No you won't. You'll come along with a better symptom reliever.
Hah! You overestimate them. Lately pharmaceutical companies have come up with worse symptom relievers with prettier colours and better commercials instead.
Um, one of the options I'm looking at is "Enable cookies, but ask before accepting"
God, doing that has been suicide since the early 90's. Every site uses cookies. No wait, every frame of every site, and every document that can subsequently loaded uses cookies. Lots and lots and lots of cookies. If you tell your browser "accept all but ask me first" you will be clicking ok an awful lot, and essentially the option will quickly become meaningless.
What the poster was asking for is actually a registered bug for Mozilla, to which I am subscribed. What is wanted is an option to say "I do not want cookies unless they come from this list of sites." This would allow one to turn cookies on for slashdot and one's bank's site, for instance, and have them off otherwise.
As an aside, basically the only innovations in web browser design in the last 5 years have been to spy on, harrass, or otherwise punish users. Possible exceptions are tabbed browsing and mouse gestures, though honestly I consider tabbed browsing an annoyance (and its very presence, since it means sometimes I will mis-mouse the menu and get a tab when I want a window). There have thankfully been some countermeasures, but only because of open source projects like Mozilla. Otherwise we would be expected to accept more and more intrusion (like IE where popups, cookies, bad javascript, etc are just a way of life) with no recourse.
It is annoying and frustrating that developers are only developing ways to spy on users and make the web hell. It would be nice if more effort was spent on making the web more useful instead. Oh well, it is still an efficient porn distributor.
You might take your own advice;). Actually this is a common misconception about the GPL. You will notice the relevant section more fully reads:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Notice that you can choose to do a, b, or c. Most people choose a) in which case I can, for instance make Rifter's Nifty Linux Distribution and charge $5000US for it, include the source, and when someone comes to me for source I can say "sorry charlie, $5000US please!" I cannot, however, prevent any of the people who pay me $5000US from posting the source to slashdot, putting it on an ftp site, printing it on toilet paper, whatever floats their boat. They will, of course, have to choose a,b, or c themselves when distributing binaries, though.
The b option you mention only applies if I fail to provide source along with binaries. This is an incentive to provide source directly with binaries and not be an ass about making people submit requests for source through som esoteric bureaucratic procedure. The stick in this deal is that if Rifter's Nifty Linux Distribution, costing $5000, does not come with source in the same package, I have to give source to every tom, dick, and harry that shows up, whereas if I do supply source along with binaries (per option a) I do not have to care.
Option C is kind of interesting. I really dislike option C being there, but I understand it is an out. Essentially it says I can relay someone else's promise to give you source. I wonder if this is how Microsoft got away with not distributing source with the GPL software they sell and telling people to download it from gnu.org?
Naw, it's a creative interpretation of the work. And since they own photographs of things, this is fine. Now they ought to sue the WSJ for copyright infringement- obviously they're publishing their work, without royalties.
Come to think of it, that is a good point. I wonder what monkey at the WSJ thought it was a good idea to publish a picture which the story associated with the picture says was never supposed to be printed with anything. Come to think of it, this is the most puzzling aspect of the case for me. According to the article in the WSJ, the photograph was owned by the photographer who only gave permission to print it in Detour magazine once. If that is the case WTF is Corbis doing distributing his work to more people? And where did the copies come from which went to Amazon? I smell a leak and a rat.
People reading/. do not read the articles or even click on links (after all the goatse.cx links I do not blame them). The editors, well, they don't even read the submissions. Granted, this one was from timothy, but 1337 slashdot editors can type submissions with their eyes closed, which is how they explain away the typos.:)
Getting a term like the name of your company made into a generic word is not good. Look how Google is trying to protect itself from people equating "searching on the Internet" to the word Google. Once it becomes generic then Google's trademark becomes diluted.
Hmm, I googled for lawsuits from google I didn't find anything like that. I did find people suing them for trying to make their search engine more accurate, though (like SearchKing).
Heck, should have RTFA. It looks like they are only suing because Spam Arrest tried to Trademark Spam. in that case I think they are in their rights because otherwise the UCE company could try to stop them selling their meat-like substance as Spam.
