the article uses the three expressions: "new desktop environment", "combining elements of GNOME and KDE", and "all implemented with the same tecnology". He. He. He. Novell Desktop is coming.
I only commented in terms of correct/incorrect. IMHO, copyright infringement is incorrect. BUT downloading some MP3 isn't always copyright infringement and it's still more incorrect to let anyone treat it as if it was or to treat anyone doing it assuming he/she has done something wrong.
... besides the bad music, there is nothing incorrect about this in general, p. ex., if you own a CD-version of the song, you have the right to do it. At least in my jurisdiction...;-)
I'm happy and I rejoice. Anyone including my father-in-law is better than Ben Affleck. As long as he doesn't ruin one more movie, I welcome our Tom Cruise overlord!!!!:-)
1. I think it should never be blocked, lest for extreme (child abuse) cases or parental control. 2. The point of the system I outlined is:/I/ ultimately control where I go when I put "groklaw" in the location box of my browser. I can trust others to "give me a hand", I can offer "a hand" to others. 3. I think I'm gonna try to implement it.:-) this should be funny.
1. my personal machine. AthlonXP 1800+ 1GiB RAM, onboard SavagePro video.
I use KDE 3.2.1 (Debian Sid: kernel 2.6.4-rc2-love1) and I have an entire disk (20MiB) with XP installed. KDE feels 4 to 10 times faster than XP Pro. To open a window. To get the Start/K menu. to jump/open a combobox. my Kde desktop is just snappy. the XP desktop is just... not as snappy. My only disadvantage: no 3d accel. Quake is not as fast. hmpf.
XP is not an option. *Dog*-slow. like 10-20 seconds to open the start menu. I installed it, she made me remove it ASAP. KDE is quite OK. the sensation of speed is the same as in Win98. 3d accel works (not very well, but does not work very well in 98 either)
conclusion: your X is misconfigured, your kernel has a problem, or something like this.
imagine... a system (not unlike freenet) that you control, besides the keyword to which you are server, the ones to which you are client, and the "popularity" of the link keyword->address is taken into account when a person who never accessed that link use that keyword. Trying to explain myself:
Imagine you are CarCompanyX. You create your page and put in its NuDNS record:
CarCompanyX:= XX.YY.ZZ.WW:80 "CarCompanyX Official Website"
You are Joe Bloe. You want to buy a car from CarCompanyX. Your NuDNS server returns <NONE?>; it goes to your peers NuDNS, and returns two options:
CarCompanyX:= XX.YY.ZZ.WW:80 "CarCompanyX Official Website" CarCompanyX:= TT.QQ.RR.PP:8080 "CarCompanyX sucks"
your browser can use the most popular of them or give you a choice.
Now, you are Mary Hates CompanyX and you want to hack the system. so you set up a NuDNS record:
CarCompanyX:= AA.BB.CC.DD:8080 "CarCompanyX Official Website"
CarCompanyX sees this, reclaims to a "court" of trusted (as in cryptographically), show its docs and says "this is not the official". Each member of the "court" makes its judgement, and sets up a trusted entry in its NuDNS records:
Now, this board/court must have, like, 10 to 20 members, so when Joe Bloe tries to access keyword "CarCompanyX", his browser can show him the options:
CarCompanyX:= XX.YY.ZZ.WW:80 "CarCompanyX Official Website" CarCompanyX:= TT.QQ.RR.PP:8080 "CarCompanyX sucks" CarCompanyX:= AA.BB.CC.DD:8080 "CarCompanyX Official Website" WARNING:seems to be misreprestation VOTE:12pro/2con/6abs
his browser/resolver can (at his option) sort these entries, use only the "official", use the last one, use
other options:
* use special "tags", like:
TAG: Trademark-owner TAG: Denouncing (or criticism?) TAG: Personal
in the NuDNS records, let the system and the "court"/board sort it out. The "court"/board does not even has to be appointed/elected. People can put in their personal NuDNS servers:
You see, this is still pretty much under discussion, and the summary I gave you is *my* personal account of debian-legal (to which I subscribe). Yes, this pretty much means "I don't know". The main problem is, AFAIK, that the DFSG prohibits Debian from distributing (at least) the artwork if it is not DFSG-free.
