I won't get into "who executes the executioner?", and skip to your final paragraph.
Many drugs take 15-20 years to develop; these companies, for one example, need stronger protection otherwise they've no motivation to develop new medication. There's a world out there beyond PCs. It includes lots of reformed drug addicts and drink-drivers, who live in 21st-century countries whose governments don't kill the citizens.
When you create something worth having, you'd be the first to jump on those who give it away.
--- Assuming I care.
I suspect that you would, if you'd released a top-10 record. Or contributed anything to society. Your response tells every reader all they need to know about your attitude.
"Downloading music is generally illegal"
Yes, that seems to be the case in the majority. Many fine tracks are available for legal download, but many more are downloaded against the current legal system. Whether the current legal system is broken, is another debate.
Car stereo's - erm, don't follow you there at all, I'm afraid. Can't comment because your argument makes no sense.
"Music has traditionally been pretty much free, until about 50 years ago"
And you still don't complain when it gets expensive, if I read your statements above.
Can you point me to your complaints 5 decades ago, when the industry changed? No, I thought not. The industry did change, from where people would play music (live) for a fee, people would write music (for a fee), into the "tin-can alley" industry, where people would write music for a salary, others would perform it for a salary, and maybe royalties, and the new "music industry" would take the rest (and the risk).
That's how it was 50 years ago. Like it or not, it's... dare I say this on/.?... it's the indisputable truth!
I bought vinyl and tapes in the 70s and 80s, I bought CDs in the 90s. I've not heard much worth buying in the naughties.
Ain't worth buying, ain't worth downloading. If it's worth downloading, it's worth paying the legal price for. If I don't like that legal price, I can happily live without it (the quality is pretty low at the moment anyway).
"There's no moral high-ground in taking something without consent."
What about the freedom to listen to my LEGALLY obtained music where I, yes I, want and not where the music industry instructs me too??????????
That's another matter - buy a CD, and it ought to be a CD, not some crippled bastard-child which might play on some PCs, on some in-car CD players, and not in others. If it looks like a CD, it should be a CD, or sold at a fraction of the price. I was given a Dido "CD" which I enjoyed listening to in the car, but can't play on my Linux laptop. Useless. Can't rip it, can't do the things I have the right to do with it. I'm dead against that, don't get me wrong. I'm still against taking illegal copies. That's perfectly consistent, if it doesn't seem that way, read it again.
About the quality of what's available - it's up to the Industry, these days, to sell the stuff to me. What I hear on the radio is (occasionally) worth hearing for free on the radio, rarely worth going out to buy. If I hear something interesting on the radio, I make the decision - do I buy it? do I download it? do I live without it?
Unless it's legally available for download, the "download" option isn't evan an option.
(insensible rant deleted)
Take it or leave it. If your favoured artist has signed up to a a major record label, and that label chooses to distribute that via certain channels, you have no legal option. If your favoured artist chooses to make their music available for legal download, feel free to download and enjoy.
Who told you you could get something for free? Wake up - this is the smell of coffee.
Do you work for free? I don't. I do certain free software projects in my spare time, but it doesn't feed my family.
I'm not a believer in the Capitalist system, and I'd honestly love an alternative, but unless you can suggest one which works, I'll spend my time working for cash, spending my cash on things which are worth it, spending my free time contributing software to the community because I enjoy it, and - remind me again - what do you do? Oh, you download CDs. Well done.
I've tried to parse your "English", but I have to admit that I have failed. Your final comment about Microsoft I think I understood. They seem to be pretty happy with the status quo at the moment - offering "reduced-feature" versions in certain regions to promote the "buy it legit - it's not as dear as you think" mentality, but overall, they're happy so long as 90-odd% of PCs run Windows, and 90-odd% of those are paid-for.
When you create something worth having, you'd be the first to jump on those who give it away.
Reading your post, it seems unlikely that you're the type to ever create anything worth having.
Downloading music is generally illegal - I've no problem with downloading music, software, or anything else, which the author has put up for free download.
Taking something "because I can" is no better than taking my car stereo "because you can". Okay, there's a difference in that if you take my car stereo then I can't use it, but that really is a minor triviality.