Not only that, they have historically actively encouraged the use of their name for UCE. I have read numerous articles in which Hormel representatives said it was fine with them and they even had a good humour about it. They even took the trouble to put up this website clarifying their position. They said as long as the name is not in all caps and their product image is not used, they do not care.
Oh I do, too. But in the several years I have had my current vehicle it has always been spot-on, so I don't do it as often as I should. If I did it right I woudl be checking all fluids and signals and brakes before each excursion. But as it is I am usually in a hurry to get to work in the morning and at night I trudge home barely remembering how to drive there. I usually check it for long trips though and if they are long enough I have someone go over the vehicle first as well..
I was not aware that Saddam used chemical weapons "on his own people." Can you provide any evidence of this?
Well maybe according to Saddam Kurds and Shia aren't people so they don't count. Otherwise, yes, after Bush's father asked them to rise up against Saddam, promising support, the Kurds and Shia rose up, were killed by helicopter gunships (HINDs) bearing, among other things, chemical weapons. This was filmed and shown on international news. Bush essentially washed his hands of the whole affair and Saddam left the bullet holes where people were killed among other things as a reminder of how good the Americans are at keeping their word.
I disagreed with Bush's reasons for the war and I do not trust him to deliver on his promise of giving Iraq a democracy or restoring one in afghanistan. So far he has proven people like me right. I would be willing to accept a compromise if democracy was truly the goal or if it was established, but I think Stallman will be CEO of Microsoft and begin the project of exporting ice from Hell to irrigate these places first if Bush has his way.
You are correct, sir. However, the average person will not even know they have a choice. They will just "click on the internet" and go for it. It is hard enough for them to get to taht point. This guy has been writing about software for 20 years and did not figure out he had a choice until he installed Linux. Even then, we should ask ourselves why he knew he had a choice. The answer is these browsers were pre-installed by Linux. Yes! They came bundled!
Before IE was bundled with windows most people did not know they could get it. Usually once they figured out they could get on the internet they got a disk from the ISP that installed a bundle of software to get online. Now with Windows people know to "click on the internet" to get there. If you give them Linux they have 500 browsers they can click on so they suddenly become aware of all these choices. Note that Microsoft was very aware of this phenomenon, which is why they forbade OEMs from including any other browser than the holy IE or giving a link on the desktop to anything else.
But the oddest point in this story is: why did he need to defrag his hard drive if he was going to install Linux? It does not make sense, whether he was going to install linux in a new partition or wipe windows. Maybe if he was going to shrink his windows partition with partition magic it would mean something, but still...
I downloaded the trial iso that allowed me to run SuSE from my CD drive to see if it works with my hardware. The AMD 2500 machine that I built this year froze in the boot sequence.
I had a very similar problem. In my case it seems to have been the machine check exception code in the 2.4 Linux kernels. Apparently someone wrote code to check the CPU for certain errors like overheating and throw exceptions in such cases. Newer Athlon cpus always (erroneously) throw an exception in such cases. I am not a kernel programmer, but I still think it is too bad that they decided to completely stop execution with no chance to resume.
Anyway, there are various boot options to turn this off. The vanilla kernel boot option is nomce. There may be a different option on SUSE (as there is for RedHat). You can also recompile your kernel to remove this code. (It's not difficult, just uncheck "Machine Check Exception" in the CPU Options in xconfig.) I have done this as well as included it in the append="" line in/etc/lilo.conf. The boot options can also be entered by hand at the lilo boot: prompt (eg entering "linux nomce" without the quotes when presented with the boot: prompt).
This has to be done when installing most modern Linux distributions (though debian uses a 2.2 install kernel and is thus exempt, but you still have to do this if you install a 2.4 kernel for debian). I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether this or "press F6 before the kernel boots" is the more esoteric install procedure.:)
Umm, where did you read that? I'd just like to read it myself...
Linked For Your Pleasure! In this article, Chris Sontag makes the case that essentially every operating system on earth is now SCO property. Somehow Sun is "in the clear,"but Microsoft is not. Key elements of this argument:
1) The original AT&T contracts deeded all IP derived from Unix back to AT&T
2) BSD is derived from this codebase as are all sysV implementations. Microsoft and Apple's current OS Offerings owe at least something to BSD.
3) The BSD case covered pre sysV code, which the SCO released under BSD license a few years ago in any case.
