You are free to use GPL libraries in your proprietary code without releasing your code, and to sell your closed code.
Before you call "bullshit", you might want to check your facts: the GPL in fact does not allow this (read par. 2). You're probably confused with the LGPL, which does.
it has really struck me as entirely ludicrous that the most vocal people in the IT world have been calling for throwing these dickheads in jail, when most spam "victims" get themselves into this mess on their own.
Ah yes, the old "she must have asked for it because she wore sexy clothes"-type argument. That's really getting tired.
I have my e-mail address in order to be reachable by the public and I have had the same one since July 1996. I refuse to change it or hide it because doing so would make me unreachable by the people I want to be reachable for. If I do that, I might as well give up on e-mail entirely.
Remember? There was a time when e-mail was used to communicate with the world, not just with intimate friends and family. It was exciting, fun. Spammers have killed that for the most part, and turned the Internet from an open community into a hostile spam sewer.
Non-violent, you say? Not all violence is physical.
i get next to ZERO spam, and i really have never seen what the whole fuss is about.
Maybe you would see it if you'd get a thousand a day like I do. (Yes, I use a good filter, dozens still get through.) Or if you'd be an ISP and have to deal with your mailservers dying under the load of millions of spams a day and having to shell out money to buy dedicated servers to deal with the crap (like my ISP), impacting all their tens of thousands of customers. Still think that's as "non-violent" as using some drugs?
How about all the viruses spammers keep spreading so they have zombie networks to sell to bounce spam off of? This is where most spam comes from nowadays. How is this not the most criminal form of cracking, tresspass and theft of service?
[nonsense snipped -- RTFA]
i'll also add this, for you aol and yahoo users: i work for a company that occasionally (NOT hardly the primary business model) sends out what you would call spam, but really these retards signed up for the special offer emails on their own.
Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail. If they signed up for it, it's not spam, by definition.
So which is it? Did they sign up for it, or are you spamming? Of course, since you're trying to confuse the issue by conflating free speech with cramming "speech" down people's throats while making them and others pay for the privilege of being the crammee, my guess is the latter.
your ISP's; aol, yahoo, earthlink actually BARGAIN with with some ISP relations person at my company about how much and when they will send the users email, and then they make sure it gets through. i'm sure this happens all the time.
So because it happens "all the time" (?), that makes it right, doesn't it? Some ISP's also keep signing up those hardcore spammers and exempting them from their AUPs with pink contracts. This is a huge part of the problem.
the only person really responsible for keeping your inbox clean and crap-free is yourself.
If Google was to support the use of the 3rd party extension, which would have the same effect as if Google was to develop and market the Toolbar themselves.
Hmm, come to think of it, maybe the text doesn't show up if you visit it with Internet Exploder (I haven't bothered to try). Here it is, in that case:
=============
Thanks for your interest in the Google Toolbar.
It's currently available here for Internet Explorer for Windows.
We encourage Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape® 7.x users to install the open-source Googlebar,
developed and supported by Google fans. Note that Firefox also has a built-in search box in the top right corner that uses Google as the default search engine.
I have to say, at the risk of being considered flamebait, that that's pretty much tough shit. The freedom for *me* to license and distribute *my* code, or any other property, far overrides *your* right to use it.
So says you, and when it comes to the software you have written, you are entirely in your right. Others believe the opposite about their software. Personally I do not like it when another entity profits from their modifications to my code without giving me access to those modifications so that I can profit from them as well. After all, their modifications couldn't exist without me writing the code in the first place. But I can see the validity of your viewpoint as well even though I don't share it.
When it comes down to it, neither license is more free than the other; they define freedom differently on a fundamental level. And people don't change their fundamental beliefs easily. This is why we will always have the BSD and GPL camps. We might as well coexist respectfully instead of continuing the holy flamewars.
When the plug is the problem, there is not a lot of choice but to either pull it or live with it. You can't have internationalized domain names without some different characters (e.g. the Latin and Cyrillic lowercase "a") looking identical.
Set it high, and then put the Windows Update site in the Trusted Sites list.
Actually that's what I did, just didn't feel like typing it out.:) Put everything on "high" (even "local intranet") except Trusted Sites which is at "Normal".
I'd also recommend you check out the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer.
I'm glad every average Windows user has you to specially prepare their computer for them. Is this pro-bono work?
Why, thank you for making me feel special in your own sarcastic way. Meanwhile, you are nicely illustrating my original point: Microsoft is irresponsible for making users run as admin by default. QED.
Meanwhile, feel free to continue wallowing in the belief that the average user is a complete non-educable moron while I remain having a life in somewhat less depressing spheres. Bye now!