As for "put on a good show" - the "better" the album (the bar is pretty low right now) the more likely it is to be illegally copied.
The download culture is simply going to worsen the current situation - crap music put out at minimal cost by cynical execs - because there's no reason to do any better.
There's no incentive for a label to put money into developing a promising band/singer/whatever into a major act, because scum like you will just download it.
Music has traditionally been pretty much free, until about 50 years ago. It's belonged to the people who wrote/enjoyed it. Since the days of vinyl, cynical types started to make money from it, because they could distribute it more widely. Their business model has been shown to be dated, but laws don't catch up with real life very fast.
Until the laws catch up, it's illegal, and they do have a legal monopoly.
There's no moral high-ground in taking something without consent. It's called TWOC, and you are a TWOCker.
Personally, I don't have much spare cash to buy CDs these days, but there's not much worth having, either. I want to see the industry pick up, so that we can have quality music, worth listening to - worth buying, heaven forbid! - is that such a bad thing?
Or is your own short-term gain on free Britney downloads more important?
There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration). (fp?)
I wasn't sure which browser tab I'd opened - I thought it must be the "Sony CD" article!
I booted into Windows recently to check that changes my website's CSS looked okay in IE, and I couldn't believe how bad the fonts were. I boot into Windows a few times a year, but this time I was actually looking at fonts. It wasn't my CSS - every website I looked at was displayed with ugly, blocky fonts.
Windows 2000 Professional, since you ask.
I've not heard of Mambo until now, but I do understand the GPL...
Newsforge say:
The red herring
When Connolly first put up his Furthermore demo site, he noticed that his server logs showed that a perceived competitor had downloaded about 20MB worth of data from his site. Connolly immediately interpreted this as wholesale code theft when, in fact, he had no reason to believe that any theft had taken place. The competitor was in the process of designing a site around Mambo OS and, like Furthermore, also employed the lead story block.
No mention of what was shown in these logs - if these logs were calling pure-library (non-HTML) PHP code from his site, I'd call that direct use of his code.
However, LiberatiGroup says:
The code committed to Mambo was done under contract and paid for by the Literati Group. The contract stipulates that "Upon finished project all copyright rights to code written by [Sakic] will belong to literatigroup.com."
If Sakic was contracted to modify GPL'd code under these conditions, that term of the contract must be void, as LiteratiGroup do not have the rights to enforce that term.
How does the GPL's use of "linking" relate here? That is, of course, for lawyers and (good) expert witnesses. But it's pretty clear that if I put a "virtual(http://yoursite.example.com/yourlibrary.p hp) line into "my" code, that I'm linking to your library. In C terms, it a static or dynamic link?
LiteratiGroup dismiss a Newsforge explanation of GPL with:
-- This confuses copyright and GPL. GPL does not automatically rob one of their copyrights.
The GPL relies upon copyright; without (c), the GPL would be meaningless. Adding (c) code to GPL'd (c) code is only possible by accepting the terms of the GPL.
LiteratiGroup replies:
BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NO DUTY TO REDISTRIBUTE MODIFIED GPL CODE.
I'm not a big game-player.
What do the game developers think of that? Video/DVDs have specific EULA's - something like $20 for a DVD, or $80 for a rental DVD (you'll be making money by renting it).
Does the gaming industry have similar practices, or does your friend just buy the games on the high street, install them, and charge Joe Public to play them (with all his infrastructure, etc)?
I'm not wanting to question his legal status at all - I'm merely asking a question to which I'd be interested to hear the answer.
The proxy has to be configured for streaming media.
But, if you can use Real, the BBC's Listen Again does offer Real format:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/rpms/hitchhikers.ra m
If BMX promote their bikes as "Trustworthy Cycling" with a "Safety Update", that's language which implies that a user doesn't need any 3rd-party stuff to make it secure. It certainly doesn't imply that the most common method of using the bike (on public roads) or PC (directly connected to the internet) is known to be likely to cause major problems, which is the case with MS Windows (so far).
Many home-users only have one PC, which is directly connected to the net. The kind of users who don't understand any of this. The kind of users who look at you blankly when you say "Firewall" in the first place.
And let's put one thing to rest - there is no such thing as a "hardware firewall" - a dedicated firewall is a piece of hardware, which runs firewall software.
