Baboochi left their planet because they were invaded by the evil Zartans and came to Earth to find a new home in the arms of children.
Baboochi(TM) will help teach your children to brush their teeth, clean their room, share with others, and many more important lessons that parents want their kids to learn.
Let's say the FSF says "this is GPL incompatible", and half of the community agrees with them. Does this automatically mean it's incompatible? Well, I guess technically not, maybe, but still:
One, any project which descides to link both Apache2 and GPL code is going to be avoided by the plague by quite a lot of people. Individual users will probably be less likely to contribute to a project whose legal validity and future is in doubt. At least some major linux distributions will probably decline to carry it.
Two, the cloud created by the question of whether there is a legal basis to use code that incorporates both Apache2 and GPL code will drive away virtually any business entity who might otherwise use such code. If a corporate legal department gets word that their engineers want to take a project that is liscensed under mixed Apache2 and GPL and redistribute it, and that they "have the right to modify and redistribute this... maybe, unless the FSF is interpreting the license correctly", how do you think they will react to this?
A solid legal footing can't really be established except maybe in court, and a situation where the legal question is resolved in court is highly unlikely to happen for years, if at all-- but it could, at any moment, and you can't say what the outcome will be.
When you get to this point you might as well call it "GPL Incompatible". Almost certainly, in practice, the Apache2 and GPL licenses just aren't going to be mixed. You could get more developer support just by sticking firmly to one or the other. This won't be the end of the world; it will be just like Apache1 and Apache1.1.
Personally I think the GPL is pretty unambiguous and that the Apache2 license is indeed incompatible with it.
The GPL is compatible with any license less restrictive than it is.
The FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible because that is their job. They are responsible for maintaining and promoting the GPL and thus people look to them for definitive answers on what exactly what the GPL's place in the world is and what licenses it is and isn't compatible with.
This has nothing to do with anything, but it just occured to me that internet cafes are an absolutely natural target for Knoppix. Everything you need goes on the CD, the instant someone signs off everything they've done to the filesystem's cleared, you don't even need a hard drive...
Someone could probably do pretty well for themselves if they made a customized version of Knoppix with software tailored to what an internet cafe needs, the interface made windows-user-friendly and with some big "WEB" "EMAIL" buttons on the desktop, Evolution set up with a quick "connect to your specific email" wizard, and some sort of hooks to some sort of central use tracking/billing system. They could print up a bunch of cds of this and sell it as a no-setup-required "internet cafe in a box" system...
Has anyone used this on Mac OS X / with xcode? I'm interested in doing so; if I want to, do I just sit down and follow the instructions or are there any gotchas or OS X-specific quirks I may run into that I might need to be aware of?
Thanks.
Re:Does Subversion require a UNIX account per user
on
Subversion 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
How about a web interface to sudo for adding user accounts?
You're suggesting I put up a web accessible chmod root script just so someone can run a version control system?
I can see that for some people's situations, using the unix account system would be very attractive. However, not everyones'. I, specifically, have been needing to set up a version control server of some sort. I will probably wind up doing so on a personal machine. It is concievable at some point I could give other persons access to this server. If so, I do not want anyone who has access to this CVS server to have any sort of other abilities on my system. Yes, yes, disable FTP, set shell to/dev/null, whatever. But still, my paranoia's inflamed. By giving them a user my system's at least recognizing their existence, and that makes me uncomfortable because I am uncertain my knowledge of UNIX is complete enough I've locked off all the possible manners in which they could take advantage of that.
From a security perspective, every moving part you add to a system is a chance for something to go wrong. A versioning system implementing its own internal security system adds a hell of a lot of moving parts, but they're all well contained off in userland, there's some vague notion of a sandbox there. A versioning system using the OS user system is adding a very small number of moving parts but those moving parts are in a much more dangerous area...
$13.86 isn't enough for a new CD from many stores, but you could use the money to buy an album from one of the many excellent artists from non-RIAA record labels such as Matador or Ninja Tune available from the iTunes Music Store.