4) BSD has been contributed to since the case in 1994, and in some cases has received Linux code.
5) SCO alleges that the BSD folks have not lived up to their end of the 1994 agreement
It's a scary case, but honestly I don't see how any judge could grant such sweeping power to SCO. It would destroy the IT market utterly and cast a chilling effect on any computer science innovation in the US. This case is going to ultimately end up having to decide many age-old issues which have caused us problems such as people who do not create IP but lay claim to it after buying bits of companies then exercise their rights in a much more egregious manner than the original IP holder would have, and the court-testng of the GPL, among other things.
Wow, there's this thing called "oil" that you're supposed to check more often than once every two years.
Have fun with the new engine.
Yes, but there are these magic elves who will happily check these things for you for the princely sum of $15US. I believe they are called "mechanics." Really, lots of people just have all their maintenance done regularly by some trusted shop or other. When the odometer reaches the number on the little sticker the mechanics left in their windshield, they go back. They don't have to know anything about the car to do this.
Actually I know a bit about my vehicles (enough to be dangerous anyway) but I usually have others do maintenance. Heck it is worth $15 not to have to crawl under my car and get dirty and swear with an oil wrench. But to each his/her own, I guess...
In other news, Microsoft sued Linus Torvalds and all companies distributing Linux and they were forced to pay for all the licenses to Microsoft software that would have been bought if Linux had not been released for free. Then again, isn't this pretty much what SCO is doing?
Some say he did, and want him impeached. Ironically, this time it is really "about lying" and "not about sex." Then again, maybe it isn't ironic. I am throroughly confused by the article as well. Of course I am an American... is that ironic? I give up:P.
Uhm... there are tons of first-person, party-based RPGs. Little things like the Eye of the Beholder trilogy, Dungeon Master, and Bard's Quest. Third-person isometric mainly has been a hallmark of the modern renaissance of RPGs. You still get first person in some, single character games as well Daggerfall being the first that comes to mind (and the next to make me seem horribly dated).
Yes but they are all single player. the poster was speaking of a multiplayer game...
Sony did not give a moment's thought to whether Everquest would work in Wine, but it did. The developers of DAOC seem to have, however. They made sure it would not work. I think it is better that they not bother.
I regret to inform you you are too far from reality. There are no bugs in this game! Never! As for the beta testers who posted the bad reviews, they are retarded. We know what to do with such infidels. We will roast their stomachs in hell!
Oddly your link goes to the website of a forwarding company (such companies are supposedly used by terrorist sympathisers to get contraband to blockaded countries). At first, I thought you were being tongue-in-cheek, then I found the real link. Interesting game...
Then he's on the wrong track. You just can't give something away for free and expect people to give you money. Even RMS explains this.
Funny thing is, it worked for Linus. Then again Linus is much easier to deal with I'd imagine. Linus worked on Linux because he needed something practical, and continues to work on it to scratch his itches and for fun. But one of his goals as a programmer and CS student was to land a decent job. Not surprising, really. And it worked. People liked the code he produced, could see the code he produced, and hired him.
I think the posters who say the guy's attitude is detrimental to getting a job (as well as his sour grapes) are right. Just judging by the/. reaction it is fairly obvious. But I don't blame him for feeling the way he does. I also think saying "what does he expect when he gives his work away for free?" is too simple and is probably something only a closed-source-only programmer or non-programmer would say.
I personally know plenty of programmers who work both closed and open source, and at job interviews questions about contributions to free software are common. People who have managed a project or written code gain valuable experience, whether this is proprietary or free software. The difference with free software is that you can legally show the code you wrote to new employers. They can see how well you managed the project because the information is freely and openly available.
Again, David Cinege was not asking for money for LRP. He was lamenting the fact he could not find a job in the computer industry despite being a competent programmer. It is also funny to me that people who say here that they hate him for his views/attitude/whatever and will not run his software will instead use software (like coyotelinux and leaf) that was based on LRP. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
No you won't. You'll come along with a better symptom reliever.
Hah! You overestimate them. Lately pharmaceutical companies have come up with worse symptom relievers with prettier colours and better commercials instead.
