Depending on the jurisdiction they MAY have the right to refuse business without stating a reason, but that doesn't make it moral.
Yes a business should have a right to refuse business, but they do have an obligation to give a reason. Otherwise the customer has no way to even know WHY they are being refused, and that pretty much voids all of those laws forbidding some reasons. If it was because they were unsure the LUG had the right to reproduce the material they should say they need proof of their reproduction rights and/or they sign some sort of indemnification document to protect the duplication shop. If it is because of a contractual obligation with Microsoft they should have to SAY so. If exclusive contracts can remain secret all sort of anti-competitive behaviour is possible with no way to ever prove anything.
> comes off as though you think the FSF owes you something.
That is because THEY are demanding things. Specifically the right to rename other people's stuff against their wishes.
> And what happened when you offered your assistance....
I didn't. Because I'm in the camp that thinks the HURD is a dead end scientific curiosity. Microkernels are an evolutionary dead end. QNX is the only one I can think of that survives in a real way. NT isn't a real microkernel anymore and while OS X is Mach based you would never know it from using it and even Apple would be hard pressed to name a single benefit they derive from having a microkernel. The HURD made all sort of claims to wonderous features which would be possible based on it's microkernel design, only problem is it is vaporware, has been for over ten years and will likely be for another ten. At this rate Microsoft might actually deliver most of the features they promised for "Chicago" before the HURD ships.:)
>The "open" development process that was well established before the...
No, the FSF is firmly committed to the "Cathedral" coding style. Which is why they have been eclipsed. (To a great extent the BSDs suffer the same problem btw.) Hopefully Savannah marks a step toward changing that so they might get back out front again in the innovation dept and the 90's could prove to only be a pause.
> A lot of the challenges free software users face are political...
True. But I prefer the EFF when it comes to political action. Where was the FSF in the DeCSS case? Or the recent fight vs CIPA?
Hint: Note the reference in my first post referring to Yggdrasil's LGX product. My first successful install featured version 0.99pl13 of the kernel. So no, I am not an elder UNIX god, but I'm no newbie fresh off of AOL either. I have been herding Linux boxes as a way of making a living since '96.
And yes I do understand the accomplishments of the FSF, but most of those were in the 80s. The singular idea embodied in the GPL is enough to get them a permanent spot in computing history and a lot of other hoopy stuff came from that project. And I can't think of anybody I'd trust more with GPL enforcement. But if you actually think the HURD is going to be ready for production environments in this decade you are more of an optimist than I am. Which means GNU won't be ready this decade since they are dead set on the HURD being the centerpiece. That combined with their refusal to adopt the open development model that drove Linux to such rapid success means they have been eclipsed by events. Stuff happens. But nothing is going to take their place in the history books.
But that is ok too, for you see they WON. At least if you assume that it was the IDEAS that were important. Sure we probably will never get to know if GNU was actually a good idea, but we have Linux in hundreds of flavors, three BSDs and Fortune 100 companies that depend of them for their daily survival so if a real legal threat comes along it won't just be a ragtag band of geeks chipping in for a defense fund. The idea of Free Software is now so ingrained in the high tech world that World Domination vs. closed software is now a question of WHEN not IF.
Which is why I'd classify the current FSF as more of a lobbying organization than one that actually produces thing new code. And frankly, when it comes to defending freedom in the high tech world I give my donations to the EFF.
> Ok, so try to get another Free OS by trying to throw away all GNU code > and try doing it by throwing away all Linux code.
Throw away both and you can still build a Free Operating system.
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www.netbsg.org
Granted all currently use GCC to build, but the definition of OS does not require self hosting, plus GCC was not always a requirement to build BSD. A C compiler isn't rocket science. (A C++ compiler is, as is a efficient multi-platform compiler, but that is another tale.)
> choose the most singificant single contributor: GNU.