It's kind of simple, if you read a long thread in debian-legal:-) I'll try to summarize. 1. The license to mozilal and -firexof tries to mix trademark with copyrights, limiting what the licensee can do with the software and still use the names and logos. 2. Mind you, up to this point in time, Free Software (as in FSF and DFSG) is about freedom from *copyrights* and *patents* encumbrances, but *trademarks* do not play a very wide part in it. 3. So, because of the *copyright* licensing terms of the browsers in question, you cannot modify the sources and continue using the names and logos. 4. But... to maintain quality of the packages, Debian *will* have to modify the software (apply security patches, policy-compliance patches, etc.) 5. Ergo: they will have to call it by other name... except if they get an exemption from the Mozilla Foundation *and* (maybe) if the exemption is extensible to third-parties (or else what Debian distributes in the form of the packages is not Free Software). Did I make myself clear now?
Debian can not distribute things that are non-free. period. It's in the constitution, in the social contract, etc. GFDL = non-free. simple. mozilla-firefox logo = non-free. one of the problems is the Name Mozilla and the Name Firefox are seemingly non-free, too. If there was a trademark encumberance only, ok. But the problem with the names is that the encumberance are in the Copyright Licensing, which is inacceptable. So to distribute the Browser Mozilla, or the Browser Firefox, in the current terms, Debian would have to call them other names and not use the logos.
The only concept I think you did not understand -- or research -- and that I would really like you to grok is the language-bootstraping concept. The song goes more or less like this: 1. you write the compiler for c#, p.ex., in c#. (remember, you don't have a c# compiler, nor yacc, nor lex, nothing. just vi, for instance) 2. now you try to simplify the compiler you wrote, so it does not use and abuse every single feature of c#, but it uses just a minimum subset of the language, the less the better. 3. now you have compiler-c#-1.cs and compiler-c#-2.cs, you get compiler-c#-2.cs and removes from the compiler the features you did not use to write this version of the compiler. now you have three compilers: 1, 2, and compiler-c#-3.cs. 4. now you sit on a table with a lot of paper and run (with pencil and paper) compiler-c#-3, giving it as input... itself! when you end this step, you have as the result compiler-c#-3-binary, in asm, hex, or whatever you can input directly to your environment to form an executable file. 5. now you do "compiler-c#-3-binary compiler-c#-2.cs", roll the drums and... there you have compiler-c#-2-binary !!!! 6. now you do "compiler-c#-2-binary compiler-c#-1.cs" and... compiler-c#-1-binary !!! 7. (checkpoint) "compiler-c#-1-binary compiler-c#-1.cs" and the result *must be* absolutely equal the one in the pass #6 !!! you're done !!! the critical pass (#4) is not really hard to do, because the compiler writer *usually* knows what code his compiler must spill for some input... is just mechanical work. ma, no hands! Ah, and you're right, sometimes/.esque crowd manners can tire and irritate us...:-)
0. "I assumed he was referring to the x86 platform"... see #4, below. 1. Bootstraping. The c# compiler in Mono is written in... c#. And it compiles itself. Take a look and you'll see what I am talking about. 2. Your argument: "the first Java compiler." Tell you what: sometimes, the first XXX compiler is written in XXX and bootstraps itself. Even some of the first C compilers were written in C. Many assemblers before it were written in assembly language. 2a. the word bootstrap comes from "lifting onself by steping on it's own boot straps." magic, eh? 3. (Shrek citation) you and what army? (/Shrek) I was being caustic; you are mentioning being violent. I can dance the dance, too. Just invite me and we'll tango. 4. ok, so I'll take the discussion again, this time from the beginning, let's see if we understand each ohter. 4a. bangular complained that many modern languages were either scripting (like perl or python) or bytecode languages, so you could not write an OS kernel in it (unlike C, C++,...); 4b. Ambassador Kosh pointed out that python also is a bytecode-language (and altough he did not mention it, perl is a bytecode-language, too) 4c. you said (assuming he [Kosh?] was talking about x86) bytecode could not run in raw machines ; yes it can't run directly in a x86 machine, but it can run in a specialized processor; but -- a JIT compiler, or an AOT (ahead-of-time) compiler (like gcj) can compile bytecode into machine code easily. You have to remember bytecode is just another representation (direct translation) of (some) assembly language. 