Um, one of the options I'm looking at is "Enable cookies, but ask before accepting"
God, doing that has been suicide since the early 90's. Every site uses cookies. No wait, every frame of every site, and every document that can subsequently loaded uses cookies. Lots and lots and lots of cookies. If you tell your browser "accept all but ask me first" you will be clicking ok an awful lot, and essentially the option will quickly become meaningless.
What the poster was asking for is actually a registered bug for Mozilla, to which I am subscribed. What is wanted is an option to say "I do not want cookies unless they come from this list of sites." This would allow one to turn cookies on for slashdot and one's bank's site, for instance, and have them off otherwise.
As an aside, basically the only innovations in web browser design in the last 5 years have been to spy on, harrass, or otherwise punish users. Possible exceptions are tabbed browsing and mouse gestures, though honestly I consider tabbed browsing an annoyance (and its very presence, since it means sometimes I will mis-mouse the menu and get a tab when I want a window). There have thankfully been some countermeasures, but only because of open source projects like Mozilla. Otherwise we would be expected to accept more and more intrusion (like IE where popups, cookies, bad javascript, etc are just a way of life) with no recourse.
It is annoying and frustrating that developers are only developing ways to spy on users and make the web hell. It would be nice if more effort was spent on making the web more useful instead. Oh well, it is still an efficient porn distributor.
Please do not spread lies.
You might take your own advice ;). Actually this is a common misconception about the GPL. You will notice the relevant section more fully reads:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Notice that you can choose to do a, b, or c. Most people choose a) in which case I can, for instance make Rifter's Nifty Linux Distribution and charge $5000US for it, include the source, and when someone comes to me for source I can say "sorry charlie, $5000US please!" I cannot, however, prevent any of the people who pay me $5000US from posting the source to slashdot, putting it on an ftp site, printing it on toilet paper, whatever floats their boat. They will, of course, have to choose a,b, or c themselves when distributing binaries, though.
The b option you mention only applies if I fail to provide source along with binaries. This is an incentive to provide source directly with binaries and not be an ass about making people submit requests for source through som esoteric bureaucratic procedure. The stick in this deal is that if Rifter's Nifty Linux Distribution, costing $5000, does not come with source in the same package, I have to give source to every tom, dick, and harry that shows up, whereas if I do supply source along with binaries (per option a) I do not have to care.
Option C is kind of interesting. I really dislike option C being there, but I understand it is an out. Essentially it says I can relay someone else's promise to give you source. I wonder if this is how Microsoft got away with not distributing source with the GPL software they sell and telling people to download it from gnu.org?
Naw, it's a creative interpretation of the work. And since they own photographs of things, this is fine. Now they ought to sue the WSJ for copyright infringement- obviously they're publishing their work, without royalties.
Come to think of it, that is a good point. I wonder what monkey at the WSJ thought it was a good idea to publish a picture which the story associated with the picture says was never supposed to be printed with anything. Come to think of it, this is the most puzzling aspect of the case for me. According to the article in the WSJ, the photograph was owned by the photographer who only gave permission to print it in Detour magazine once. If that is the case WTF is Corbis doing distributing his work to more people? And where did the copies come from which went to Amazon? I smell a leak and a rat.
People reading /. do not read the articles or even click on links (after all the goatse.cx links I do not blame them). The editors, well, they don't even read the submissions. Granted, this one was from timothy, but 1337 slashdot editors can type submissions with their eyes closed, which is how they explain away the typos. :)
Hmm, you sound like a consultant I know already. Oh wait, it's you, fhqwhgads! Will you ever learn?
Getting a term like the name of your company made into a generic word is not good. Look how Google is trying to protect itself from people equating "searching on the Internet" to the word Google. Once it becomes generic then Google's trademark becomes diluted.
Hmm, I googled for lawsuits from google I didn't find anything like that. I did find people suing them for trying to make their search engine more accurate, though (like SearchKing).
Heck, should have RTFA. It looks like they are only suing because Spam Arrest tried to Trademark Spam. in that case I think they are in their rights because otherwise the UCE company could try to stop them selling their meat-like substance as Spam.
Not only that, they have historically actively encouraged the use of their name for UCE. I have read numerous articles in which Hormel representatives said it was fine with them and they even had a good humour about it. They even took the trouble to put up this website clarifying their position. They said as long as the name is not in all caps and their product image is not used, they do not care.