What has GNU contributed to Linux? The GNU tools don't count since they a) predate Linux and b) according to the FSF are strictly intended for GNU and any use others make of their Free Software is just a bonus. So just what has the FSF/The GNU Project done with the express purpose of aiding the Linux based distributions? (Hint: there are some, but not many and those are often tangential. Certainly not a significant share though.)
I'm sorry but the FSF can't have it both ways, either they ARE still working on GNU and shouldn't be creating confusion by trying to stick that name to other people's unrelated work or should admit defeat and adopt one of the existing distributions into the GNU Project and rename it as the Official GNU System. Hell, they could fork RedHat and do the world a real favor by providing a freely redistributable version of a stable RedHat. I'd even BUY that from them if they didn't want per seat licensing.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you expect people to call it GNU it better have a GNU on the login screen, not a hat, lizard or penguin.
But to date, Linux is not GNU. As to the Linux the kernel and Linux the OS confusion, it really isn't. We all know what people mean when they use the word, and to date if it uses the Linux kernel and the distribution want to call it Linux and fly the penguin flag everyone accepts it as a new member of the Linux family.
In the end this is why they are so hysterical about GNU/Linux and don't give a crap about renaming Solaris to GNU/Solaris. Because of Linux, few people care anymore whether GNU ever ships a working system. Linux is a threat to their ego and their need to control. It is the penguin they hate, bacause in the marketplace of ideas more people consider themselves followers of the Penguin banner than members of the GNU herd. (yea, bad pun)
The FSF has done some wonderful things, and will probably do more in the future, but I for one am glad things worked out where the FSF was never given that much control because like most fanatics they serve a useful purpose but should NEVER be given real power. (See current world affairs for examples.)
p.s. This isn't flamebait. If you disagree, point out where I'm in error instead of modding.
> Linux systems without GNU code are as rare as tits on a bull
If using GNU code automatically infects the name then I guess when Microsoft was shipping the GNU toolchain (with source) as part of the POSIX joke in NT 3.1, Stallman should have been shouting down anyone calling it Windows NT and saying it should be properly called GNU/NT.
It just doesn't work that way. The GNU toolchain is just that, a toolset. Important? Yup. Usefull? Yup. But just because DOS used to be crap without Norton Utilities nobody called it Norton/MSDOS. If the FSF wants their name on something they have an option. They reserved the name a decade ago, it is the Operating System that shall be called GNU. Trying to now stick the name as a prefix to Linux is an admission by the FSF that GNU probably won't ship in their lifetimes.
GNU/Linux has zero place since it is a nonsense name.
What does GNU have to do with Linux as either a kernel or a complete operating system? Zero. There is no dispute that the FSF/GNU were not involved in the kernel, although this article states IBM assigned copyright to their S/390 work to the FSF.
As Linux the kernel matured people unrelated to the FSF took the freely available GNU toolchain, until then most popularly deployed on Sun boxes, along with material from BSD, XFree86 and the X Consortium, etc. and assembled it all into complete operating systems, creating a new breed of UNIX like operating systems, distict from proprietary UNIX, SYSV or BSD. FSF has yet to produce a complete OS so it is hard to say whether Linux (as an OS) is similar or distict from what will someday be called GNU.
But is I had to guess, if/when GNU ships it will look a lot like Linux, so then the GNU/Linux name might be ironicly correct.;)
Except that Debian has not been an Official GNU Project activity for a couple of years. They weren't GNU enough for the GNU Project. Unfortunatly they DO still have enough GNU zealots that they have picked up that damnable GNU/Linux crap. Personally I'd love to see Linus drop a few hints regarding trademark dilution but he is too nice a guy to do that. Linux is not now and never was a GNU project. Sticking their trademark on as a prefix leads to the confusion that it is.
Putting the GNU where Debian does makes zero sense. Were they still a GNU blessed project calling it GNU Debian would be correct in the same way that GNU Emacs or GNU Compiler Collection is. Of course that would never happen because Debian realizes that having Linux in the name is more important than just GNU, so they try to have it both ways. Frankly, that sort of childishness was probably the primary reason I didn't use Debian until RedHat forced the issue with their dropping freely redistributable stable versions.
