus pop out, but you don't click on the popped-out part, and you can't tell that easily because the cursor doesn't change properly when it's over the link part.
On this page they have a small word that's the link to a site, and then a much larger spelled-out URL which isn't a link! I wonder if they've ever actually tried to use their pages...
I'm sure webreference is great and all, but they haven't made a good first impression on me:)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Of course, why didn't I think of that! Without all of that damned competition, surely Microsoft would have ushered in the new millennium with flying cars, butler robots, and nanotechnological medicine for all. We could be living in a paradise if we'd all just shut up and let Microsoft innovate for the world.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
(The above link is probably going to/. this guy's page out of existence, but the original copy of this at perlguy.net doesn't seem to be there any more. Sorry, O. Hodson!)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I'm just nervous about having one centralized decision maker. My company did that and now we're stuck with slow Exchange email and Outlook viruses galore. Such is the cost of progress and standardization, I guess.
On second thought, maybe just havin a centralized bad decision maker was the real problem...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
The Bill text has yet to be posted to the web, but should be up in a week or so.
Presumably this is exactly why we need a technology czar. The senators are probably preparing the bill electronically anyway, so why does it take so long to post it?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:Outsourcing: one of the great hoaxes in history
on
When ASPs Go Under
·
· Score: 1
tres OT:
JMHO -- Trevor
Does that stand for "Jesus, My Honest Opinion", or "Just Makes Him Ornery" or "Ju Might Hate One"? I had to read it a couple times to be sure that it wasn't "IMHO" plus a weird flyspec on my monitor:)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
(In case the sarcasm wasn't evident above, I hold RMS in the highest regard for his principles and the actions he's taken in support of them. I was just calling him a nut-job to point out that most people who disagree with him start with name-calling and never really rise above that level of argument (like the author of this article did).)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
One clarification: at the time that Gnome was started, KDE was not free in the FSF sense, due to some QT licensing issues. AFAIK those are resolved now, though.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
...is because it's flamebait, of course. Some choice examples:
...KDE, was being produced under terms that no user could find
objectionable but that the Free Software Foundation found insufficiently "free," based upon its made-up definition
of the word... Yes, let's gloss right over the very real licensing issues, shall we? Because we all know RMS is a total nut-job with no basis in reality, right?
Gnome is controlled -- c'mon, don't kid yourself -- by two companies. That's funny, since I just built Gnome myself last night. I don't recall asking either company's permission.
It is a peculiar
irony that I can easily learn far more about the financial dealings of Microsoft Corp., than I can about the Free
Software Foundation Of course, one is a publicly-traded company! A private foundation is just that, private. It's not surprising when the mainstream press gets confused and makes the jump from "free software" to "all information wants to be free", but it's surprising to see a Linux publication making such a leap, especially since that's never been the FSF's position. If they didn't believe in privacy, they wouldn't distribute GPG:)
It cost nowhere near $13 million to produce all of KDE, which besides being the most widely used Linux desktop
also works reliably and has actual applications. Wow, I thought we were past this kind of juvenile name-calling years ago. In case you hadn't noticed, Gnome does have apps, and in fact you can even use KDE apps on Gnome without any problems. Have you ever used Linux?
I'll be the first to admit that Ximian and Eazel, along with a zillion other.com companies, made some very poor financial decisions
(or at least made decisions which didn't produce good results when coupled with the.com collapse). I'm not sure if I would have given
them any money if I were a VC, and I probably won't send them money via PayPal. If those were the points the author wanted to
make, then I would have no problems agreeing with him.