Depends on what you want - the approach you describe means that the machine stays up and running, which might be a good thing, but if that is the only NIC in the box, then nobody can talk to it any more, so what's the point in it running?
On the other hand, it may be a redundant NIC (can Linux device drivers do this?), in which case, keeping running is the right thing to do.
On the third hand, if you don't notice that it's gone down, and that NIC is to your backup server, and you don't monitor the machine closely, you might not know that you haven't backed it up for 3 months until you look at the logs!
If that's UNIX FUD, it's a very strange form of it, as UNIX has many intentional forced-reboots.
The more Highly-Available you get, the more forced-reboot paths you get. Counterintuitive? Look at SunCluster. When it detects a condition which could, even only theoretically, cause data corruption, any potentially-dangerous node will deliberately PANIC itself. Take a simple 2-node cluster, with storage shared between them. When everything's running smoothly, they can both write to the shared storage. If the interconnect between them dies, then neither node can know the state of the other node. Both race to put a SCSI reserve on the quorum device (the SCSI protocol ensures that only one can succeed) - any nodes which fail to get their SCSI reserve on the quorum device will kill themselves the fastest way possible - the "failfast" driver. It might turn out that it would have been safe for them to stay around and shut down cleanly, but with mission-critical data, it is not worth taking the risk - don't even pause to work out if it's safe - those microseconds could trash the database.
UNIX is perfectly happy to accept the possibility of unknown bugs, and take responsibility for them in advance, as well as for external hardware faults. If a reboot may be needed, it's better to lose uptime than to lose data. And, of course, uptime is something in which UNIX excels, so it's not even much of a compromise.
FWIW, I believe that Windows clustering has a similar quorum model, although the Windows view of clustering appears to be rather more conservative.
RTF *is* Microsoft's RTF. There's a spec document http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=e5b8ebc2-6ad6-49f0-8c90-e4f763e3f04f&Displa yLang=en
(used to be issued in RTF format, now it seems to be an.exe). The spec (I used v1.5 a few years ago) is appalling - doesn't say how to put page numbers in footers, etc - have to work it out from what MS Word does:-(
Eh? You are a musician? Or you listen to musicians?
You claim to be a musician - do you share your music (like www.moeker.com, for example?) - do you make any money out of it? Who puts bread on your table?
Thinking of reading this subthread? Think again. Typical slashdot "teenagers claiming to understand law"... however, if you're someone looking to bring the F/OSS community into disrepute, feel free to cite this thread - it's sitting there, begging for you to take it.
Congrats - you've just invented the SunRay (http://www.sun.com/sunray)
It does all that - as Gosling says, it's not ideal for everything, as ethernet speeds haven't increased according to Moore's law (which is why he suggests that video-intensive tasks be passed on to the client) but IMNSVHO, most apps can be served by the SunRay model - one Word Processor, one Web Browser, one Mail Client running for hundreds of users.
The CAD/CAM guys can get their own GPU's, of course.
For "free"ness, I use WhiteBox Enterprise Linux (www.whiteboxlinux.org) - RedHat with the RedHat trademarks removed. Because, RedHat is so free you can't redistribute it. Tie that in with the GPL, if you can. WhiteBox (PinkTie, etc) take RedHat, remove the trademarked crap, and put it out for free. Let's all give a big hand for the WhiteBox guy(s) here. RedHat are complying with the GPL on copyright, but only by playing trademark games.
2) Sun and Novell(parent company of Suse) are the 2 top contributors to Star Office / Open Office.
Care to say what Novell have contributed to OpenOffice.org?
In TLOC, Sun are up there at the top of most Linux distro's thanks to OpenOffice.org. This often gets forgotten when Sun-bashing around here.
RedHat fits in, I think, because they're American, and it's "nice" to deal with a company based in the same country as yourself.
Sun don't have "static partitioning" - what could it possibly mean, anyway?
SF3800+ (ie, all partitionable hardware) support DR, so, dynamic repartitioning.
Shuffling CPUs around on demand can be scripted (eg, "I need 4 more CPUs at night for the backup server; give them back to the database in the daytime". It's not straightforward - it's a complex reorganisation of two systems - and being trusted to scripts. Not something I'd like to plan my business around, really.