Oh I do, too. But in the several years I have had my current vehicle it has always been spot-on, so I don't do it as often as I should. If I did it right I woudl be checking all fluids and signals and brakes before each excursion. But as it is I am usually in a hurry to get to work in the morning and at night I trudge home barely remembering how to drive there. I usually check it for long trips though and if they are long enough I have someone go over the vehicle first as well..
I was not aware that Saddam used chemical weapons "on his own people." Can you provide any evidence of this?
Well maybe according to Saddam Kurds and Shia aren't people so they don't count. Otherwise, yes, after Bush's father asked them to rise up against Saddam, promising support, the Kurds and Shia rose up, were killed by helicopter gunships (HINDs) bearing, among other things, chemical weapons. This was filmed and shown on international news. Bush essentially washed his hands of the whole affair and Saddam left the bullet holes where people were killed among other things as a reminder of how good the Americans are at keeping their word.
I disagreed with Bush's reasons for the war and I do not trust him to deliver on his promise of giving Iraq a democracy or restoring one in afghanistan. So far he has proven people like me right. I would be willing to accept a compromise if democracy was truly the goal or if it was established, but I think Stallman will be CEO of Microsoft and begin the project of exporting ice from Hell to irrigate these places first if Bush has his way.
In fact, everyone was lying except for Saddam.
That may be true, though I would go for "everyone lied" before believing Saddam. Then again, if he told he truth this time, would it be ironic?
You are correct, sir. However, the average person will not even know they have a choice. They will just "click on the internet" and go for it. It is hard enough for them to get to taht point. This guy has been writing about software for 20 years and did not figure out he had a choice until he installed Linux. Even then, we should ask ourselves why he knew he had a choice. The answer is these browsers were pre-installed by Linux. Yes! They came bundled!
Before IE was bundled with windows most people did not know they could get it. Usually once they figured out they could get on the internet they got a disk from the ISP that installed a bundle of software to get online. Now with Windows people know to "click on the internet" to get there. If you give them Linux they have 500 browsers they can click on so they suddenly become aware of all these choices. Note that Microsoft was very aware of this phenomenon, which is why they forbade OEMs from including any other browser than the holy IE or giving a link on the desktop to anything else.
But the oddest point in this story is: why did he need to defrag his hard drive if he was going to install Linux? It does not make sense, whether he was going to install linux in a new partition or wipe windows. Maybe if he was going to shrink his windows partition with partition magic it would mean something, but still...
I downloaded the trial iso that allowed me to run SuSE from my CD drive to see if it works with my hardware. The AMD 2500 machine that I built this year froze in the boot sequence.
I had a very similar problem. In my case it seems to have been the machine check exception code in the 2.4 Linux kernels. Apparently someone wrote code to check the CPU for certain errors like overheating and throw exceptions in such cases. Newer Athlon cpus always (erroneously) throw an exception in such cases. I am not a kernel programmer, but I still think it is too bad that they decided to completely stop execution with no chance to resume.
Anyway, there are various boot options to turn this off. The vanilla kernel boot option is nomce. There may be a different option on SUSE (as there is for RedHat). You can also recompile your kernel to remove this code. (It's not difficult, just uncheck "Machine Check Exception" in the CPU Options in xconfig.) I have done this as well as included it in the append="" line in /etc/lilo.conf. The boot options can also be entered by hand at the lilo boot: prompt (eg entering "linux nomce" without the quotes when presented with the boot: prompt).
This has to be done when installing most modern Linux distributions (though debian uses a 2.2 install kernel and is thus exempt, but you still have to do this if you install a 2.4 kernel for debian). I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether this or "press F6 before the kernel boots" is the more esoteric install procedure. :)
"SCO is about to attack BSD, too."
Umm, where did you read that? I'd just like to read it myself...
Linked For Your Pleasure! In this article, Chris Sontag makes the case that essentially every operating system on earth is now SCO property. Somehow Sun is "in the clear,"but Microsoft is not. Key elements of this argument:
1) The original AT&T contracts deeded all IP derived from Unix back to AT&T
2) BSD is derived from this codebase as are all sysV implementations. Microsoft and Apple's current OS Offerings owe at least something to BSD.