5. Here starts you succession of mistakes, that lead to my header and footer in the response I wrote: 5a. you wrote "C and Assembler are what make the computer world run". nope. engineering make the computer world run. many applications are still in COBOL, FORTRAN, and lots of it, today is in Java, etc. Down to the wire level, yeah, there is lots of C and assembler, but they are *not* cost-viable to make many commercial systems. just OS-level software (database management systems, etc). And some are not -- SAP DB is written in Pascal; many MacOS programs were, too,... 5b. you wrote "You can't make Java in Java". bootstraping. bootstraping. 5c. you wrote "C turns directly into executable binary (...). Java cannot". wrong. 5d. you wrote "I suppose that if you were insane enough, you could make a bytecode to opcode converter"... no need to be insane; see what's done at transmeta, ikvm, any JIT compiler, etc. etc... 5e. you continued "but then you lose 100% of the point of the langauge" (sic). wrong, the point of a programming language is to show some abstraction in a clear way. p. ex, C++ classes show the abstraction of classes of real-world objects and the operations that can be effected in those objects belonging to those classes... if you translate it into bytecode, machine language *or* database-description to generate some tables in a RDBMS, it's not differente because of the target language; you did not lose the "point" of C++. So, if you get some JVM bytecode and translate it into.NET bytecode (like IKVM does) you did *not* lose the point of Java. you just translated your abstractions to another platform. 5f. you went on "probably" (lose) "a lot of the efficiency", yeah, some of the efficiency, maybe; but you gain other knowledge that you can use to profile-and-optimize better than any hand-optimization. This will absorb most of the cost of the translation, and, in some cases, the dynamic translation techniques can make your program run even *faster* than the native/compiled version! 5g. you ended the phrase with "and at that point you may as well use C". no, you may not, because C is not *very good* at OOP, or functional programming, or whatever other paradigm you need to express the domain of your problem so a compiler can give you an efficient program to run as a response. 6. as you see, from 5a to 5g, you said seven distinct things in your paragraph, all wrong, all in need
Uh, you can't run bytecode on a raw machine. Yes you can. There are several java-bytecode hardware microprocessors. C and Assembler are what make the computer world run. false. C and assembler are 20%-100% faster to execute, but 1000%-10000% slower to develop in. You can't make Java in Java. Yes you can. *and* you can make csc in c# (see here) C turns directly into executable binary (or object files then linked into executables). Java cannot. Look up gcj. I suppose that if you were insane enough, you could make a bytecode to opcode converter, but then you lose 100% of the point of the langauge, probably a lot of the efficiency, and at that point you may as well use C. As we were in the subject of python, look up psyco. Man, this is the highest density of crap in the same paragraph I have ever read in/.
Hmmm... let me see.... my logrotate dumps a lot of stuff everyday that my fw blocks, mostly portscans, people trying to see if my machine is an open mail server (to send spam -- don't get me started on spam), or to see if it has some vulnerability or, worse yet, if it's not already 0wn3d. Yes, it *is* broken. We're *way* due to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
the "interest of the community" is the sum of the "individual beliefs". Your phrase is, therefore, contradictory in terms.
And, while you are at it, install linux on it and windows under VMWare workstation. Configure it, and you'll have a solid, solid box.
the article uses the three expressions: "new desktop environment", "combining elements of GNOME and KDE", and "all implemented with the same tecnology". He. He. He. Novell Desktop is coming.
I only commented in terms of correct/incorrect. IMHO, copyright infringement is incorrect. BUT downloading some MP3 isn't always copyright infringement and it's still more incorrect to let anyone treat it as if it was or to treat anyone doing it assuming he/she has done something wrong.
... besides the bad music, there is nothing incorrect about this in general, p. ex., if you own a CD-version of the song, you have the right to do it. ;-)
At least in my jurisdiction...