But if you're so short of cash for a few more CPUs to be worth the cost of developing (and testing and proving) some scripts to switch CPUs around, it's certainly do-able.
Just very expensive, compared to buying a few more CPUs in the first place.
Of course, I don't know your situation, but if it's something like my guess, then my initial response would be to buy more CPUs for the backup server.
I (grudgingly) de-virused a church member's PC a while ago, expecting nothing but thanks - and got 2 bottles of quality wine in exchange. He made a point of giving me the reviews that went with each bottle, too.
Shame I'm not a connoisseur - tasted alright, though:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I won't get into "who executes the executioner?", and skip to your final paragraph.
Many drugs take 15-20 years to develop; these companies, for one example, need stronger protection otherwise they've no motivation to develop new medication. There's a world out there beyond PCs. It includes lots of reformed drug addicts and drink-drivers, who live in 21st-century countries whose governments don't kill the citizens.
--- Assuming I care.
I suspect that you would, if you'd released a top-10 record. Or contributed anything to society. Your response tells every reader all they need to know about your attitude.
Come back when you wear long trousers.
Yes, that seems to be the case in the majority. Many fine tracks are available for legal download, but many more are downloaded against the current legal system. Whether the current legal system is broken, is another debate.
Car stereo's - erm, don't follow you there at all, I'm afraid. Can't comment because your argument makes no sense.
"Music has traditionally been pretty much free, until about 50 years ago" And you still don't complain when it gets expensive, if I read your statements above.
Can you point me to your complaints 5 decades ago, when the industry changed? No, I thought not. The industry did change, from where people would play music (live) for a fee, people would write music (for a fee), into the "tin-can alley" industry, where people would write music for a salary, others would perform it for a salary, and maybe royalties, and the new "music industry" would take the rest (and the risk). ... dare I say this on /.? ... it's the indisputable truth!
That's how it was 50 years ago. Like it or not, it's
I bought vinyl and tapes in the 70s and 80s, I bought CDs in the 90s. I've not heard much worth buying in the naughties.
Ain't worth buying, ain't worth downloading. If it's worth downloading, it's worth paying the legal price for. If I don't like that legal price, I can happily live without it (the quality is pretty low at the moment anyway).
"There's no moral high-ground in taking something without consent." What about the freedom to listen to my LEGALLY obtained music where I, yes I, want and not where the music industry instructs me too??????????
That's another matter - buy a CD, and it ought to be a CD, not some crippled bastard-child which might play on some PCs, on some in-car CD players, and not in others. If it looks like a CD, it should be a CD, or sold at a fraction of the price. I was given a Dido "CD" which I enjoyed listening to in the car, but can't play on my Linux laptop. Useless. Can't rip it, can't do the things I have the right to do with it. I'm dead against that, don't get me wrong. I'm still against taking illegal copies. That's perfectly consistent, if it doesn't seem that way, read it again.
About the quality of what's available - it's up to the Industry, these days, to sell the stuff to me. What I hear on the radio is (occasionally) worth hearing for free on the radio, rarely worth going out to buy. If I hear something interesting on the radio, I make the decision - do I buy it? do I download it? do I live without it?
Unless it's legally available for download, the "download" option isn't evan an option.
(insensible rant deleted)
Take it or leave it. If your favoured artist has signed up to a a major record label, and that label chooses to distribute that via certain channels, you have no legal option. If your favoured artist chooses to make their music available for legal download, feel free to download and enjoy.
Who told you you could get something for free? Wake up - this is the smell of coffee.
Do you work for free? I don't. I do certain free software projects in my spare time, but it doesn't feed my family.
I'm not a believer in the Capitalist system, and I'd honestly love an alternative, but unless you can suggest one which works, I'll spend my time working for cash, spending my cash on things which are worth it, spending my free time contributing software to the community because I enjoy it, and - remind me again - what do you do? Oh, you download CDs. Well done.
Been fun chatting with you (honest!)
When you create something worth having, you'd be the first to jump on those who give it away.
Reading your post, it seems unlikely that you're the type to ever create anything worth having.
Downloading music is generally illegal - I've no problem with downloading music, software, or anything else, which the author has put up for free download.
