Or alternatively, BSD emphasizes freedom for everybody. GPL emphasizes freedom for end-users by attempting to ensure that any derivative works are also free. The real world effect of course is that people writing commercial software still write the same commercial software, but can't use anything involving GPL in those products. So, even if there's a commonly used tool that does most of the job, they have to reinvent the wheel which means that they waste more time doing that then adding value to customer (or have to charge the customer more to cover the increased development time).
The users have exactly the same freedoms as before PLUS the ability to buy a product that might better serve their needs. The end-users are still just as free to use the original software as they were before.
Your point about commercial software developers benefitting from BSD by building closed source software based on open source software is not convincing to me. If there were no GPL at all, and all open sourced software would be BSD licensed, how much open source software would there be for a commercial developer to benefit from in the first place? Not much I fear, if we were all commercial developers like that.
The GPL is all or nothing, and the GPL community often gets absolutely nothing by insisting on all.
I'm not so sure about that. The Linux kernel (GPL-licensed) for example, is much more widespread than the OpenBSD kernel (BSD-licensed). I think an important reason why Linux is a success is that it receives contributions from many sides, including commercial enterprises. It is not at all self-evident that this would have been the case if Linux would have been BSD-licensed.
As so many of us, I've been unsatisfied with recent developments in linux desktop environments. Since the advent of compositing, I've moved away from minimalist window managers, to enjoy window scaling/expo and similar improvements in desktop usability. I consider myself open to progress, in the sense that I've tried both unity and the gnome shell. But these last two have never gotten "out of my way", as they proclaim to do, and attempts to configure things to work the way I want have never been completely satisfying either. My most persistent frustrations have been with window switching and workspace management.
I've just given cinnamon 1.6 a try, and I must say that out of the box, it already fits my needs much better than both unity and gnome shell. I especially like the fact that you can name your workspaces, and dynamically expand them at the same time. Window switching without popups and without flicker also works, even if it's not blazingly fast. Lastly, configuration of behavior and layout (both by menu settings and by editing the theme's css) is more straightforward than I dared to hope.
Long story short: Cinnamon is well worth a try if you're lost in the crack between old and new style destkop environments.
I second this. Working in a research area that involves machine learning, I can say that it's *very* useful to be familiar with linear algebra and calculus. I wish I had taken more of that stuff when studying.
It *is* what RMS was complaining about: if Kazaa would have been free software, spyware would have had little chance, because it would be possible (and legal) to redistribute Kazaa without spyware. As I understand it, RMS's arguments do not concern what software-makers do with their money, but rather what restrictions they pose on you as you use their software.
Actually, we don't need to buy credits for carbon neutrality, just raising the prices will do the trick:
Let's call the carbon load associated with Microsoft activies X, and the price of a Windows license P. Furthermore, Q is the the money the average Windows user earns, after subtracting P. Finally we will denote by Y the total carbon load associated with the goods he/she buys at the value of Q, on average. If we increase the price of a Windows license by 100*((C*X/(Y*P)-1)%, the user will have less money to spend (and subsequently incur less carbon overhead), to extent that Microsoft carbon footprint is neutralized.
It seems that we both want the same thing: a video format that can be used anywhere, without being forced to use particular software, and without software makers worrying about being sued for patent violations for implementing video codecs.
As this case shows, h.264 is not such a video format, it depends on patented technology. Of course you can embrace such a technology, and tell people to do painful things to themselves every time your favorite software maker gets sued for infringing h.264 patents. But I would argue that it's much better to choose a video format that is not liable to patent trolling (like WebM).
The 'murder probability' comes from a probability density function spanning three years, and is estimated from 53 data points, all from the same subject. That is hardly reliable.
And if we take the sparsity of the data for granted, what is the conclusion? That the less frequently the murderer acts, the less likely he is to act, and vice versa. It is a descriptive model, you can not predict the time of the next murder with it.
Slashdot Mirror
is it anywhere near as fast as Chrome?
sure, that's what the sleek and smooth tabs are for. jeez, don't you even read rhe summary?
Linus Torvalds is now said to suspend (but not resume) key linux developers up to 10 times faster.
And no I'm not RMS :(
no need to stipulate that.
Or alternatively, BSD emphasizes freedom for everybody. GPL emphasizes freedom for end-users by attempting to ensure that any derivative works are also free. The real world effect of course is that people writing commercial software still write the same commercial software, but can't use anything involving GPL in those products. So, even if there's a commonly used tool that does most of the job, they have to reinvent the wheel which means that they waste more time doing that then adding value to customer (or have to charge the customer more to cover the increased development time).