287 vim 1632 1205 155 272 0
:-) :-)
1784 vim-gtk 303 235 27 41 0
....
vim-perl
vim-python
vim-ruby
kvim,
*and* all _other_ variations of vi!
ah, and vim installations tend to be less "old" and more "used" than even emacs...
Real men don't keep backups, they upload to the ftp server and the rest of the world copies it.
It's words not *yet* spoken, as in "that will be spoken in a moment"; not "words not spoken", that women seems to hear all the time :-)
I'm happy and I rejoice. Anyone including my father-in-law is better than Ben Affleck. As long as he doesn't ruin one more movie, I welcome our Tom Cruise overlord!!!! :-)
1. I think it should never be blocked, lest for extreme (child abuse) cases or parental control. /I/ ultimately control where I go when I put "groklaw" in the location box of my browser. I can trust others to "give me a hand", I can offer "a hand" to others. :-) this should be funny.
2. The point of the system I outlined is:
3. I think I'm gonna try to implement it.
The idea is to *throw away* the centralized DNS system we have today and substitute it with a decentralized, peer-to-peer, trust-based system.
Even XFree's nvidia drivers are 2d-accelerated... unless you're using vesafb or something...
But your machine is seriously misconfigured.
Examples in question:
1. my personal machine. AthlonXP 1800+ 1GiB RAM, onboard SavagePro video.
I use KDE 3.2.1 (Debian Sid: kernel 2.6.4-rc2-love1) and I have an entire disk (20MiB) with XP installed. KDE feels 4 to 10 times faster than XP Pro. To open a window. To get the Start/K menu. to jump/open a combobox. my Kde desktop is just snappy. the XP desktop is just... not as snappy. My only disadvantage: no 3d accel. Quake is not as fast. hmpf.
2. my wife's machine. Duron 450. 300MiB (approx) RAM. SiS 630.
XP is not an option. *Dog*-slow. like 10-20 seconds to open the start menu. I installed it, she made me remove it ASAP. KDE is quite OK. the sensation of speed is the same as in Win98. 3d accel works (not very well, but does not work very well in 98 either)
conclusion: your X is misconfigured, your kernel has a problem, or something like this.
imagine... a system (not unlike freenet) that you control, besides the keyword to which you are server, the ones to which you are client, and the "popularity" of the link keyword->address is taken into account when a person who never accessed that link use that keyword.
:= XX.YY.ZZ.WW:80 "CarCompanyX Official Website"
:= XX.YY.ZZ.WW:80 "CarCompanyX Official Website" := TT.QQ.RR.PP:8080 "CarCompanyX sucks"
:= AA.BB.CC.DD:8080 "CarCompanyX Official Website"
:= TRUSTED:SIGNED(xxxx-signature) AA.BB.CC.DD:8080 Motive:Misrepresentation
:= XX.YY.ZZ.WW:80 "CarCompanyX Official Website" := TT.QQ.RR.PP:8080 "CarCompanyX sucks" := AA.BB.CC.DD:8080 "CarCompanyX Official Website" WARNING:seems to be misreprestation VOTE:12pro/2con/6abs
:= TAG:Wants-to-judge PUBLIC-KEY:xsdfdsfsdf
Trying to explain myself:
Imagine you are CarCompanyX. You create your page and put in its NuDNS record:
CarCompanyX
You are Joe Bloe. You want to buy a car from CarCompanyX. Your NuDNS server returns <NONE?>; it goes to your peers NuDNS, and returns two options:
CarCompanyX
CarCompanyX
your browser can use the most popular of them or give you a choice.
Now, you are Mary Hates CompanyX and you want to hack the system. so you set up a NuDNS record:
CarCompanyX
CarCompanyX sees this, reclaims to a "court" of trusted (as in cryptographically), show its docs and says "this is not the official". Each member of the "court" makes its judgement, and sets up a trusted entry in its NuDNS records:
CarCompanyX
Now, this board/court must have, like, 10 to 20 members, so when Joe Bloe tries to access keyword "CarCompanyX", his browser can show him the options:
CarCompanyX
CarCompanyX
CarCompanyX
his browser/resolver can (at his option) sort these entries, use only the "official", use the last one, use
other options:
* use special "tags", like:
TAG: Trademark-owner
TAG: Denouncing (or criticism?)