3) The BSD case covered pre sysV code, which the SCO released under BSD license a few years ago in any case.
4) BSD has been contributed to since the case in 1994, and in some cases has received Linux code.
5) SCO alleges that the BSD folks have not lived up to their end of the 1994 agreement
It's a scary case, but honestly I don't see how any judge could grant such sweeping power to SCO. It would destroy the IT market utterly and cast a chilling effect on any computer science innovation in the US. This case is going to ultimately end up having to decide many age-old issues which have caused us problems such as people who do not create IP but lay claim to it after buying bits of companies then exercise their rights in a much more egregious manner than the original IP holder would have, and the court-testng of the GPL, among other things.
Wow, there's this thing called "oil" that you're supposed to check more often than once every two years.
Have fun with the new engine.
Yes, but there are these magic elves who will happily check these things for you for the princely sum of $15US. I believe they are called "mechanics." Really, lots of people just have all their maintenance done regularly by some trusted shop or other. When the odometer reaches the number on the little sticker the mechanics left in their windshield, they go back. They don't have to know anything about the car to do this.
Actually I know a bit about my vehicles (enough to be dangerous anyway) but I usually have others do maintenance. Heck it is worth $15 not to have to crawl under my car and get dirty and swear with an oil wrench. But to each his/her own, I guess...
In other news, Microsoft sued Linus Torvalds and all companies distributing Linux and they were forced to pay for all the licenses to Microsoft software that would have been bought if Linux had not been released for free. Then again, isn't this pretty much what SCO is doing?
Some say he did, and want him impeached. Ironically, this time it is really "about lying" and "not about sex." Then again, maybe it isn't ironic. I am throroughly confused by the article as well. Of course I am an American... is that ironic? I give up :P.
Uhm... there are tons of first-person, party-based RPGs. Little things like the Eye of the Beholder trilogy, Dungeon Master, and Bard's Quest. Third-person isometric mainly has been a hallmark of the modern renaissance of RPGs. You still get first person in some, single character games as well Daggerfall being the first that comes to mind (and the next to make me seem horribly dated).
Yes but they are all single player. the poster was speaking of a multiplayer game...
Sony did not give a moment's thought to whether Everquest would work in Wine, but it did. The developers of DAOC seem to have, however. They made sure it would not work. I think it is better that they not bother.
I regret to inform you you are too far from reality. There are no bugs in this game! Never! As for the beta testers who posted the bad reviews, they are retarded. We know what to do with such infidels. We will roast their stomachs in hell!
--The Sony Information Minister
Oddly your link goes to the website of a forwarding company (such companies are supposedly used by terrorist sympathisers to get contraband to blockaded countries). At first, I thought you were being tongue-in-cheek, then I found the real link. Interesting game...
And it doesn't make you hit rats 50 times with a stick, either.
No, you just have to listen to them mouth off. Unless you get ops. Then you can kick/ban them :).
Then he's on the wrong track. You just can't give something away for free and expect people to give you money. Even RMS explains this.
Funny thing is, it worked for Linus. Then again Linus is much easier to deal with I'd imagine. Linus worked on Linux because he needed something practical, and continues to work on it to scratch his itches and for fun. But one of his goals as a programmer and CS student was to land a decent job. Not surprising, really. And it worked. People liked the code he produced, could see the code he produced, and hired him.
I think the posters who say the guy's attitude is detrimental to getting a job (as well as his sour grapes) are right. Just judging by the /. reaction it is fairly obvious. But I don't blame him for feeling the way he does. I also think saying "what does he expect when he gives his work away for free?" is too simple and is probably something only a closed-source-only programmer or non-programmer would say.
I personally know plenty of programmers who work both closed and open source, and at job interviews questions about contributions to free software are common. People who have managed a project or written code gain valuable experience, whether this is proprietary or free software. The difference with free software is that you can legally show the code you wrote to new employers. They can see how well you managed the project because the information is freely and openly available.
Again, David Cinege was not asking for money for LRP. He was lamenting the fact he could not find a job in the computer industry despite being a competent programmer. It is also funny to me that people who say here that they hate him for his views/attitude/whatever and will not run his software will instead use software (like coyotelinux and leaf) that was based on LRP. Oh well.