Taking something "because I can" is no better than taking my car stereo "because you can". Okay, there's a difference in that if you take my car stereo then I can't use it, but that really is a minor triviality.
As for "put on a good show" - the "better" the album (the bar is pretty low right now) the more likely it is to be illegally copied.
The download culture is simply going to worsen the current situation - crap music put out at minimal cost by cynical execs - because there's no reason to do any better.
There's no incentive for a label to put money into developing a promising band/singer/whatever into a major act, because scum like you will just download it.
Music has traditionally been pretty much free, until about 50 years ago. It's belonged to the people who wrote/enjoyed it. Since the days of vinyl, cynical types started to make money from it, because they could distribute it more widely. Their business model has been shown to be dated, but laws don't catch up with real life very fast.
Until the laws catch up, it's illegal, and they do have a legal monopoly.
There's no moral high-ground in taking something without consent. It's called TWOC, and you are a TWOCker.
Personally, I don't have much spare cash to buy CDs these days, but there's not much worth having, either. I want to see the industry pick up, so that we can have quality music, worth listening to - worth buying, heaven forbid! - is that such a bad thing?
Or is your own short-term gain on free Britney downloads more important?
What have you lost in OOo that you have in Mozilla? Who has taken something from you?
Get a grip
There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration). (fp?)
I wasn't sure which browser tab I'd opened - I thought it must be the "Sony CD" article!
I booted into Windows recently to check that changes my website's CSS looked okay in IE, and I couldn't believe how bad the fonts were. I boot into Windows a few times a year, but this time I was actually looking at fonts. It wasn't my CSS - every website I looked at was displayed with ugly, blocky fonts.
Windows 2000 Professional, since you ask.
Newsforge say: No mention of what was shown in these logs - if these logs were calling pure-library (non-HTML) PHP code from his site, I'd call that direct use of his code.
However, LiberatiGroup says:
If Sakic was contracted to modify GPL'd code under these conditions, that term of the contract must be void, as LiteratiGroup do not have the rights to enforce that term.How does the GPL's use of "linking" relate here? That is, of course, for lawyers and (good) expert witnesses. But it's pretty clear that if I put a "virtual(http://yoursite.example.com/yourlibrary.p hp) line into "my" code, that I'm linking to your library. In C terms, it a static or dynamic link?
LiteratiGroup dismiss a Newsforge explanation of GPL with:
The GPL relies upon copyright; without (c), the GPL would be meaningless. Adding (c) code to GPL'd (c) code is only possible by accepting the terms of the GPL.LiteratiGroup replies:
This is true.I asked RMS about this quite directly back in 2001, as a hypothetical question about webhosted software: http://steve-parker.org/articles/lego/rms1.shtml
I'm not a big game-player. What do the game developers think of that? Video/DVDs have specific EULA's - something like $20 for a DVD, or $80 for a rental DVD (you'll be making money by renting it). Does the gaming industry have similar practices, or does your friend just buy the games on the high street, install them, and charge Joe Public to play them (with all his infrastructure, etc)? I'm not wanting to question his legal status at all - I'm merely asking a question to which I'd be interested to hear the answer.
The proxy has to be configured for streaming media. But, if you can use Real, the BBC's Listen Again does offer Real format: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/rpms/hitchhikers.ra m
If BMX promote their bikes as "Trustworthy Cycling" with a "Safety Update", that's language which implies that a user doesn't need any 3rd-party stuff to make it secure. It certainly doesn't imply that the most common method of using the bike (on public roads) or PC (directly connected to the internet) is known to be likely to cause major problems, which is the case with MS Windows (so far).
For fuck's sake - America recently went to war against a country based on a single (incorrect) source. Bashing MS is hardly the same scale.
And let's put one thing to rest - there is no such thing as a "hardware firewall" - a dedicated firewall is a piece of hardware, which runs firewall software.
Depends on what you want - the approach you describe means that the machine stays up and running, which might be a good thing, but if that is the only NIC in the box, then nobody can talk to it any more, so what's the point in it running? On the other hand, it may be a redundant NIC (can Linux device drivers do this?), in which case, keeping running is the right thing to do. On the third hand, if you don't notice that it's gone down, and that NIC is to your backup server, and you don't monitor the machine closely, you might not know that you haven't backed it up for 3 months until you look at the logs!