TAG: Personal
in the NuDNS records, let the system and the "court"/board sort it out. The "court"/board does not even has to be appointed/elected. People can put in their personal NuDNS servers:
JoeBloeJr
The system could gather everyone who wants to judge, their last votes, and each person could choose who to trust in his system.
You see, this is still pretty much under discussion, and the summary I gave you is *my* personal account of debian-legal (to which I subscribe). Yes, this pretty much means "I don't know". The main problem is, AFAIK, that the DFSG prohibits Debian from distributing (at least) the artwork if it is not DFSG-free.
It's kind of simple, if you read a long thread in debian-legal :-) I'll try to summarize. ... except if they get an exemption from the Mozilla Foundation *and* (maybe) if the exemption is extensible to third-parties (or else what Debian distributes in the form of the packages is not Free Software).
1. The license to mozilal and -firexof tries to mix trademark with copyrights, limiting what the licensee can do with the software and still use the names and logos.
2. Mind you, up to this point in time, Free Software (as in FSF and DFSG) is about freedom from *copyrights* and *patents* encumbrances, but *trademarks* do not play a very wide part in it.
3. So, because of the *copyright* licensing terms of the browsers in question, you cannot modify the sources and continue using the names and logos.
4. But... to maintain quality of the packages, Debian *will* have to modify the software (apply security patches, policy-compliance patches, etc.)
5. Ergo: they will have to call it by other name
Did I make myself clear now?
Debian can not distribute things that are non-free. period. It's in the constitution, in the social contract, etc. GFDL = non-free. simple. mozilla-firefox logo = non-free. one of the problems is the Name Mozilla and the Name Firefox are seemingly non-free, too. If there was a trademark encumberance only, ok. But the problem with the names is that the encumberance are in the Copyright Licensing, which is inacceptable. So to distribute the Browser Mozilla, or the Browser Firefox, in the current terms, Debian would have to call them other names and not use the logos.
What will happen is that the *match* will burn faster and mabye hotter (careful with your fingers), nothing else.
he said hairsplitting, not hairpainting or haircoloring or hairbleaching.
If you have to ask, you don't have the right to vote... ;-)
The only concept I think you did not understand -- or research -- and that I would really like you to grok is the language-bootstraping concept. The song goes more or less like this: ... there you have compiler-c#-2-binary !!!! ... compiler-c#-1-binary !!! /.esque crowd manners can tire and irritate us... :-)
1. you write the compiler for c#, p.ex., in c#. (remember, you don't have a c# compiler, nor yacc, nor lex, nothing. just vi, for instance)
2. now you try to simplify the compiler you wrote, so it does not use and abuse every single feature of c#, but it uses just a minimum subset of the language, the less the better.
3. now you have compiler-c#-1.cs and compiler-c#-2.cs, you get compiler-c#-2.cs and removes from the compiler the features you did not use to write this version of the compiler. now you have three compilers: 1, 2, and compiler-c#-3.cs.
4. now you sit on a table with a lot of paper and run (with pencil and paper) compiler-c#-3, giving it as input... itself! when you end this step, you have as the result compiler-c#-3-binary, in asm, hex, or whatever you can input directly to your environment to form an executable file.
5. now you do "compiler-c#-3-binary compiler-c#-2.cs", roll the drums and
6. now you do "compiler-c#-2-binary compiler-c#-1.cs" and
7. (checkpoint) "compiler-c#-1-binary compiler-c#-1.cs" and the result *must be* absolutely equal the one in the pass #6 !!! you're done !!!
the critical pass (#4) is not really hard to do, because the compiler writer *usually* knows what code his compiler must spill for some input... is just mechanical work.
ma, no hands!
Ah, and you're right, sometimes
0. "I assumed he was referring to the x86 platform"... see #4, below. ... c#. And it compiles itself. Take a look and you'll see what I am talking about. ...); .NET bytecode (like IKVM does) you did *not* lose the point of Java. you just translated your abstractions to another platform.