Not at all. The "Linux Movement" became larger than just the kernel. Linux grew into a third way, distict from BSD and GNU's philosophies. It is usually obvious whether one is speaking of "Linux" the kernel or "Linux" the family of closely related Operating Systems (called Distributions) which nowadays are LSB compatible with a fairly standardized basic userland and libraries.
What seems to piss off the FSF is that the Free Software community as a whole seems to have decided the Linux movement's 'third way' is the better way. The FSF liked being in the leadership position and has yet to pass through anger to acceptance of that loss. But one thing is certain, yelling about it won't help. They need to either accept being reduced to 'elder statesmen' or get back out front and DO something. Creating the GPL and Emacs were great accomplishments, but that was in the '80s. Exactly what have they done in the '90's or '00's that give them the right to claim a leadership position?
Amen to that. They need to grow up over there. Especially since in THIS case it IS Linux under attack and NOT the GNU Project. To date all of the disputed features live in/usr/src/linux.
Their problem is the fear of becoming irrelevent and I have some news for them. Shouting "call it GNU/Linux" several times a week is one of the fastest ways to make that fear come true. The Free Software community is a harsh meritocracy and of late about all the FSF has been producing is nonsense about GNU/Linux and not a lot of code or other useful work. Think about it; They have devolved into a political action committee. Not saying there isn't some good work to be done in that dept, but they are expending most of their political capital delivering bog standard screeds about "GNU/Linux" instead of advocating Free Software (marketed under the more popular Open Source brand, which they also expend a large effort undermining).
Most of the more useful FSF projects have been shifted to more capable hands. The center of mass of GCC and GLIBC have been with Cygnus/RedHat for years now and GNOME has been at Ximian/RedHat from day one, being FSF Projects in name only. And if you take those parts out of the body of GNU the whole GNU/Linux argument becomes silly since the rest is stuff most users never see anymore and could be replaced (admittedly with less capable versions, I love the GNU utilities regardless which platform they run on) from BSD. It would be more accurate to call it XFree86/Linux these days. (I don't think anyone objected a bit when Yggdrasil used to use Linux/GNU/X on thier login banner.)
If they want to be relevant again, they should get off their butt and finish GNU. Get an actual working HURD combined with the GNU toolchain and X, invest the effort (since they ran Debian out of the GNU project) of packaging it all into a coherent whole and put up an.iso of GNU 1.0. And if it is actually useful they can return to being the center of mass for the Free Software Revolution. In other words, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
Except for the Microsoft based Smart Ship the Navy got caught building, and thankfully had it blue screen in it's initial sea trials instead of getting a shipload of sailors killed in a real fight.
> Do you really want your keyboard not lined up with your monitor when > it is only 2 inches away?
Dunno, when I'm docked at work I have my Model M pretty much lined up under the external monitor and it most certainly has a keypad.
I hear this argument on a regular basis, guess it must be based on appearances and not usability, and since the Mac is all about looks it probably makes sense for that market.
Yes, 6.8 pounds is heavy for a 'laptop' computer. But the weight isn't the worst part, it is the width of the sonofabitch. It won't even fit in most laptop bags if you rip out the bit on the side intended for the power pack, which is not a problem because that fscking UFO ain't going there anyway.
I'm currently running a Thinkpad 570e as the best compromise I could find between cost, weight, size, real keyboard and linux compatibility. 4.2 pounds and a full size (laptop layout) keyboard with a usable if a bit small by modern standards 13.3 TFT display. Lay a TiBook beside it and the thickness is about the same, the height is close, but the difference in width is incredible. It might even be worth it if Apple would actually use the width to improve the keyboard with a seperate keypad. It isn't like they don't have the space, but they just waste it. Sure they have speakers there, but they didn't even fill the space with speakers, choosing instead to put some dinky pansy ass speakers in.
The 17" PowerBook... is not a notebook. I have seen three of em now and have come to the conclusion it should be classified as a luggable.