The users have exactly the same freedoms as before PLUS the ability to buy a product that might better serve their needs. The end-users are still just as free to use the original software as they were before.
Your point about commercial software developers benefitting from BSD by building closed source software based on open source software is not convincing to me. If there were no GPL at all, and all open sourced software would be BSD licensed, how much open source software would there be for a commercial developer to benefit from in the first place? Not much I fear, if we were all commercial developers like that.
The GPL is all or nothing, and the GPL community often gets absolutely nothing by insisting on all.
I'm not so sure about that. The Linux kernel (GPL-licensed) for example, is much more widespread than the OpenBSD kernel (BSD-licensed). I think an important reason why Linux is a success is that it receives contributions from many sides, including commercial enterprises. It is not at all self-evident that this would have been the case if Linux would have been BSD-licensed.
Informative as this is, GP was not saying they were *old* linux users, just they were old-*style* linux users.
Fine Gals. Look who's talking!
Aren't these the firms that have for years complied silently to dubious NSA requests to hand over user data and/or encryption keys?
Check with Apple if you're holding your iPhone correctly.
yes it runs on macos too. the session files are xml.
It's Project Gutenb*e*rg
It's not a good idea to use the particularities of a hardware production process as the theoretical basis for authentication.
As so many of us, I've been unsatisfied with recent developments in linux desktop environments. Since the advent of compositing, I've moved away from minimalist window managers, to enjoy window scaling/expo and similar improvements in desktop usability. I consider myself open to progress, in the sense that I've tried both unity and the gnome shell. But these last two have never gotten "out of my way", as they proclaim to do, and attempts to configure things to work the way I want have never been completely satisfying either. My most persistent frustrations have been with window switching and workspace management.
I've just given cinnamon 1.6 a try, and I must say that out of the box, it already fits my needs much better than both unity and gnome shell. I especially like the fact that you can name your workspaces, and dynamically expand them at the same time. Window switching without popups and without flicker also works, even if it's not blazingly fast. Lastly, configuration of behavior and layout (both by menu settings and by editing the theme's css) is more straightforward than I dared to hope.
Long story short: Cinnamon is well worth a try if you're lost in the crack between old and new style destkop environments.
I second this. Working in a research area that involves machine learning, I can say that it's *very* useful to be familiar with linear algebra and calculus. I wish I had taken more of that stuff when studying.
It *is* what RMS was complaining about: if Kazaa would have been free software, spyware would have had little chance, because it would be possible (and legal) to redistribute Kazaa without spyware. As I understand it, RMS's arguments do not concern what software-makers do with their money, but rather what restrictions they pose on you as you use their software.
Actually, we don't need to buy credits for carbon neutrality, just raising the prices will do the trick:
Let's call the carbon load associated with Microsoft activies X, and the price of a Windows license P. Furthermore, Q is the the money the average Windows user earns, after subtracting P. Finally we will denote by Y the total carbon load associated with the goods he/she buys at the value of Q, on average. If we increase the price of a Windows license by 100*((C*X/(Y*P)-1)%, the user will have less money to spend (and subsequently incur less carbon overhead), to extent that Microsoft carbon footprint is neutralized.
one more obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itUMO7VLl0M
Dear dude,
It seems that we both want the same thing: a video format that can be used anywhere, without being forced to use particular software, and without software makers worrying about being sued for patent violations for implementing video codecs.
As this case shows, h.264 is not such a video format, it depends on patented technology. Of course you can embrace such a technology, and tell people to do painful things to themselves every time your favorite software maker gets sued for infringing h.264 patents. But I would argue that it's much better to choose a video format that is not liable to patent trolling (like WebM).
Google, as the new owners of Motorola are obviously trying to destroy the H.264 standard because nobody wanted to use their WebM format.
If they manage to do so by patent trolling, maybe it deserves to be destroyed, better sooner than later.
...violated 4 of 5 patents related to h.264
So this is the next standard for video on the web they're talking about?
Give him a break, he had no time to debug.
I think the problem is that the fonts are too small, that's why there appears to be too much white space.
+1
The 'murder probability' comes from a probability density function spanning three years, and is estimated from 53 data points, all from the same subject. That is hardly reliable.
And if we take the sparsity of the data for granted, what is the conclusion? That the less frequently the murderer acts, the less likely he is to act, and vice versa. It is a descriptive model, you can not predict the time of the next murder with it.
And Stalin said: "As fine a mind as Karl Marx had, his ideas seem a bit naive, in view of where we are heading with communism."