umm, solaris and linux have ran on the same platforms for years. Solaris 7 was released for x86, and i think a version prior to that was also, and linux runs on almost all sun hardware.
Well I personally ran Solaris 2.4 & 2.5 on x86 before I switched to Linux, and I think Solaris 2.3 was available on x86 as well.
Then there was Solaris 2.6 before they jumped the version number to just '7'.
Hi all. I just wanted to jump in here and try and clear up some of the confusion.
First, read your EULAs for Quake 3, Half-Life, StarCraft, etc. (other games that allow you to create content). All of them say the same thing that we are saying. Our EULA is nothing new. They must be written this way to protect both the companies involved and the end users. I am serious. Read the EULAs of those other games.
Every time a new game comes out, someone actually reads the EULA and the spectres of corporate exploitation rears its head. Its just not happening. id, Blizzard, Valve, none of these companies have ripped off their fans. Why? Because its suicide. And we aren't doing it either.
What exactly does this protect the consumer from? The burden of receiving royalty cheques from the sale of successful modules they have written?
If you have no intention of using the powers granted by the EULA, then why do you include them? Perhaps they were included on the sly by your lawyers to encourage law suites and generate more income for the lawyers.
I have been looking forward to the release of NWN for some time, but clauses of this sor may make me think again.
I know! Brilliant idea! I'll develop the modules during busines hours, then your lawyers and my employers lawyers can fight it out between themselves to see who gets to own what I produced.
But I refuse to believe that Linux would be any better than Windows if it was in use in the same number and variety of places. Why? Because I think with my head, and not with my heart.
I hope that any settlement addresses (and prevents) the restrictive license provisions that prevent OEMs selling pre-loaded dual-boot computers.
Being able to buy computers that offer Windows/Linux/BeOS/etc multiboot options will expose many more people to the available alternatives in a much less technically challenging fashion, i.e. without the need to repartition their disks and do an OS install (or 2).
there wasn't anything new in the article but two points which it did cover were
encrypted traffic is easy to detect and
ppl tend to forget about temp files which can contain an unencrypted copy.
the first point doesn't bother me until the traffic is easy to decrypt. the second point is a common occurance [even though i hate to generalise]. the only simple solution i've found is an app called evidence eliminator [for which i do not work or hold any type of equity].
Or, you can use an encrypted filesystem so even temp files are unreadable without the system keys.
Physical and network secureity then become important, because if they can compromise your system while you are logged-in and the filesystem is mounted, they can read anything.
If we must change, I prefer Tolkein's calendar
on
13 Month Calendar?
·
· Score: 1
The one the Hobbits use, as detailed in the appendices.
Here is a comparison of alternate calendars (including Tolkein's).
The inclusion of days that are not part of any week will probably upset some religious observances.
Anyway, we contacted Red Hat and they sent round some of their executives to convince us. What we wanted from them was an assurance that the information we had about Linux was trustworthy, and furthermore that there would not be a code fork in the future, and that we would be able to 'morph' Linux to our needs.
Amazingly, the executives they sent were unable to satisfy our demands. Although they told us that Alan Cox works for Red Hat, and thus that Red Hat is largely responsible for Kernel development, they were unable to provide the special type of install we required.
When we gave our bosses a summary of their position, they saw it as a no-brainer. We ended up installing Windows 2000.
So, because the RedHat execs can't predict the future, your bosses went with Windows?
Was Microsoft able to provide the "special type of install we required" or did this requirement vanish suddenly?
Why was the posibility of a code fork such a worry?
Will Microsoft allow you to morph windows to your needs?
Why the double standards?
I realise I am asking the wrong person, but your company management aren't available.
WINE. if i can play half-life under linux with decent stability and full openGL support then I'll be happy. if the source code was released this would be of immense help to wine. sure, they wouldn't HAVE to copy the code, but they could look at it and say "oh, that's how it works" and then write WINE acordingly..
Unfortunately this is *exactly* the situation that is covered by the Trade Secret laws. The code itself is copyright, "How it works" is the secret bit.
Using any information learned from stolen code leaves you open to prosecution, even if you have not copied even 1 line of the stolen code.
I used to be a Netscape user for several years up until this year, when I switched over to IE. I was amazed at the difference I saw. IE is much more tolerant of mistakes, handles tables a whole lot better (actual size and background images being two of the biggest factors) and has support for the hover style, a feature that can sublty but importantly enhance a page.