Or perhaps purchase music for download in unencumbered MP3 format directly from non-RIAA record label Warp Records.
$10 thrown at the first option could get you, if you like rock music, one of the Yo La Tengo albums (if you like rock), Cat Power's "Moon Pix" album (if you like folky rock sung by a drunk manic-depressive woman), or Amon Tobin's "Supermodified" (if you like jazzy d&b-ish techno), and still leave you $3.86 for your own nefarious purposes. Any of these would be excellent choices.
From the second option, if you like electronica, $13.86 would be just enough to neatly buy Boards of Canada's probably-career-high Music Has the Right to Children album plus Autechre's probably-career-high gantz_graf EP and leave you enough money for a soda at a vending machine.
OK.. I'm looking at this... and I REALLY don't know very much about cell biology, but I have to ask.. they seem to be really, really worried about DNA being damaged by this. Except as far as I am aware, brain cells never reproduce or divide. Is this correct, and if so, why would I worry about the DNA being damaged if Mitosis is never going to happen? Unless, like, you're shaving the head of a two week old baby or something.
The implication I guess is that cell breakdown and death occurs more quickly, but aren't you constantly losing brain cells at a breakneck pace anyway?
But he expects the business will mature as users realize it's cheaper to pay a flat fee for access to 500,000 tracks than to pay $1 a song
But then the question is, what happens as the users realize it's even cheaper to listen to the internet radio built into iTunes for $0 a month.
Okay, yeah, you can't choose exactly what song you hear next on internet radio. But generally, if I go "hey, I want to listen to X specific song", this indicates I'm going to want to listen to it again someday in the future. Unless I keep paying for Napster's streaming service for the rest of my natural life, I can't get that. Perhaps worst of all, last I heard not *all* of the songs Napster has up for sale are free to stream when you have the $15/mo service, and there's no way to tell which songs can and can't be streamed unless you've already paid for the service....well that's encouraging.
The $15-to-stream-from-our-library thing is a really neat business proposition, and I'd call it real innovation, but I just can't see buying it. I'd rather just stick with actually buying in some form the tracks/albums. And if you're only looking at buying tracks/albums, Apple's software works both on my macs and my PCs, and they seem to have a bigger and more indie-friendly library. I think I'll stick with them.
perl -e '$a = 1/10000; print pack('C', (sin($c += ($a * 3.14159 * ($d += (rand()- 0.5) ) ) )+sin($e += ($a * 3.14159 * ($f += (rand()-0.5) ) ) )+1)*128) while(1);' >/dev/audio # if this is too high or low pitched, adjust the number of 0s in $a
Hey, nothing wrong with randomness:)
John Cage did actually manage to create some very interesting pieces of quasisymphonic music which *were* partially composed using dice. (Well, the I Ching, not dice, but there's little difference). You do, of course, have to be careful about how you introduce the indeterminacy or it gets boring, but still.
The thing about the ferrets that would be interesting is they aren't *quite* random. They have a sort of swarming behavior. Perhaps more interestingly, it is possible to influence the ferrets' behavior. You could arrange the objects in the room into a sort of maze, perhaps in the process leaving it fairly certain the ferrets will spend most of the time either in or moving between one of a series of specific places in the room, while they are in which they are emitting tones that you determined beforehand to be compatible. You could hold a sock or food or something above the ferret's head and kind of lead them around the room while they try to jump at it, turning the ferrets into basically something you could play like a very, very uncooperative instrument. The result would of course be chaos, but the hope would be you could marshall it into some sort of interesting chaos:)
I was actually wanting to do something pretty much just like this with ferrets. My idea being you somehow attach something to some ferrets that will let you track their location and then set them loose in a room, and record their locations over a couple of minutes, and have the current location of each ferret correspond to one tone (maybe with the x position controlling frequency, and the y position controlling a VCF). The idea came when I was at the house of a friend who has six ferrets and he wound up dropping all six into a plastic bag and then just dropping the bag in someone's lap... ferrets just spewed out everywhere...