1. Bootstraping. The c# compiler in Mono is written in
2. Your argument: "the first Java compiler." Tell you what: sometimes, the first XXX compiler is written in XXX and bootstraps itself. Even some of the first C compilers were written in C. Many assemblers before it were written in assembly language.
2a. the word bootstrap comes from "lifting onself by steping on it's own boot straps." magic, eh?
3. (Shrek citation) you and what army? (/Shrek) I was being caustic; you are mentioning being violent. I can dance the dance, too. Just invite me and we'll tango.
4. ok, so I'll take the discussion again, this time from the beginning, let's see if we understand each ohter.
4a. bangular complained that many modern languages were either scripting (like perl or python) or bytecode languages, so you could not write an OS kernel in it (unlike C, C++,
4b. Ambassador Kosh pointed out that python also is a bytecode-language (and altough he did not mention it, perl is a bytecode-language, too)
4c. you said (assuming he [Kosh?] was talking about x86) bytecode could not run in raw machines ; yes it can't run directly in a x86 machine, but it can run in a specialized processor; but -- a JIT compiler, or an AOT (ahead-of-time) compiler (like gcj) can compile bytecode into machine code easily. You have to remember bytecode is just another representation (direct translation) of (some) assembly language.
5. Here starts you succession of mistakes, that lead to my header and footer in the response I wrote:
5a. you wrote "C and Assembler are what make the computer world run". nope. engineering make the computer world run. many applications are still in COBOL, FORTRAN, and lots of it, today is in Java, etc. Down to the wire level, yeah, there is lots of C and assembler, but they are *not* cost-viable to make many commercial systems. just OS-level software (database management systems, etc). And some are not -- SAP DB is written in Pascal; many MacOS programs were, too,...
5b. you wrote "You can't make Java in Java". bootstraping. bootstraping.
5c. you wrote "C turns directly into executable binary (...). Java cannot". wrong.
5d. you wrote "I suppose that if you were insane enough, you could make a bytecode to opcode converter"... no need to be insane; see what's done at transmeta, ikvm, any JIT compiler, etc. etc...
5e. you continued "but then you lose 100% of the point of the langauge" (sic). wrong, the point of a programming language is to show some abstraction in a clear way. p. ex, C++ classes show the abstraction of classes of real-world objects and the operations that can be effected in those objects belonging to those classes... if you translate it into bytecode, machine language *or* database-description to generate some tables in a RDBMS, it's not differente because of the target language; you did not lose the "point" of C++. So, if you get some JVM bytecode and translate it into
5f. you went on "probably" (lose) "a lot of the efficiency", yeah, some of the efficiency, maybe; but you gain other knowledge that you can use to profile-and-optimize better than any hand-optimization. This will absorb most of the cost of the translation, and, in some cases, the dynamic translation techniques can make your program run even *faster* than the native/compiled version!
5g. you ended the phrase with "and at that point you may as well use C". no, you may not, because C is not *very good* at OOP, or functional programming, or whatever other paradigm you need to express the domain of your problem so a compiler can give you an efficient program to run as a response.
6. as you see, from 5a to 5g, you said seven distinct things in your paragraph, all wrong, all in need
swig
Uh, you can't run bytecode on a raw machine. /.
Yes you can. There are several java-bytecode hardware microprocessors.
C and Assembler are what make the computer world run.
false. C and assembler are 20%-100% faster to execute, but 1000%-10000% slower to develop in.
You can't make Java in Java.
Yes you can. *and* you can make csc in c# (see here)
C turns directly into executable binary (or object files then linked into executables). Java cannot.
Look up gcj.
I suppose that if you were insane enough, you could make a bytecode to opcode converter, but then you lose 100% of the point of the langauge, probably a lot of the efficiency, and at that point you may as well use C.
As we were in the subject of python, look up psyco.
Man, this is the highest density of crap in the same paragraph I have ever read in
Hmmm... let me see.... my logrotate dumps a lot of stuff everyday that my fw blocks, mostly portscans, people trying to see if my machine is an open mail server (to send spam -- don't get me started on spam), or to see if it has some vulnerability or, worse yet, if it's not already 0wn3d. Yes, it *is* broken. We're *way* due to fix it.