I think the main reason that IE is so tolerant of HTML formatting errors is that M$'s Save as HTML "feature" produces severely broken HTML, and it was easier to "fix" IE to display that crap properly than it was to fix the HTML code generator.
Any of the Pern books, and specifically Dragonsong and Dragonsinger should appeal to a younger (female) reader. Medieval-type setting with dragons, but with hand-wavy sci-fi explanations.
Larry Niven (and especially with Jerry Pournelle) does good hard-science type stuff.
On the Fantasy side, I like Eddings, although he does get a bit repetitions (wrote the same series 3 times).
You will probably need to sample a few books, and maybe come back with a list of authors & titles in the liked/disliked categories. Others can then suggest stuff with a bit more chance of you liking it. (If you liked X, then you will probably like Y, sort of thing).
I'd also recommend asking the same thing on rec.arts.sf.written (after checking the FAQ and lurking a bit;-) ).
Surely denying himself royalties is his own choice?
So, GPL stops you going comercial/closed sorce with other peoples contributions/patces to your code (without their consent), but also stops other people going commercial/closed source with your code (without your consent).
BSDL stops neither.
Many people apparently concider this a worthwhile tradeoff.
The whole truth is that the GPV prevents the per-licence revenues on copies of software that have traditionally accompanying the selling of software. Since you can no longer profitably/usefully sell your software in the way that's always been used, you must come up with something else. And no other way has been proven to generate the serious revenues that has made the software industry. Don't give me that crap about Redhat's valuation. Where's their profit, eh?
You can license however you will. Fine. But stop pretending that denying people royalties is somehow noble, or that denying them the ability to profit from their own work is a better way. It isn't. It's another way. And some people certainly don't think it's better. Why are you so blind?
Denying royalties to who ?
The original author can release his code under as many different licences as he wants. Or are you protecting the royalties of a third party who sells per-license copies of BSDL code written by somebody else ?
It's possible that C/C++ are not the best languages for Application development. Research has gone into developing new languages, such as Eiffel.
I'd say *likely* instead of *possible*. OK, I was taught Pascal instead of C, and have even worked in an Ada development environment, so I may be biased, *BUT* ( you could see that coming ) using a language that encourages bad programming dosn't seem like a recipe for good software.
Look at the Jargon File. Pascal/Ada/etc are called "Bondage and Disipline" languages because they force the programmer to think about what they are doing beforehand, and actually plan things out. C, on the other hand, has syntax that discourages error checking and allows you to do things like assign a pointer to an integer *without thinking about it*. If you had to think for even a minute ( like to an explicit conversion ) you might realise that there is a better/safer way to do what you want.
C is popular simply because it is already popular, kind of like Windows. People use C because everybody else is using it. Cast of the bonds of popular culture and emprace a language that will *help* produce reliable code, rather than *hinder* it's production.
Me: They charge hundreds of dollars for this software if I were to buy it at a store - obviously someone had to pay for this software, and that all got worked into the price for my notebook. I don't want to pay for something I don't want.
Dell: The software's free, so you're not losing anything by deleting it yourself.
Me: There's no way this software can be free. Dell had to pay for an OEM license for all this bundled software, and Dell must be passing their costs for it on to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, you are still dependent on the single DBA and single Graphic Designer...
umm, solaris and linux have ran on the same platforms for years. Solaris 7 was released for x86, and i think a version prior to that was also, and linux runs on almost all sun hardware.
Well I personally ran Solaris 2.4 & 2.5 on x86 before I switched to Linux, and I think Solaris 2.3 was available on x86 as well.
Then there was Solaris 2.6 before they jumped the version number to just '7'.
First, read your EULAs for Quake 3, Half-Life, StarCraft, etc. (other games that allow you to create content). All of them say the same thing that we are saying. Our EULA is nothing new. They must be written this way to protect both the companies involved and the end users. I am serious. Read the EULAs of those other games.
Every time a new game comes out, someone actually reads the EULA and the spectres of corporate exploitation rears its head. Its just not happening. id, Blizzard, Valve, none of these companies have ripped off their fans. Why? Because its suicide. And we aren't doing it either.