Unfortunately unlike me the hamster people appear to have actually (1) initiative and (2) the technical will to get it done. Of course, I have the definite advantage that unlike them, my web page still works, because they have just been linked in a slashdot story and I, due to my clever strategy of not putting up cool hamster music, haven't...;)
Sure. Those are kind of painful to lose, but they're discrete features. The machine will still run without them (except maybe NUMA on some machines, I'm not sure). It just will not run nearly as well in some cases.
The point I was trying to make, I suppose, is to have proof around that invaluable as IBM's contributions to linux have been, Linux could still kick the ass of any and all of SCO's product line without it. (Just because, from what I know of SCO's products, that isn't very hard.)
What I do think that should DEFINITELY be done immediately is just for the heck of it, some minimal-- maybe not even well-done, maybe just copying code from 2.0 or whatever these files were like before the submission-- patches that remove all of the allegedly infringing code should EXIST, if not be incorporated into the main linux tree, just as a proof of concept.
So that later if SCO is trying to claim "we've been damaged by this", people can respond with "bullshit, those files were nonessential to Linux, look how quickly the community was able to provide replacements and it wasn't even something they had to or had reason to do".
What happens if you huff this paint? Can the vapors from the paint absorb noxious gases as well as the paint itself can, and if so, is it enough to cancel out the fact the paint fumes are themselves noxious? Inquiring minds want to know.
Slashdot Mirror
It's yet another last-ditch, desperate attempt for Sony to try to make the MiniDisc technology and patent pool relevant.
There's no objective, consistent definition of when a corporation becomes a monopoly
Yes there is. It's called the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Baboochi left their planet because they were invaded by the evil Zartans and came to Earth to find a new home in the arms of children.
Baboochi(TM) will help teach your children to brush their teeth, clean their room, share with others, and many more important lessons that parents want their kids to learn.
Holy shit WTF. I must own one of these.
Oh, OK.
Let's say the FSF says "this is GPL incompatible", and half of the community agrees with them. Does this automatically mean it's incompatible? Well, I guess technically not, maybe, but still:
One, any project which descides to link both Apache2 and GPL code is going to be avoided by the plague by quite a lot of people. Individual users will probably be less likely to contribute to a project whose legal validity and future is in doubt. At least some major linux distributions will probably decline to carry it.
Two, the cloud created by the question of whether there is a legal basis to use code that incorporates both Apache2 and GPL code will drive away virtually any business entity who might otherwise use such code. If a corporate legal department gets word that their engineers want to take a project that is liscensed under mixed Apache2 and GPL and redistribute it, and that they "have the right to modify and redistribute this... maybe, unless the FSF is interpreting the license correctly", how do you think they will react to this?
A solid legal footing can't really be established except maybe in court, and a situation where the legal question is resolved in court is highly unlikely to happen for years, if at all-- but it could, at any moment, and you can't say what the outcome will be.
When you get to this point you might as well call it "GPL Incompatible". Almost certainly, in practice, the Apache2 and GPL licenses just aren't going to be mixed. You could get more developer support just by sticking firmly to one or the other. This won't be the end of the world; it will be just like Apache1 and Apache1.1.
Personally I think the GPL is pretty unambiguous and that the Apache2 license is indeed incompatible with it.
The GPL is compatible with any license less restrictive than it is.
The FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible because that is their job. They are responsible for maintaining and promoting the GPL and thus people look to them for definitive answers on what exactly what the GPL's place in the world is and what licenses it is and isn't compatible with.
If you find Ali Abtahi's site interesting, you may also find this kind of interesting, though it hasn't been updated in awhile.
You just have to remember to copy [.svn] over from the backcup *~.nib.
.pbproj and .xcode files as well?
Err, yuck. Am I going to have to do that every time I modify nib file, and does that apply to
Doesn't xcode have hooks directly into version control systems, shouldn't that make it a little better behaved? Hm.
Thanks for the response.
This has nothing to do with anything, but it just occured to me that internet cafes are an absolutely natural target for Knoppix. Everything you need goes on the CD, the instant someone signs off everything they've done to the filesystem's cleared, you don't even need a hard drive...