You're forgetting one major problem. Let's do a hypothetical situation here to help you understand. Let's pretend that you've managed to get the average Windows user to use a regular user account and only user the admin account when they need to install something. In this fantasy world, guess what will happen? The average user is going to log out of his user account, log into the admin account, and install whatever retarded, virus-laden, spyware-supported software he just downloaded. You could argue that they would put more thought into what they install that way, but let's be realistic. They won't.
I believe this is wrong. It takes just one accidental (or not-so-accidental) click on a "Yes" button to get malware installed through Hacktive-X in Internet Exploder - this is how it generally happens. People do not go out and download this stuff, it's pushed on them by malicious websites and they either misclick or act on impulse. Limited-rights accounts and Firefox effectively solve this problem.
Going back from your hypothetical rhetoric to a real-world example of an average computer-using family: after having their computer rendered completely inoperable they are prefectly well prepared to use the setup I made for them properly. At least the dad is, and being the machine's owner, he's the only one with the admin password, so the rest don't exactly have a choice.
They also get something back: their own personal desktop, wallpaper and all (yes, I asked what the kids like and downloaded corresponding wallpapers), which they can customize to their heart's content without messing up the system or the other accounts. That'll help them like the system; people like their own little nest, even on a computer.
(Subsequent anti-Linux FUD ignored. I have neither the time nor the inclination.)
Case in point: Visual Studio.NET 2003. Debugging managed code in a Web Application/Web Service, or a Windows Service pretty much requires Administrator access.
Uh, someone programming in Visual Studio.NET 2003 should be someone you could trust not to install anything that smells fishy. I'm talking about regular users here (and their kids using daddy's computer), for whom the malware issue is rather more pressing.
And the question is, do these acquaintances have enough know how to go into the admin account and do their Windows Update?
They do now. I showed them. It's not that complicated. The owner ran Windows Update and updated virus defs once a week to begin with. The kids were the ones messing it up.
Is this system using the typical multi-login? If so do they knwo to go into Safe Mode to go into their Admin account?
How would you run Windows Update or update virus definitions from your admin account in safe mode? You can't go online that way, you know. Talk about defeating the purpose...
The system in question runs Win2000Pro so there was no need to go into safe mode to log in as Administrator. On WinXPHome I just make an extra account called "Management" or whatever and give it admin privileges, and ignore the hidden Administrator account. The rest are regular user accounts. Problem solved. No need to mess with anything else.
I better skip the rest of your rant as I would just be repeating myself replying to it.
The problem here is that when a user tries to install something, like a game, or maybe TurboTax, they have problems. If they can't figure out how to keep their computer clean, they're not going to understand why they need to be restricted on their own personal system.
The folks I was referring to do understand now. Having a computer that spontaneously does a hard reset when going online does that to you. It also teaches them not to let their twelve-year old daughter online with administrator privileges.
It's just too inconvenient for the neurotypical user
Sure, security is inconvenient, it always is. Having a completely FUBAR system is far more inconvenient, however. Given the choice and some education and hands-on experience, most users eventually choose wisely.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody knows that US law governs the entire world -- just ask Dmitri Skylarov.
If you had not posted anonymously, you would have automatically undone the mistaken moderation.
Before you call "bullshit", you might want to check your facts: the GPL in fact does not allow this (read par. 2). You're probably confused with the LGPL, which does.
Thank goodness!
So why don't they behave like competitors instead of like enemies?
If it walks like a duck...
Ah yes, the old "she must have asked for it because she wore sexy clothes"-type argument. That's really getting tired.
I have my e-mail address in order to be reachable by the public and I have had the same one since July 1996. I refuse to change it or hide it because doing so would make me unreachable by the people I want to be reachable for. If I do that, I might as well give up on e-mail entirely.
Remember? There was a time when e-mail was used to communicate with the world, not just with intimate friends and family. It was exciting, fun. Spammers have killed that for the most part, and turned the Internet from an open community into a hostile spam sewer.
Non-violent, you say? Not all violence is physical.
Maybe you would see it if you'd get a thousand a day like I do. (Yes, I use a good filter, dozens still get through.) Or if you'd be an ISP and have to deal with your mailservers dying under the load of millions of spams a day and having to shell out money to buy dedicated servers to deal with the crap (like my ISP), impacting all their tens of thousands of customers. Still think that's as "non-violent" as using some drugs?
How about all the viruses spammers keep spreading so they have zombie networks to sell to bounce spam off of? This is where most spam comes from nowadays. How is this not the most criminal form of cracking, tresspass and theft of service?
Spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail. If they signed up for it, it's not spam, by definition.
So which is it? Did they sign up for it, or are you spamming? Of course, since you're trying to confuse the issue by conflating free speech with cramming "speech" down people's throats while making them and others pay for the privilege of being the crammee, my guess is the latter.