What exactly does this protect the consumer from? The burden of receiving royalty cheques from the sale of successful modules they have written?
If you have no intention of using the powers granted by the EULA, then why do you include them? Perhaps they were included on the sly by your lawyers to encourage law suites and generate more income for the lawyers.
I have been looking forward to the release of NWN for some time, but clauses of this sor may make me think again.
I know! Brilliant idea! I'll develop the modules during busines hours, then your lawyers and my employers lawyers can fight it out between themselves to see who gets to own what I produced.
s/head/wallet/
I hope that any settlement addresses (and prevents) the restrictive license provisions that prevent OEMs selling pre-loaded dual-boot computers.
Being able to buy computers that offer Windows/Linux/BeOS/etc multiboot options will expose many more people to the available alternatives in a much less technically challenging fashion, i.e. without the need to repartition their disks and do an OS install (or 2).
So you think it's OK to allow me to go to their site and "opt-in" with your email address?
That's what removing the confirmation step allows.
Or, you can use an encrypted filesystem so even temp files are unreadable without the system keys.
Physical and network secureity then become important, because if they can compromise your system while you are logged-in and the filesystem is mounted, they can read anything.
Here is a comparison of alternate calendars (including Tolkein's).
The inclusion of days that are not part of any week will probably upset some religious observances.
Amazingly, the executives they sent were unable to satisfy our demands. Although they told us that Alan Cox works for Red Hat, and thus that Red Hat is largely responsible for Kernel development, they were unable to provide the special type of install we required.
When we gave our bosses a summary of their position, they saw it as a no-brainer. We ended up installing Windows 2000.
So, because the RedHat execs can't predict the future, your bosses went with Windows?
Was Microsoft able to provide the "special type of install we required" or did this requirement vanish suddenly?
Why was the posibility of a code fork such a worry?
Will Microsoft allow you to morph windows to your needs?
Why the double standards?
I realise I am asking the wrong person, but your company management aren't available.
Unfortunately this is *exactly* the situation that is covered by the Trade Secret laws. The code itself is copyright, "How it works" is the secret bit.
Using any information learned from stolen code leaves you open to prosecution, even if you have not copied even 1 line of the stolen code.
Larry Niven (and especially with Jerry Pournelle) does good hard-science type stuff.
On the Fantasy side, I like Eddings, although he does get a bit repetitions (wrote the same series 3 times).
You will probably need to sample a few books, and maybe come back with a list of authors & titles in the liked/disliked categories. Others can then suggest stuff with a bit more chance of you liking it. (If you liked X, then you will probably like Y, sort of thing).
I'd also recommend asking the same thing on rec.arts.sf.written (after checking the FAQ and lurking a bit ;-) ).
Surely denying himself royalties is his own choice?
So, GPL stops you going comercial/closed sorce with other peoples contributions/patces to your code (without their consent), but also stops other people going commercial/closed source with your code (without your consent).
BSDL stops neither.
Many people apparently concider this a worthwhile tradeoff.
Denying royalties to who ?
The original author can release his code under as many different licences as he wants. Or are you protecting the royalties of a third party who sells per-license copies of BSDL code written by somebody else ?
I'd say *likely* instead of *possible*. OK, I was taught Pascal instead of C, and have even worked in an Ada development environment, so I may be biased, *BUT* ( you could see that coming ) using a language that encourages bad programming dosn't seem like a recipe for good software.
Look at the Jargon File. Pascal/Ada/etc are called "Bondage and Disipline" languages because they force the programmer to think about what they are doing beforehand, and actually plan things out. C, on the other hand, has syntax that discourages error checking and allows you to do things like assign a pointer to an integer *without thinking about it*. If you had to think for even a minute ( like to an explicit conversion ) you might realise that there is a better/safer way to do what you want.
C is popular simply because it is already popular, kind of like Windows. People use C because everybody else is using it. Cast of the bonds of popular culture and emprace a language that will *help* produce reliable code, rather than *hinder* it's production.
End of rant. Let the flames commence.
Dell: The software's free, so you're not losing anything by deleting it yourself.
Me: There's no way this software can be free. Dell had to pay for an OEM license for all this bundled software, and Dell must be passing their costs for it on to me.
Dell: Well sir, the software is free.
Try this response "OK, I'll take 10 copies"
See how free it stays then.