Someone could probably do pretty well for themselves if they made a customized version of Knoppix with software tailored to what an internet cafe needs, the interface made windows-user-friendly and with some big "WEB" "EMAIL" buttons on the desktop, Evolution set up with a quick "connect to your specific email" wizard, and some sort of hooks to some sort of central use tracking/billing system. They could print up a bunch of cds of this and sell it as a no-setup-required "internet cafe in a box" system...
I dunno, it's an idea.
Looks neat. Just checking:
Has anyone used this on Mac OS X / with xcode? I'm interested in doing so; if I want to, do I just sit down and follow the instructions or are there any gotchas or OS X-specific quirks I may run into that I might need to be aware of?
Thanks.
How about a web interface to sudo for adding user accounts?
/dev/null, whatever. But still, my paranoia's inflamed. By giving them a user my system's at least recognizing their existence, and that makes me uncomfortable because I am uncertain my knowledge of UNIX is complete enough I've locked off all the possible manners in which they could take advantage of that.
You're suggesting I put up a web accessible chmod root script just so someone can run a version control system?
I can see that for some people's situations, using the unix account system would be very attractive. However, not everyones'. I, specifically, have been needing to set up a version control server of some sort. I will probably wind up doing so on a personal machine. It is concievable at some point I could give other persons access to this server. If so, I do not want anyone who has access to this CVS server to have any sort of other abilities on my system. Yes, yes, disable FTP, set shell to
From a security perspective, every moving part you add to a system is a chance for something to go wrong. A versioning system implementing its own internal security system adds a hell of a lot of moving parts, but they're all well contained off in userland, there's some vague notion of a sandbox there. A versioning system using the OS user system is adding a very small number of moving parts but those moving parts are in a much more dangerous area...
Is there an easy way to check? Like a boycott search engine or something?
Yes.
May I make a suggestion?
$13.86 isn't enough for a new CD from many stores, but you could use the money to buy an album from one of the many excellent artists from non-RIAA record labels such as Matador or Ninja Tune available from the iTunes Music Store.
Or perhaps purchase music for download in unencumbered MP3 format directly from non-RIAA record label Warp Records.
$10 thrown at the first option could get you, if you like rock music, one of the Yo La Tengo albums (if you like rock), Cat Power's "Moon Pix" album (if you like folky rock sung by a drunk manic-depressive woman), or Amon Tobin's "Supermodified" (if you like jazzy d&b-ish techno), and still leave you $3.86 for your own nefarious purposes. Any of these would be excellent choices.
From the second option, if you like electronica, $13.86 would be just enough to neatly buy Boards of Canada's probably-career-high Music Has the Right to Children album plus Autechre's probably-career-high gantz_graf EP and leave you enough money for a soda at a vending machine.
Or rather, score $13.86 for the consumer.
The score now stands at:
The consumer: $13.86
The RIAA: $33,000,000,000
Looks like the RIAA's in real trouble now!
OK.. I'm looking at this... and I REALLY don't know very much about cell biology, but I have to ask.. they seem to be really, really worried about DNA being damaged by this. Except as far as I am aware, brain cells never reproduce or divide. Is this correct, and if so, why would I worry about the DNA being damaged if Mitosis is never going to happen? Unless, like, you're shaving the head of a two week old baby or something.
The implication I guess is that cell breakdown and death occurs more quickly, but aren't you constantly losing brain cells at a breakneck pace anyway?
But he expects the business will mature as users realize it's cheaper to pay a flat fee for access to 500,000 tracks than to pay $1 a song
...well that's encouraging.
But then the question is, what happens as the users realize it's even cheaper to listen to the internet radio built into iTunes for $0 a month.
Okay, yeah, you can't choose exactly what song you hear next on internet radio. But generally, if I go "hey, I want to listen to X specific song", this indicates I'm going to want to listen to it again someday in the future. Unless I keep paying for Napster's streaming service for the rest of my natural life, I can't get that. Perhaps worst of all, last I heard not *all* of the songs Napster has up for sale are free to stream when you have the $15/mo service, and there's no way to tell which songs can and can't be streamed unless you've already paid for the service.
