You realize, of course, that you come off as an adolescent poseur?
Just to add to your paranoia, Slashdot is tracking you every time you access this site! Wow! They know what you did and when you did it and what you read and what you posted!! Better call out the militia.
Whack yourself on the head and understand what is happening in China: Certain things you say in an SMS message will be censored by the state. They will never be seen by the other party. A computer program will key on certain language and alert the police.
The only recourse for the Chinese is revolution, which, of course, they can't say on the phone.
The West often knew about and gave names to Soviet weaponry long before the Soviets acknowledged the weapon or identified it by name.
In any case. an enemy's nuclear missiles are worth demonizing. I'm sure the Soviet's would have done the same had the U.S. used a similar nomenclature scheme, even if they were on the wrong side.
The last I looked, the primary Linux download link on the Firefox site does not point to the xft version. Dunno why.
I've had to bounce between Windows and my Slackware machine for several days, using Firefox on both. The xft version on Linux is easier on the eyes than the Windows version.
>> Remember last week, when CERT recommended MSIE users consider switching browsers, and MSIE usage fell to under 10%? It didn't happen quite that way, now did it?
CERT publishing a security notice is nowhere near "educating the public".
No one apart from geeks has heard of CERT or sees their notices. Say "CERT" to someone and they'll assume you're talking about an antacid tablet.
It's typical of some people employed by or enamored of a technical specialty to blame the "public" for not being as specialized as they are.
Besides, if someone wants to start educating the public, I'd rather they begin with things like using a turn signal.
What about putting code -- in the modem, the OS...somewhere -- that requires the user to verify the call before putting it through? Password it, too, to prevent an automated dialer from doing an end run.
Open source advocates need to think long and hard before lobbying for legislative action aimed at Microsoft. The mandate of a lemon law is unlikely to be constrained to only Microsoft.
Any legislation mandating performance and security standards for software, or allowing its users to bring suit against the people that developed and distribute it, will likely be aimed at open source, as well as other non-MS commercial products. (If not intially, certainly rather soon. A lemon law targetting only MS is no more likely than a lemon law targetting only General Motors.)
Bottom line, then: If users can sue Microsoft, they can sue open source developers, too.
True, but it's still a problem that belongs to Linux, not to printer companies. The creation of commericial Linux drivers for Linux, and any OS, will always be market-driven. (Unless the develoment is subsidized.)
I wonder how many people have tried Linux at home, found they couldn't get it to work with their existing printer, and have gone running back to Windows?
The post says they "...delivered six microprocessor controllers...", plus the source code, and the customer now wants 1,000 units. That leaves 994 units to be delivered.
Unless the customer can buy the controllers from soneone else and burn the code on them. If that's the case, these guys won't be running a business next week.
Installing CUPS, as Slackware does, isn't going to help. You still need a find and install a driver, configure a new printer in CUPS, etc., etc. The original post is on target: Linux printing is a mess and getting a printer working in Linux is often ugly. Distributions that make this easy are simply papering over the real problem.
In the pre-laser days, I once managed to set a printer -- a big network printer down the hall and around the corner -- on fire when I sent it a fat file at 3 a.m. or so. The paper jammed, but something inside kept on moving. Eventually, the friction set the paper ablaze. I didn't have a clue in the otherwise empty building until the alarm went off.
Licensing aside, can you actually deliver 1000 units to this customer within the timeframe specified by your contract? (You do have a contract?)
If you can't meet the contract's terms, the license won't be your real problem.
That said, use your head about the licensing terms. You have every right to construct a license that is in your best interests. That's not being "Microsoft", it's just not being stupid.
If your business future depends on your exclusive access to that code, you may already be in trouble, since you agreed to negotiate terms after the potential customer has their hands on it.
If you believe there's a lot of future profit to be made selling that code, then negotiate a license that allows you to do that and prevents this customer, and future customers, from selling or otherwise distributing the code. Yes, this is not in keeping with the spirit of open source, But, are you willing to trade the existence of your business or your future livelihood for the warm fuzzies you get releasing it as open source?
If the code has nothing at to do with your future business prospects, you might as well hand it out on street corners.
It's easy giving things away when your bank balance isn't at stake.
Reproducing the entirety of a copyrighted work, expecially followed by distribution of multiple copies of that reproduction, is already illegal. It clearly does not fall within the fair use guidelines.
I know the "What's Your's is Mine" disagrees, but they're wrong. They invariably fall back to arguing that technology has made current law irrelevant. Yet, these same folks expect all kinds of new legislation to protect them from the privacy threats they see posed by technology.
>>"f it's a law that is important enough to mention on the news when it's passed, then surely it's important enough to mention *before* it's passed?"
The anser to that is: No.
Again, I ask: How are the media to determine what is important enough to merit reporting? Thousands of bills are introduced every session. Each of those bills is considered important by someone. Are the media to report on all of them simply to avoid the charge that that they are evading their responsibility?
And, again, how are the media to forecast which bill will pass and be signed by the President? Are they to waste their customers' time reporting on "important" legislation that is, in the end, defeated?