But these baseless accusations against the FSF and the Gnome organization, combined with the total disregard for the facts
and his old-style "KDE r0x, Gnome sux!" attitude (I mean, come on - is this guy still in elementary school or something?)
make it impossible for me to really get to the point of the article. If this were a post, it would have been "-1, Flamebait" for sure.
obFullDisclosure: I use Gnome with mostly Gnome but some KDE apps at home, mostly because my KDE1.1->2.0 upgrade
didn't go so well. Also I've submitted reasonable patches for both desktops' apps (in all cases including an explanation
of what the patch would fix), and the Gnome folk have accepted them while the KDE folks have not (and have not provided
a good explanation why not, either). So when it comes down to it, I'm more likely to use a desktop that is willing
to accept my input, because I can identify with it considerably more. But that doesn't mean that KDE doesn't look nice, have solid code, and some nifty apps as well.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
IANAL, so I may not have used the term "prior restraint" appropriately. The issue is not with 2600 publishing the exact same thing again, but with other publishers who may have cryptographic research and tools that they wish to publish. By prohibiting 2600 from publishing such information or even linking to it, the courts have effectively stopped any other publisher who isn't prepared for a long court fight, as well as any news sites which might link to such information. Effectively, publishers and media sites will be restrained from providing or linking to information, prior to the determination of the legality of such information, due to the expense of the necessary legal defense which would be necessary.
AFAIK, 2600 is not being accused of continuing to publish/link to DeCSS after they were ordered to stop by the courts, so I don't see how "contempt of court" would come into this. They seem to be following the legal process through its normal (slow as molasses) channels.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
That's the funny part - from the description above, they are arguing that DeCSS is not the tool that should be used for that legal purpose. I think they're arguing that there is no legitimate purpose for such a tool until we actually reach the point where a DVD would lapse into public domain, at which point they'll back off of enforcement of the DMCA against a DeCSS-like tool that's used for public domain works.
I didn't say it was a logical or internally consistent viewpoint, but I think that's the argument they're making. Hopefully the justices will see through it. It may be that Michael's summary hasn't really stated their position correctly, because I find it hard to believe that someone could maintain some of their viewpoints without imminent cranial explosion.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
The Appeals judge made the point that the injunction could not be considered to
apply to anyone except the specific defendants -- that is, just because 2600 was enjoined from
posting or linking to DeCSS, doesn't mean that anyone else necessarily would. On the other hand,
the reasoning applied in the opinion could be assumed to apply to other U.S. citizens wanting to
post DeCSS. The gist was that Sullivan couldn't argue her case as if anyone would be enjoined from
linking to DeCSS, but only regarding the specific defendants that were.
I don't understand how this squares with other court cases which have argued that this is a prior restraint on free speech. After the DeCSS case, anyone interested in publishing cryptographic research about a particular protection scheme (like Prof. Felten, for example) will be thinking twice about that publication. This doesn't seem right to me, I hope Ms. Sullivan hit that point hard.
The biggest thing to hit in the follow-up brief would be to point out the logical inconsistencies in the DA/MPAA's arguments which Michael so clearly pointed out. The argument about how a DVD that eventually falls into the public domain will be accessed struck me as a particularly powerful one.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Actually, it's interesting the level of knee-jerk defense Microsoft gets on this issue. Do you guys really think that they won't go further to restrict possible "non-approved" use of Windows XP? The mp3 thing is just a shot across the bow. Microsoft looks out for #1, and what's good for big media is good for #1.
See, just 'cause I didn't take four paragraphs to explain myself above, doesn't mean I wasn't right:)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I wouldn't worry about this too much - after all, ISPs can't hunt down new-account-every-day spammers as it is. Once Freenet/Gnutella adapt to using a new account every week, you'll see the same thing going on.
OTOH, there's a lot more money in the movie industry than there is in the anti-spam brigade.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Offtopic=1 - clearly incorrect, as I'm specifically referring to the topic at hand.
Informative=4 - I'd be happier about this if I thought it would make any difference in the number of repeat stories that are posted. Is it too much to ask the folks running the site to be as cognizant of its content as I, a mere mortal who has a real job apart from/.?
Funny=1 - Thanks, that's what I was aiming for.
Overrated=4 - I can see that, I suppose. You win some, you lose some.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I'm pretty sure you replied to the wrong post, because my point was not about IBM vs Unix servers, but about how this whole article's been done to death a few days ago.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Sounds like some strange meaning of "site license" that doesn't match up with the common-sense definition of "licenses all machines at your site". Although you are correct in your explanation of the story, it still sounds like the licensing terms are out to get you.