The Thinkpads with the butterfly keyboard were SMALL. SMALL I say in large letters.:) Not quite as small as some of the Librettos, but they had a real full size keyboard when extended and that counts for a lot.
And that matters how? VOX circuits are dirt cheap, why don't they add one? I do realize the internal differences between NexTel and Cellular (half duplex vs full, intermittent channel usage vs fulltime channel allocation) but that is no excuse not to make the TX/RX switching automatic.
Actually, the amount of money we get from the SLC fund itself is pretty small and our small poor rural library already had a T-1 feeding a lab full of machines years before AlGore decided to give 'every' library the Internet through a tax on every telephone line.
The problem is that once that damned SLC find was there the various interests found it an irresistable target for meddling that would otherwise be impossible. This one is just like your example of the 55MPH speed limit and seatbelt laws being things the feds could have never passed outright but could do indirectly, except this time they went one better. This time they added a clause that says that if (and only if) you REFUSE the SLC funding the conditions attach to ANY other federal funding source. Because they KNEW librarians would never take giving up one of their primary beliefs without a fight.
Fair enough. but since most of the real excitement in Mac land is in laptops, where is a TiBook with a three button pointer? And how about a trackpoint instead of a glidepoint? Sorry, but Steve's "my way or the highway" isn't for me.
For one it is a waste of our library resources. Our previous system had the system remember per user account whether a user was filtered. Now we have to have someone taking these forms in, switching them to unfiltered for the day and then filing the forms. Then there is the issue of storing all that paper.
But I'm not so the SLC is the Schools and Libraries Corporation funded out of the Universal Service Fund tax imposed on the telcos. It is a creature of the FCC.
> The members of the French Resistence were in fact involved in a war > and fighting an occupying force.
No, France had surrendered. But I'm not arguing they didn't have the right to resist, I was objecting to the notion that unless you are wearing the uniform of a nation-state you don't have the right to fight.
> The terrorists of 9/11 chose to strike in a cowardly fashion and > attempted to extract as many civilian deaths as possible. Terrorists. > Cowards. End of discussion.
No, grabbing the stick of a 747 and flying it into a target is anything but cowardly. It requires balls of steel in fact, which is why they scare the hell out of me. Yes the planes that hit NY were acts of terrorism, but the Pentagon was not because it wasn't a civilian target. But since Al Quaeda engages in acts of terrorism it doesn't really matter if they also attack legitimate targets since they must be hunted down and exterminated with the utmost vigor.
What I am objecting to is the misuse of the word terrorism. It ceases to have it's original meaning if we stretch it to mean ANY attack on the US. Pearl Harbor was not terrorism for another example. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have declared war and bombed them into the stone age though, we were entirely within our rights to do that.
> Is there anything in particular that you find particularly > threatening about the current government?
You mean besides violating most of the Bill of Rights on a daily basis. Or how about any or all of these: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project..." (Go look up the quote) I could list a few more hundred if you would like.;)
> Did you vote in the last election?
Every federal election since being eligible. I think I have missed one or two local ones though.
Not the sort to want to hold office though. Being a libertarian leaning Republican I wouldn't be able to uphold the oath of office since almost every elected office requires the initiation of force against the innocent. (Ok, I think I could ethically hold office as a District Attorney or Judge but I lack a law degree and the interest to effectively discharge the duties those offices. That and after campaigning on the list of laws I would be ethically barred from enforcing I wouldn't get elected.)
Then a) you have a bad filter and b) are in violation of CIPA. You had better go read up on it since it now isn't going anywhere. You could lose all federal and state funding if you continue on your current course.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the jurisdiction they MAY have the right to refuse business without stating a reason, but that doesn't make it moral.