No. The media are not responsible for deciding what legislation is important. The media are responsible for reporting newsworthy material, not for providing the American public with a daily primer on the routine activities of government. Each indvividual, not the media, has the responsibility to remain informed about any piece of leglislation he believes is important. That information is freely available in the public record.
I think you'd find Slackware a breath of fresh air coming from BSD.
Your assessment of automatic dependency resolutions is correct. Sooner or later, something will break. It isn't the fault of the automatic resolvers. They don't use AI. If someone installed the same software manually, they'd have the same problems.
Some folks seem to install and remove dozens of programs per week. Dunno why, but that seems a recipe for breakage. In my experience, nothing I've installed from the Slackware site has ever caused a problem. If you pay attention (read the readme before installing, etc.) installing from source ought to pose no problem, either. You will know exactly what's on your machine because you out it there.
If something does break, at least you know that it wasn't because you annoyed the packager or the dependency resolver.
On the down side, Slackware could use a couple of good online forums, one for veterans and one for newbies. Patrick V. killed his forums a few years ago after they devolved into flames, spam and bitterness. Alt.os.linux slackware can be helpful, but I find that some of the regulars are overly territorial and condescending (too many responses that say "I know, but you should RTFM.) A few Liux sites have Slack-specific forums, but I've found the quality of their postings to be debatable,
Slackware's single biggest advantage is, perhaps, the fact that it doesn't gum up the works with a proprietary packaging and cnfiguration schemes. That means you don't need to wait for someone else, or the business who sells your distribution, to package a program in a form that works. In Slackware, odds are you can just download the program and install it.
E.g., if you want Fireforx and Thunderbird, go to the Mozilla site and grab them.
Slackware isn't minimal. It does a full install of the current versions of KDE and Gnome. Mozilla 1.7 made it into this distribution, as did the latest release of Epiphany. OpenOffice isn't there, but, again, you just need to go to their site and get it.
This is a bit OT, but I've been staying current with Slackware until a few days ago: I bought a flat panel LCD monitor to use with my Matrox G550. Unfortunately, Slack, or, rather, Xorg's X11, can't drive the DVI output. Analog works, but the image is decidedly worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Honest question: What's all the noise about NVidia drivers?
I'm not a gamer, but is it that?
Or is it that people keep buying machines that have NVidia chips on board?
You realize, of course, that you come off as an adolescent poseur?
Just to add to your paranoia, Slashdot is tracking you every time you access this site! Wow! They know what you did and when you did it and what you read and what you posted!! Better call out the militia.
Whack yourself on the head and understand what is happening in China: Certain things you say in an SMS message will be censored by the state. They will never be seen by the other party. A computer program will key on certain language and alert the police.
The only recourse for the Chinese is revolution, which, of course, they can't say on the phone.
If you can't recognize the difference between the U.S. and China, you deserve to live in a place like China.
The West often knew about and gave names to Soviet weaponry long before the Soviets acknowledged the weapon or identified it by name.
In any case. an enemy's nuclear missiles are worth demonizing. I'm sure the Soviet's would have done the same had the U.S. used a similar nomenclature scheme, even if they were on the wrong side.
The last I looked, the primary Linux download link on the Firefox site does not point to the xft version. Dunno why.
I've had to bounce between Windows and my Slackware machine for several days, using Firefox on both. The xft version on Linux is easier on the eyes than the Windows version.
You're right. I was thinking of TUMS, something I expect geeks consume in quantity.
Right, and I've seen reports based on it in several places.
Still a long, long way from "educating" the public, not that that is the media's job.
>>
Remember last week, when CERT recommended MSIE users consider switching browsers, and MSIE usage fell to under 10%? It didn't happen quite that way, now did it?
CERT publishing a security notice is nowhere near "educating the public".
No one apart from geeks has heard of CERT or sees their notices. Say "CERT" to someone and they'll assume you're talking about an antacid tablet.
It's typical of some people employed by or enamored of a technical specialty to blame the "public" for not being as specialized as they are.
Besides, if someone wants to start educating the public, I'd rather they begin with things like using a turn signal.
>>"... Linux is immune to these things..."
As of yet...
What about putting code -- in the modem, the OS...somewhere -- that requires the user to verify the call before putting it through? Password it, too, to prevent an automated dialer from doing an end run.
Or, why not just password modem access?
How many of those monopoly phone companies are government monopolies? "Posts and Telecoms" remains within the government in many places.
Open source advocates need to think long and hard before lobbying for legislative action aimed at Microsoft. The mandate of a lemon law is unlikely to be constrained to only Microsoft.
Any legislation mandating performance and security standards for software, or allowing its users to bring suit against the people that developed and distribute it, will likely be aimed at open source, as well as other non-MS commercial products. (If not intially, certainly rather soon. A lemon law targetting only MS is no more likely than a lemon law targetting only General Motors.)
Bottom line, then: If users can sue Microsoft, they can sue open source developers, too.
Line Printer? Now, that's a useful suggestion for a home network. Who needs a vacation this year? I'll buy a line printer! Everyone will understand.
I stand corrected. Memory is a strange thing.
MS cranked up the PR machine when Java hit the street, but I'm pretty sure ActiveX predates Java, at least in implementation if not name.