So because it happens "all the time" (?), that makes it right, doesn't it? Some ISP's also keep signing up those hardcore spammers and exempting them from their AUPs with pink contracts. This is a huge part of the problem.
Spoken like a true spammer.
You forgot the "NO CARRIER". :)
Not every scientist agrees with that.
And guess what: they already do.
Hmm, come to think of it, maybe the text doesn't show up if you visit it with Internet Exploder (I haven't bothered to try). Here it is, in that case:
Thanks for your interest in the Google Toolbar.
It's currently available here for Internet Explorer for Windows.
We encourage Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape® 7.x users to install the open-source Googlebar, developed and supported by Google fans. Note that Firefox also has a built-in search box in the top right corner that uses Google as the default search engine.
Firefox and IE are both ultimately descendants of NCSA Mosaic, so this whole reverse-engineering debate is kind of pointless, IMO.
Heh... no, it would be something far better, and far more fun. Imagine e-mail that's actually usable again instead of being 95% spam!
So says you, and when it comes to the software you have written, you are entirely in your right. Others believe the opposite about their software. Personally I do not like it when another entity profits from their modifications to my code without giving me access to those modifications so that I can profit from them as well. After all, their modifications couldn't exist without me writing the code in the first place. But I can see the validity of your viewpoint as well even though I don't share it.
When it comes down to it, neither license is more free than the other; they define freedom differently on a fundamental level. And people don't change their fundamental beliefs easily. This is why we will always have the BSD and GPL camps. We might as well coexist respectfully instead of continuing the holy flamewars.
I think someone beat you to it It might even be on your HD already; it's part of Gnus which is in GNU Emacs by default.
Have fun. :-)
When the plug is the problem, there is not a lot of choice but to either pull it or live with it. You can't have internationalized domain names without some different characters (e.g. the Latin and Cyrillic lowercase "a") looking identical.
Actually that's what I did, just didn't feel like typing it out. :) Put everything on "high" (even "local intranet") except Trusted Sites which is at "Normal".
That one I didn't know about. Thanks for the tip!
Yes, it's the mechanism for all access control on NTFS file systems, as far as I know.
Why, thank you for making me feel special in your own sarcastic way. Meanwhile, you are nicely illustrating my original point: Microsoft is irresponsible for making users run as admin by default. QED.
Meanwhile, feel free to continue wallowing in the belief that the average user is a complete non-educable moron while I remain having a life in somewhat less depressing spheres. Bye now!
Blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker blocker FUBAR FUBAR
Fake! Fake! Oh, it's a fake!
Blocker blocker blocker (etc. ad nauseam)
...for that tip!
I believe this is wrong. It takes just one accidental (or not-so-accidental) click on a "Yes" button to get malware installed through Hacktive-X in Internet Exploder - this is how it generally happens. People do not go out and download this stuff, it's pushed on them by malicious websites and they either misclick or act on impulse. Limited-rights accounts and Firefox effectively solve this problem.
Going back from your hypothetical rhetoric to a real-world example of an average computer-using family: after having their computer rendered completely inoperable they are prefectly well prepared to use the setup I made for them properly. At least the dad is, and being the machine's owner, he's the only one with the admin password, so the rest don't exactly have a choice.
They also get something back: their own personal desktop, wallpaper and all (yes, I asked what the kids like and downloaded corresponding wallpapers), which they can customize to their heart's content without messing up the system or the other accounts. That'll help them like the system; people like their own little nest, even on a computer.
(Subsequent anti-Linux FUD ignored. I have neither the time nor the inclination.)
Uh, someone programming in Visual Studio .NET 2003 should be someone you could trust not to install anything that smells fishy. I'm talking about regular users here (and their kids using daddy's computer), for whom the malware issue is rather more pressing.
They do now. I showed them. It's not that complicated. The owner ran Windows Update and updated virus defs once a week to begin with. The kids were the ones messing it up.
How would you run Windows Update or update virus definitions from your admin account in safe mode? You can't go online that way, you know. Talk about defeating the purpose...
The system in question runs Win2000Pro so there was no need to go into safe mode to log in as Administrator. On WinXPHome I just make an extra account called "Management" or whatever and give it admin privileges, and ignore the hidden Administrator account. The rest are regular user accounts. Problem solved. No need to mess with anything else.
I better skip the rest of your rant as I would just be repeating myself replying to it.
The folks I was referring to do understand now. Having a computer that spontaneously does a hard reset when going online does that to you. It also teaches them not to let their twelve-year old daughter online with administrator privileges.
Sure, security is inconvenient, it always is. Having a completely FUBAR system is far more inconvenient, however. Given the choice and some education and hands-on experience, most users eventually choose wisely.