Yes a business should have a right to refuse business, but they do have an obligation to give a reason. Otherwise the customer has no way to even know WHY they are being refused, and that pretty much voids all of those laws forbidding some reasons. If it was because they were unsure the LUG had the right to reproduce the material they should say they need proof of their reproduction rights and/or they sign some sort of indemnification document to protect the duplication shop. If it is because of a contractual obligation with Microsoft they should have to SAY so. If exclusive contracts can remain secret all sort of anti-competitive behaviour is possible with no way to ever prove anything.
> comes off as though you think the FSF owes you something.
:)
That is because THEY are demanding things. Specifically the right to rename other people's stuff against their wishes.
> And what happened when you offered your assistance....
I didn't. Because I'm in the camp that thinks the HURD is a dead end scientific curiosity. Microkernels are an evolutionary dead end. QNX is the only one I can think of that survives in a real way. NT isn't a real microkernel anymore and while OS X is Mach based you would never know it from using it and even Apple would be hard pressed to name a single benefit they derive from having a microkernel. The HURD made all sort of claims to wonderous features which would be possible based on it's microkernel design, only problem is it is vaporware, has been for over ten years and will likely be for another ten. At this rate Microsoft might actually deliver most of the features they promised for "Chicago" before the HURD ships.
>The "open" development process that was well established before the...
No, the FSF is firmly committed to the "Cathedral" coding style. Which is why they have been eclipsed. (To a great extent the BSDs suffer the same problem btw.) Hopefully Savannah marks a step toward changing that so they might get back out front again in the innovation dept and the 90's could prove to only be a pause.
> A lot of the challenges free software users face are political...
True. But I prefer the EFF when it comes to political action. Where was the FSF in the DeCSS case? Or the recent fight vs CIPA?
> Perhaps you haven't been around long enough
Hint: Note the reference in my first post referring to Yggdrasil's LGX product. My first successful install featured version 0.99pl13 of the kernel. So no, I am not an elder UNIX god, but I'm no newbie fresh off of AOL either. I have been herding Linux boxes as a way of making a living since '96.
And yes I do understand the accomplishments of the FSF, but most of those were in the 80s. The singular idea embodied in the GPL is enough to get them a permanent spot in computing history and a lot of other hoopy stuff came from that project. And I can't think of anybody I'd trust more with GPL enforcement. But if you actually think the HURD is going to be ready for production environments in this decade you are more of an optimist than I am. Which means GNU won't be ready this decade since they are dead set on the HURD being the centerpiece. That combined with their refusal to adopt the open development model that drove Linux to such rapid success means they have been eclipsed by events. Stuff happens. But nothing is going to take their place in the history books.
But that is ok too, for you see they WON. At least if you assume that it was the IDEAS that were important. Sure we probably will never get to know if GNU was actually a good idea, but we have Linux in hundreds of flavors, three BSDs and Fortune 100 companies that depend of them for their daily survival so if a real legal threat comes along it won't just be a ragtag band of geeks chipping in for a defense fund. The idea of Free Software is now so ingrained in the high tech world that World Domination vs. closed software is now a question of WHEN not IF.
Which is why I'd classify the current FSF as more of a lobbying organization than one that actually produces thing new code. And frankly, when it comes to defending freedom in the high tech world I give my donations to the EFF.
> Ok, so try to get another Free OS by trying to throw away all GNU code
> and try doing it by throwing away all Linux code.
Throw away both and you can still build a Free Operating system.
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www.netbsg.org
Granted all currently use GCC to build, but the definition of OS does not require self hosting, plus GCC was not always a requirement to build BSD. A C compiler isn't rocket science. (A C++ compiler is, as is a efficient multi-platform compiler, but that is another tale.)
> choose the most singificant single contributor: GNU.
What has GNU contributed to Linux? The GNU tools don't count since they a) predate Linux and b) according to the FSF are strictly intended for GNU and any use others make of their Free Software is just a bonus. So just what has the FSF/The GNU Project done with the express purpose of aiding the Linux based distributions? (Hint: there are some, but not many and those are often tangential. Certainly not a significant share though.)