True, but it's still a problem that belongs to Linux, not to printer companies. The creation of commericial Linux drivers for Linux, and any OS, will always be market-driven. (Unless the develoment is subsidized.)
I wonder how many people have tried Linux at home, found they couldn't get it to work with their existing printer, and have gone running back to Windows?
The post says they "...delivered six microprocessor controllers...", plus the source code, and the customer now wants 1,000 units. That leaves 994 units to be delivered.
Unless the customer can buy the controllers from soneone else and burn the code on them. If that's the case, these guys won't be running a business next week.
Installing CUPS, as Slackware does, isn't going to help. You still need a find and install a driver, configure a new printer in CUPS, etc., etc. The original post is on target: Linux printing is a mess and getting a printer working in Linux is often ugly. Distributions that make this easy are simply papering over the real problem.
In the pre-laser days, I once managed to set a printer -- a big network printer down the hall and around the corner -- on fire when I sent it a fat file at 3 a.m. or so. The paper jammed, but something inside kept on moving. Eventually, the friction set the paper ablaze. I didn't have a clue in the otherwise empty building until the alarm went off.
Licensing aside, can you actually deliver 1000 units to this customer within the timeframe specified by your contract? (You do have a contract?)
If you can't meet the contract's terms, the license won't be your real problem.
That said, use your head about the licensing terms. You have every right to construct a license that is in your best interests. That's not being "Microsoft", it's just not being stupid.
If your business future depends on your exclusive access to that code, you may already be in trouble, since you agreed to negotiate terms after the potential customer has their hands on it.
If you believe there's a lot of future profit to be made selling that code, then negotiate a license that allows you to do that and prevents this customer, and future customers, from selling or otherwise distributing the code. Yes, this is not in keeping with the spirit of open source, But, are you willing to trade the existence of your business or your future livelihood for the warm fuzzies you get releasing it as open source?
If the code has nothing at to do with your future business prospects, you might as well hand it out on street corners.
It's easy giving things away when your bank balance isn't at stake.
Reproducing the entirety of a copyrighted work, expecially followed by distribution of multiple copies of that reproduction, is already illegal. It clearly does not fall within the fair use guidelines.
I know the "What's Your's is Mine" disagrees, but they're wrong. They invariably fall back to arguing that technology has made current law irrelevant. Yet, these same folks expect all kinds of new legislation to protect them from the privacy threats they see posed by technology.
>>"f it's a law that is important enough to mention on the news when it's passed, then surely it's important enough to mention *before* it's passed?"
The anser to that is: No.
Again, I ask: How are the media to determine what is important enough to merit reporting? Thousands of bills are introduced every session. Each of those bills is considered important by someone. Are the media to report on all of them simply to avoid the charge that that they are evading their responsibility?
And, again, how are the media to forecast which bill will pass and be signed by the President? Are they to waste their customers' time reporting on "important" legislation that is, in the end, defeated?
No. The media are not responsible for deciding what legislation is important. The media are responsible for reporting newsworthy material, not for providing the American public with a daily primer on the routine activities of government. Each indvividual, not the media, has the responsibility to remain informed about any piece of leglislation he believes is important. That information is freely available in the public record.
I think you'd find Slackware a breath of fresh air coming from BSD.
Your assessment of automatic dependency resolutions is correct. Sooner or later, something will break. It isn't the fault of the automatic resolvers. They don't use AI. If someone installed the same software manually, they'd have the same problems.
Some folks seem to install and remove dozens of programs per week. Dunno why, but that seems a recipe for breakage. In my experience, nothing I've installed from the Slackware site has ever caused a problem. If you pay attention (read the readme before installing, etc.) installing from source ought to pose no problem, either. You will know exactly what's on your machine because you out it there.
If something does break, at least you know that it wasn't because you annoyed the packager or the dependency resolver.
On the down side, Slackware could use a couple of good online forums, one for veterans and one for newbies. Patrick V. killed his forums a few years ago after they devolved into flames, spam and bitterness. Alt.os.linux slackware can be helpful, but I find that some of the regulars are overly territorial and condescending (too many responses that say "I know, but you should RTFM.) A few Liux sites have Slack-specific forums, but I've found the quality of their postings to be debatable,
Slackware's single biggest advantage is, perhaps, the fact that it doesn't gum up the works with a proprietary packaging and cnfiguration schemes. That means you don't need to wait for someone else, or the business who sells your distribution, to package a program in a form that works. In Slackware, odds are you can just download the program and install it.
E.g., if you want Fireforx and Thunderbird, go to the Mozilla site and grab them.
Slackware isn't minimal. It does a full install of the current versions of KDE and Gnome. Mozilla 1.7 made it into this distribution, as did the latest release of Epiphany. OpenOffice isn't there, but, again, you just need to go to their site and get it.
This is a bit OT, but I've been staying current with Slackware until a few days ago: I bought a flat panel LCD monitor to use with my Matrox G550. Unfortunately, Slack, or, rather, Xorg's X11, can't drive the DVI output. Analog works, but the image is decidedly worse.
Anyone know if DVI and X11 can be happy together?