The $15-to-stream-from-our-library thing is a really neat business proposition, and I'd call it real innovation, but I just can't see buying it. I'd rather just stick with actually buying in some form the tracks/albums. And if you're only looking at buying tracks/albums, Apple's software works both on my macs and my PCs, and they seem to have a bigger and more indie-friendly library. I think I'll stick with them.
Step 2 is "Abscond with the investor money while your company folds".
music made with shopping carts, steel pipes and plastic waste bins
:)
Hmm.. you've got my interest, who are you referring to? Sounds kind of Einsturzende Neubauten / Matmos - esque
perl -e '$a = 1/10000; print pack('C', (sin($c += ($a * 3.14159 * ($d += (rand()- /dev/audio # if this is too high or low pitched, adjust the number of 0s in $a
:)
:)
0.5) ) ) )+sin($e += ($a * 3.14159 * ($f += (rand()-0.5) ) ) )+1)*128) while(1);' >
Hey, nothing wrong with randomness
John Cage did actually manage to create some very interesting pieces of quasisymphonic music which *were* partially composed using dice. (Well, the I Ching, not dice, but there's little difference). You do, of course, have to be careful about how you introduce the indeterminacy or it gets boring, but still.
The thing about the ferrets that would be interesting is they aren't *quite* random. They have a sort of swarming behavior. Perhaps more interestingly, it is possible to influence the ferrets' behavior. You could arrange the objects in the room into a sort of maze, perhaps in the process leaving it fairly certain the ferrets will spend most of the time either in or moving between one of a series of specific places in the room, while they are in which they are emitting tones that you determined beforehand to be compatible. You could hold a sock or food or something above the ferret's head and kind of lead them around the room while they try to jump at it, turning the ferrets into basically something you could play like a very, very uncooperative instrument. The result would of course be chaos, but the hope would be you could marshall it into some sort of interesting chaos
I was actually wanting to do something pretty much just like this with ferrets. My idea being you somehow attach something to some ferrets that will let you track their location and then set them loose in a room, and record their locations over a couple of minutes, and have the current location of each ferret correspond to one tone (maybe with the x position controlling frequency, and the y position controlling a VCF). The idea came when I was at the house of a friend who has six ferrets and he wound up dropping all six into a plastic bag and then just dropping the bag in someone's lap... ferrets just spewed out everywhere...
;)
Unfortunately unlike me the hamster people appear to have actually (1) initiative and (2) the technical will to get it done. Of course, I have the definite advantage that unlike them, my web page still works, because they have just been linked in a slashdot story and I, due to my clever strategy of not putting up cool hamster music, haven't...
I think they've finally gone overboard with that lameness filter
Can the poll be hosted by Bob Barker?
Sure. Those are kind of painful to lose, but they're discrete features. The machine will still run without them (except maybe NUMA on some machines, I'm not sure). It just will not run nearly as well in some cases.
The point I was trying to make, I suppose, is to have proof around that invaluable as IBM's contributions to linux have been, Linux could still kick the ass of any and all of SCO's product line without it. (Just because, from what I know of SCO's products, that isn't very hard.)
What I do think that should DEFINITELY be done immediately is just for the heck of it, some minimal-- maybe not even well-done, maybe just copying code from 2.0 or whatever these files were like before the submission-- patches that remove all of the allegedly infringing code should EXIST, if not be incorporated into the main linux tree, just as a proof of concept.
So that later if SCO is trying to claim "we've been damaged by this", people can respond with "bullshit, those files were nonessential to Linux, look how quickly the community was able to provide replacements and it wasn't even something they had to or had reason to do".
What happens if you huff this paint? Can the vapors from the paint absorb noxious gases as well as the paint itself can, and if so, is it enough to cancel out the fact the paint fumes are themselves noxious? Inquiring minds want to know.