I'm sorry but the FSF can't have it both ways, either they ARE still working on GNU and shouldn't be creating confusion by trying to stick that name to other people's unrelated work or should admit defeat and adopt one of the existing distributions into the GNU Project and rename it as the Official GNU System. Hell, they could fork RedHat and do the world a real favor by providing a freely redistributable version of a stable RedHat. I'd even BUY that from them if they didn't want per seat licensing.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you expect people to call it GNU it better have a GNU on the login screen, not a hat, lizard or penguin.
But to date, Linux is not GNU. As to the Linux the kernel and Linux the OS confusion, it really isn't. We all know what people mean when they use the word, and to date if it uses the Linux kernel and the distribution want to call it Linux and fly the penguin flag everyone accepts it as a new member of the Linux family.
In the end this is why they are so hysterical about GNU/Linux and don't give a crap about renaming Solaris to GNU/Solaris. Because of Linux, few people care anymore whether GNU ever ships a working system. Linux is a threat to their ego and their need to control. It is the penguin they hate, bacause in the marketplace of ideas more people consider themselves followers of the Penguin banner than members of the GNU herd.
(yea, bad pun)
The FSF has done some wonderful things, and will probably do more in the future, but I for one am glad things worked out where the FSF was never given that much control because like most fanatics they serve a useful purpose but should NEVER be given real power. (See current world affairs for examples.)
p.s. This isn't flamebait. If you disagree, point out where I'm in error instead of modding.
> Linux systems without GNU code are as rare as tits on a bull
If using GNU code automatically infects the name then I guess when Microsoft was shipping the GNU toolchain (with source) as part of the POSIX joke in NT 3.1, Stallman should have been shouting down anyone calling it Windows NT and saying it should be properly called GNU/NT.
It just doesn't work that way. The GNU toolchain is just that, a toolset. Important? Yup. Usefull? Yup. But just because DOS used to be crap without Norton Utilities nobody called it Norton/MSDOS. If the FSF wants their name on something they have an option. They reserved the name a decade ago, it is the Operating System that shall be called GNU. Trying to now stick the name as a prefix to Linux is an admission by the FSF that GNU probably won't ship in their lifetimes.
GNU/Linux has zero place since it is a nonsense name.
;)
What does GNU have to do with Linux as either a kernel or a complete operating system? Zero. There is no dispute that the FSF/GNU were not involved in the kernel, although this article states IBM assigned copyright to their S/390 work to the FSF.
As Linux the kernel matured people unrelated to the FSF took the freely available GNU toolchain, until then most popularly deployed on Sun boxes, along with material from BSD, XFree86 and the X Consortium, etc. and assembled it all into complete operating systems, creating a new breed of UNIX like operating systems, distict from proprietary UNIX, SYSV or BSD. FSF has yet to produce a complete OS so it is hard to say whether Linux (as an OS) is similar or distict from what will someday be called GNU.
But is I had to guess, if/when GNU ships it will look a lot like Linux, so then the GNU/Linux name might be ironicly correct.
Except that Debian has not been an Official GNU Project activity for a couple of years. They weren't GNU enough for the GNU Project. Unfortunatly they DO still have enough GNU zealots that they have picked up that damnable GNU/Linux crap. Personally I'd love to see Linus drop a few hints regarding trademark dilution but he is too nice a guy to do that. Linux is not now and never was a GNU project. Sticking their trademark on as a prefix leads to the confusion that it is.
Putting the GNU where Debian does makes zero sense. Were they still a GNU blessed project calling it GNU Debian would be correct in the same way that GNU Emacs or GNU Compiler Collection is. Of course that would never happen because Debian realizes that having Linux in the name is more important than just GNU, so they try to have it both ways. Frankly, that sort of childishness was probably the primary reason I didn't use Debian until RedHat forced the issue with their dropping freely redistributable stable versions.
They do. They are the ones seeking to assert leadership/control. Control the name of a thing and you go a long way to controlling that thing.