This from a company whose CEO couldn't define "concerned", IIRC, so perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Not to mention the time it takes to track down all the fish sticks in the communal freezer of a medium-to-large-sized business. Hey, when was the last time anybody cleaned this thing out?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Slashdot Mirror
You could always OCR it, and get all the profanity with none of that annoying music getting in the way :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
It sounds like you're not too interested in other people using SPARC Linux, then. I for one couldn't have told you a good reason to use it until reading this thread. So now there's one more potential SPARC Linux devotee in the world.
Since the whole point of this article was about diminished support for SPARC, and it would be reasonable to assume that support has diminished because the user base has decreased, you're not helping yourself out by getting all offended when someone asks for good reasons to prefer Linux on SPARC rather than Linux on Intel.
Even if it was an ill-advised question for this article, that would make it "Offtopic", not "Troll".
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
With all due respect, that's the wrong argument to bring into any Linux vs. Windows discussion :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
See here.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
But they commit a couple cardinal sins:
I'm sure webreference is great and all, but they haven't made a good first impression on me :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Of course, why didn't I think of that! Without all of that damned competition, surely Microsoft would have ushered in the new millennium with flying cars, butler robots, and nanotechnological medicine for all. We could be living in a paradise if we'd all just shut up and let Microsoft innovate for the world.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
It has to be said: you're programming Communism.
(The above link is probably going to /. this guy's page out of existence, but the original copy of this at perlguy.net doesn't seem to be there any more. Sorry, O. Hodson!)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I'm just nervous about having one centralized decision maker. My company did that and now we're stuck with slow Exchange email and Outlook viruses galore. Such is the cost of progress and standardization, I guess.
On second thought, maybe just havin a centralized bad decision maker was the real problem...
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I thought POSIX was specifically developed to be the government "standard" for computing. Isn't that good enough for you? :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Presumably this is exactly why we need a technology czar. The senators are probably preparing the bill electronically anyway, so why does it take so long to post it?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
tres OT:
Does that stand for "Jesus, My Honest Opinion", or "Just Makes Him Ornery" or "Ju Might Hate One"? I had to read it a couple times to be sure that it wasn't "IMHO" plus a weird flyspec on my monitor :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
(In case the sarcasm wasn't evident above, I hold RMS in the highest regard for his principles and the actions he's taken in support of them. I was just calling him a nut-job to point out that most people who disagree with him start with name-calling and never really rise above that level of argument (like the author of this article did).)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Hey, at least he didn't say "hotting up" this time :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
One clarification: at the time that Gnome was started, KDE was not free in the FSF sense, due to some QT licensing issues. AFAIK those are resolved now, though.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
...is because it's flamebait, of course. Some choice examples:
Yes, let's gloss right over the very real licensing issues, shall we? Because we all know RMS is a total nut-job with no basis in reality, right?
That's funny, since I just built Gnome myself last night. I don't recall asking either company's permission.
Of course, one is a publicly-traded company! A private foundation is just that, private. It's not surprising when the mainstream press gets confused and makes the jump from "free software" to "all information wants to be free", but it's surprising to see a Linux publication making such a leap, especially since that's never been the FSF's position. If they didn't believe in privacy, they wouldn't distribute GPG
Wow, I thought we were past this kind of juvenile name-calling years ago. In case you hadn't noticed, Gnome does have apps, and in fact you can even use KDE apps on Gnome without any problems. Have you ever used Linux?
I'll be the first to admit that Ximian and Eazel, along with a zillion other .com companies, made some very poor financial decisions
(or at least made decisions which didn't produce good results when coupled with the .com collapse). I'm not sure if I would have given
them any money if I were a VC, and I probably won't send them money via PayPal. If those were the points the author wanted to
make, then I would have no problems agreeing with him.