If that's UNIX FUD, it's a very strange form of it, as UNIX has many intentional forced-reboots.
The more Highly-Available you get, the more forced-reboot paths you get. Counterintuitive? Look at SunCluster. When it detects a condition which could, even only theoretically, cause data corruption, any potentially-dangerous node will deliberately PANIC itself.
Take a simple 2-node cluster, with storage shared between them. When everything's running smoothly, they can both write to the shared storage. If the interconnect between them dies, then neither node can know the state of the other node. Both race to put a SCSI reserve on the quorum device (the SCSI protocol ensures that only one can succeed) - any nodes which fail to get their SCSI reserve on the quorum device will kill themselves the fastest way possible - the "failfast" driver.
It might turn out that it would have been safe for them to stay around and shut down cleanly, but with mission-critical data, it is not worth taking the risk - don't even pause to work out if it's safe - those microseconds could trash the database.
UNIX is perfectly happy to accept the possibility of unknown bugs, and take responsibility for them in advance, as well as for external hardware faults. If a reboot may be needed, it's better to lose uptime than to lose data.
And, of course, uptime is something in which UNIX excels, so it's not even much of a compromise.
FWIW, I believe that Windows clustering has a similar quorum model, although the Windows view of clustering appears to be rather more conservative.
RTF *is* Microsoft's RTF. There's a spec document http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=e5b8ebc2-6ad6-49f0-8c90-e4f763e3f04f&Displa yLang=en
(used to be issued in RTF format, now it seems to be an .exe). The spec (I used v1.5 a few years ago) is appalling - doesn't say how to put page numbers in footers, etc - have to work it out from what MS Word does :-(
Eh? You are a musician? Or you listen to musicians?
You claim to be a musician - do you share your music (like www.moeker.com, for example?) - do you make any money out of it? Who puts bread on your table?
Thinking of reading this subthread?
Think again.
Typical slashdot "teenagers claiming to understand law"... however, if you're someone looking to bring the F/OSS community into disrepute, feel free to cite this thread - it's sitting there, begging for you to take it.
No, it isn't.
Congrats - you've just invented the SunRay (http://www.sun.com/sunray) It does all that - as Gosling says, it's not ideal for everything, as ethernet speeds haven't increased according to Moore's law (which is why he suggests that video-intensive tasks be passed on to the client) but IMNSVHO, most apps can be served by the SunRay model - one Word Processor, one Web Browser, one Mail Client running for hundreds of users. The CAD/CAM guys can get their own GPU's, of course.
For "free"ness, I use WhiteBox Enterprise Linux (www.whiteboxlinux.org) - RedHat with the RedHat trademarks removed.
Because, RedHat is so free you can't redistribute it. Tie that in with the GPL, if you can.
WhiteBox (PinkTie, etc) take RedHat, remove the trademarked crap, and put it out for free.
Let's all give a big hand for the WhiteBox guy(s) here.
RedHat are complying with the GPL on copyright, but only by playing trademark games.
Care to say what Novell have contributed to OpenOffice.org?
In TLOC, Sun are up there at the top of most Linux distro's thanks to OpenOffice.org. This often gets forgotten when Sun-bashing around here.
RedHat fits in, I think, because they're American, and it's "nice" to deal with a company based in the same country as yourself.
Sun don't have "static partitioning" - what could it possibly mean, anyway? SF3800+ (ie, all partitionable hardware) support DR, so, dynamic repartitioning. Shuffling CPUs around on demand can be scripted (eg, "I need 4 more CPUs at night for the backup server; give them back to the database in the daytime". It's not straightforward - it's a complex reorganisation of two systems - and being trusted to scripts. Not something I'd like to plan my business around, really. But if you're so short of cash for a few more CPUs to be worth the cost of developing (and testing and proving) some scripts to switch CPUs around, it's certainly do-able. Just very expensive, compared to buying a few more CPUs in the first place. Of course, I don't know your situation, but if it's something like my guess, then my initial response would be to buy more CPUs for the backup server.
Shame I'm not a connoisseur - tasted alright, though :-)