Not at all. The "Linux Movement" became larger than just the kernel. Linux grew into a third way, distict from BSD and GNU's philosophies. It is usually obvious whether one is speaking of "Linux" the kernel or "Linux" the family of closely related Operating Systems (called Distributions) which nowadays are LSB compatible with a fairly standardized basic userland and libraries.
What seems to piss off the FSF is that the Free Software community as a whole seems to have decided the Linux movement's 'third way' is the better way. The FSF liked being in the leadership position and has yet to pass through anger to acceptance of that loss. But one thing is certain, yelling about it won't help. They need to either accept being reduced to 'elder statesmen' or get back out front and DO something. Creating the GPL and Emacs were great accomplishments, but that was in the '80s. Exactly what have they done in the '90's or '00's that give them the right to claim a leadership position?
Amen to that. They need to grow up over there. Especially since in THIS case it IS Linux under attack and NOT the GNU Project. To date all of the disputed features live in /usr/src/linux.
.iso of GNU 1.0. And if it is actually useful they can return to being the center of mass for the Free Software Revolution. In other words, lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
Their problem is the fear of becoming irrelevent and I have some news for them. Shouting "call it GNU/Linux" several times a week is one of the fastest ways to make that fear come true. The Free Software community is a harsh meritocracy and of late about all the FSF has been producing is nonsense about GNU/Linux and not a lot of code or other useful work. Think about it; They have devolved into a political action committee. Not saying there isn't some good work to be done in that dept, but they are expending most of their political capital delivering bog standard screeds about "GNU/Linux" instead of advocating Free Software (marketed under the more popular Open Source brand, which they also expend a large effort undermining).
Most of the more useful FSF projects have been shifted to more capable hands. The center of mass of GCC and GLIBC have been with Cygnus/RedHat for years now and GNOME has been at Ximian/RedHat from day one, being FSF Projects in name only. And if you take those parts out of the body of GNU the whole GNU/Linux argument becomes silly since the rest is stuff most users never see anymore and could be replaced (admittedly with less capable versions, I love the GNU utilities regardless which platform they run on) from BSD. It would be more accurate to call it XFree86/Linux these days. (I don't think anyone objected a bit when Yggdrasil used to use Linux/GNU/X on thier login banner.)
If they want to be relevant again, they should get off their butt and finish GNU. Get an actual working HURD combined with the GNU toolchain and X, invest the effort (since they ran Debian out of the GNU project) of packaging it all into a coherent whole and put up an
Except for the Microsoft based Smart Ship the Navy got caught building, and thankfully had it blue screen in it's initial sea trials instead of getting a shipload of sailors killed in a real fight.
> Do you really want your keyboard not lined up with your monitor when
> it is only 2 inches away?
Dunno, when I'm docked at work I have my Model M pretty much lined up under the external monitor and it most certainly has a keypad.
I hear this argument on a regular basis, guess it must be based on appearances and not usability, and since the Mac is all about looks it probably makes sense for that market.
> You need to work out more often.
Yes, 6.8 pounds is heavy for a 'laptop' computer. But the weight isn't the worst part, it is the width of the sonofabitch. It won't even fit in most laptop bags if you rip out the bit on the side intended for the power pack, which is not a problem because that fscking UFO ain't going there anyway.
I'm currently running a Thinkpad 570e as the best compromise I could find between cost, weight, size, real keyboard and linux compatibility. 4.2 pounds and a full size (laptop layout) keyboard with a usable if a bit small by modern standards 13.3 TFT display. Lay a TiBook beside it and the thickness is about the same, the height is close, but the difference in width is incredible. It might even be worth it if Apple would actually use the width to improve the keyboard with a seperate keypad. It isn't like they don't have the space, but they just waste it. Sure they have speakers there, but they didn't even fill the space with speakers, choosing instead to put some dinky pansy ass speakers in.
The 17" PowerBook... is not a notebook. I have seen three of em now and have come to the conclusion it should be classified as a luggable.
:) Not quite as small as some of the Librettos, but they had a real full size keyboard when extended and that counts for a lot.