But these baseless accusations against the FSF and the Gnome organization, combined with the total disregard for the facts and his old-style "KDE r0x, Gnome sux!" attitude (I mean, come on - is this guy still in elementary school or something?) make it impossible for me to really get to the point of the article. If this were a post, it would have been "-1, Flamebait" for sure.
obFullDisclosure: I use Gnome with mostly Gnome but some KDE apps at home, mostly because my KDE1.1->2.0 upgrade didn't go so well. Also I've submitted reasonable patches for both desktops' apps (in all cases including an explanation of what the patch would fix), and the Gnome folk have accepted them while the KDE folks have not (and have not provided a good explanation why not, either). So when it comes down to it, I'm more likely to use a desktop that is willing to accept my input, because I can identify with it considerably more. But that doesn't mean that KDE doesn't look nice, have solid code, and some nifty apps as well.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
IANAL, so I may not have used the term "prior restraint" appropriately. The issue is not with 2600 publishing the exact same thing again, but with other publishers who may have cryptographic research and tools that they wish to publish. By prohibiting 2600 from publishing such information or even linking to it, the courts have effectively stopped any other publisher who isn't prepared for a long court fight, as well as any news sites which might link to such information. Effectively, publishers and media sites will be restrained from providing or linking to information, prior to the determination of the legality of such information, due to the expense of the necessary legal defense which would be necessary.
AFAIK, 2600 is not being accused of continuing to publish/link to DeCSS after they were ordered to stop by the courts, so I don't see how "contempt of court" would come into this. They seem to be following the legal process through its normal (slow as molasses) channels.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
That may be the smartest comment I've read on this story. Mod up, please!
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
That's the funny part - from the description above, they are arguing that DeCSS is not the tool that should be used for that legal purpose. I think they're arguing that there is no legitimate purpose for such a tool until we actually reach the point where a DVD would lapse into public domain, at which point they'll back off of enforcement of the DMCA against a DeCSS-like tool that's used for public domain works.
I didn't say it was a logical or internally consistent viewpoint, but I think that's the argument they're making. Hopefully the justices will see through it. It may be that Michael's summary hasn't really stated their position correctly, because I find it hard to believe that someone could maintain some of their viewpoints without imminent cranial explosion.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I thought this was interesting:
I don't understand how this squares with other court cases which have argued that this is a prior restraint on free speech. After the DeCSS case, anyone interested in publishing cryptographic research about a particular protection scheme (like Prof. Felten, for example) will be thinking twice about that publication. This doesn't seem right to me, I hope Ms. Sullivan hit that point hard.
The biggest thing to hit in the follow-up brief would be to point out the logical inconsistencies in the DA/MPAA's arguments which Michael so clearly pointed out. The argument about how a DVD that eventually falls into the public domain will be accessed struck me as a particularly powerful one.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Sorry, please play again.
But thanks, really.
Actually, it's interesting the level of knee-jerk defense Microsoft gets on this issue. Do you guys really think that they won't go further to restrict possible "non-approved" use of Windows XP? The mp3 thing is just a shot across the bow. Microsoft looks out for #1, and what's good for big media is good for #1.
See, just 'cause I didn't take four paragraphs to explain myself above, doesn't mean I wasn't right :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I wouldn't worry about this too much - after all, ISPs can't hunt down new-account-every-day spammers as it is. Once Freenet/Gnutella adapt to using a new account every week, you'll see the same thing going on.
OTOH, there's a lot more money in the movie industry than there is in the anti-spam brigade.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Hmmm, as of 12:50 CST, we have:
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
I'm pretty sure you replied to the wrong post, because my point was not about IBM vs Unix servers, but about how this whole article's been done to death a few days ago.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Sounds like some strange meaning of "site license" that doesn't match up with the common-sense definition of "licenses all machines at your site". Although you are correct in your explanation of the story, it still sounds like the licensing terms are out to get you.
This from a company whose CEO couldn't define "concerned", IIRC, so perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Not to mention the time it takes to track down all the fish sticks in the communal freezer of a medium-to-large-sized business. Hey, when was the last time anybody cleaned this thing out?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!