The Thinkpads with the butterfly keyboard were SMALL. SMALL I say in large letters.
And that matters how? VOX circuits are dirt cheap, why don't they add one? I do realize the internal differences between NexTel and Cellular (half duplex vs full, intermittent channel usage vs fulltime channel allocation) but that is no excuse not to make the TX/RX switching automatic.
Why the heck if Nextel pushing a PTT button as a feature when nowadays the $20 FRS radios at Walmart have a VOX circuit in them?
Actually, the amount of money we get from the SLC fund itself is pretty small and our small poor rural library already had a T-1 feeding a lab full of machines years before AlGore decided to give 'every' library the Internet through a tax on every telephone line.
The problem is that once that damned SLC find was there the various interests found it an irresistable target for meddling that would otherwise be impossible. This one is just like your example of the 55MPH speed limit and seatbelt laws being things the feds could have never passed outright but could do indirectly, except this time they went one better. This time they added a clause that says that if (and only if) you REFUSE the SLC funding the conditions attach to ANY other federal funding source. Because they KNEW librarians would never take giving up one of their primary beliefs without a fight.
Fair enough. but since most of the real excitement in Mac land is in laptops, where is a TiBook with a three button pointer? And how about a trackpoint instead of a glidepoint? Sorry, but Steve's "my way or the highway" isn't for me.
> Don't you think that it would become such an administrative nightmare
> that the states would refuse SLC funding all together?
You have never dealt with the government. States almost never turn down money.
For one it is a waste of our library resources. Our previous system had the system remember per user account whether a user was filtered. Now we have to have someone taking these forms in, switching them to unfiltered for the day and then filing the forms. Then there is the issue of storing all that paper.
I could be a prick and say you look it up... :)
But I'm not so the SLC is the Schools and Libraries Corporation funded out of the Universal Service Fund tax imposed on the telcos. It is a creature of the FCC.
See my .sig line and other
+5 post in this topic for details, but yes I agree that the answer is to end CIPA by ending SLC funding.
> The members of the French Resistence were in fact involved in a war
;)
> and fighting an occupying force.
No, France had surrendered. But I'm not arguing they didn't have the right to resist, I was objecting to the notion that unless you are wearing the uniform of a nation-state you don't have the right to fight.
> The terrorists of 9/11 chose to strike in a cowardly fashion and
> attempted to extract as many civilian deaths as possible. Terrorists.
> Cowards. End of discussion.
No, grabbing the stick of a 747 and flying it into a target is anything but cowardly. It requires balls of steel in fact, which is why they scare the hell out of me. Yes the planes that hit NY were acts of terrorism, but the Pentagon was not because it wasn't a civilian target. But since Al Quaeda engages in acts of terrorism it doesn't really matter if they also attack legitimate targets since they must be hunted down and exterminated with the utmost vigor.
What I am objecting to is the misuse of the word terrorism. It ceases to have it's original meaning if we stretch it to mean ANY attack on the US. Pearl Harbor was not terrorism for another example. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have declared war and bombed them into the stone age though, we were entirely within our rights to do that.
> Is there anything in particular that you find particularly
> threatening about the current government?
You mean besides violating most of the Bill of Rights on a daily basis.
Or how about any or all of these: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project..." (Go look up the quote) I could list a few more hundred if you would like.
> Did you vote in the last election?
Every federal election since being eligible. I think I have missed one or two local ones though.
Not the sort to want to hold office though. Being a libertarian leaning Republican I wouldn't be able to uphold the oath of office since almost every elected office requires the initiation of force against the innocent. (Ok, I think I could ethically hold office as a District Attorney or Judge but I lack a law degree and the interest to effectively discharge the duties those offices. That and after campaigning on the list of laws I would be ethically barred from enforcing I wouldn't get elected.)
Then a) you have a bad filter and b) are in violation of CIPA. You had better go read up on it since it now isn't going anywhere. You could lose all federal and state funding if you continue on your current course.