Why not get the 21" laptop and just run Linux on it. Gphoto works with most any camera, since it supports PTP. Is there any particular functionality specific to the Mac that you need?
I believe they offer a free completely integrated Eclipse development solution for Windows. It is actually on Linux when you have to assemble all the components yourself to develop something for PalmOS. The ease of development thing I'm not going to argue with though. Of course if any company ever adopts the Linux version then that would change very quickly as you could run anything your device has the resources to run, and not just stuff specifically designed for Palm (and it would bring along with it tons of free scripting languages).
I am personally really excited about Java becoming free. I quit using it a few years ago because of Stallman's The Java Trap (that and the dark side of easy unmaintainable web development in PHP drew me in... stupid me). I'm currently reevaluating Java right now and Python is really shaping up for the server side too. But back to the point, people forget that there is a MASSIVE collection of libraries out there for Java. And I mean massive. Check apache.org just for a little taste.
Didn't Microsoft turn OpenGL into a second class citizen in Vista by instead of providing direct-to-the-hardware support for OpenGL they just turned OpenGL into a Direct3D wrapper? I may be wrong on that, but I could've sworn I read about it, like a year ago.
It would be slightly more complicated still (they do still have to make 3D environments after all, but they only have to look good from one vantage so you could use a bunch of tricks like billboarding after a certain distance, diminishing detail with distance, and not drawing anything behind the camera), but the animation side of things would probably be a lot smoother I would imagine
You understand, this is open source right? Even if it was added to the kernel by default a quick patch/recompile would eradicate it. And you want to switch to Windows because of 1 of 2 common binary only drivers? Thats pathetic, if you think that you would get more freedom with Windows. Har-dee-fuckin-har-har
Oh come on, he just wants a giant federally collected gallery of kiddie porn that he can get printed as a montage onto his pink anal dildo. Seriously folks, this is just the first step. It just opens up a door to legitimize even more spying on us. It should be blatantly obvious to all that our government has quit serving us and is now in the process of enslaving us.
Fine, make a talking interactive tutorial then. I have been using computers since the original IBM PC when I was 7 just by messing around with them. And that interface (MS-DOS) was a lot less intuitive than this interface (sugar).
Because, although these areas are fairly stable, a lot of these areas don't have electricity. And even if they did have electricity powering those old junker computers with four times the power consumption and about a tenth of the speed of these little computers probably wouldn't be to useful to them (electricity costs money too). Additionally these computers double as wind up lights.
This is retarded. The laptops cost $100. I don't go around telling people my laptop cost me $1500 bucks when I only spent $700 on it. Training costs money. Duh. But this project is not about training. Its about providing access to a tool.
This is more akin to Satan making a topical cream that makes skin cancer "look" slightly better in certain cases, but dries your skin out worse than with the other cream. Seriously, do you really think there is a lot new in the word processing world? Honestly? Some kind of killer features that require that many more pages of documentation? And besides that fact, a practical open source reference implementation is by far a better standard than any standards body could ever produce. I wish open source project leaders would wake up and realize: work together and your PROGRAMs are the standards. And the only reason I absolutely abhor the idea of anyone calling Microsoft's documentation a "standard" is because any support of proprietary originated "standards" result in the lag of adoption by others. So its not really a "standard" any more, is it, when other projects are continuously playing catch up with the last Microsoft bullshit deviation of "the standard". By contrast, open source originated standards could even be directly incorporated into other programs so there is no lag for anybody, with feedback and contributions from everybody, and the end result is an actual high compliance standard.
Fuck ECMA. And for that matter fuck IEEE, W3, IETF, etc. Open source *could* play this game far better. Modularize better, incorporate other's modules more, establish best of breed standards in your implementation and make sure its documented. Just imagine where Firefox would be right now if it actually pushed and promoted XUL to a first class, vector themeable, web enabled interface language. The Canvas extension is a nice step, but even it was brought out by ECMA first. Its time the open source community woke up. The other side is never going to actually "play by standards". So make the god damn standard, and shove it up the other side's ass when their users start requesting the features they only see in X open source product. *end rant*
I agree. I actually am glad I don't have to hear more craptacular voice acting. The way they did it, conveys the emotions without overwhelming you with boring dialog that you'd just end up skipping anyways.
Or you could present it as follows: Reasons for releasing code to the open source community: * If there is no direct value to your competitors then why not? If the goals of the project are not the goals of your business then you won't be helping your competitors. * Bug fixes and maintenance are now naturally outsourced. * You get more control of the open source project itself through inclusion of your code, and through... * Increased respect for your developers and your company in the community * Adding features creates a feedback effect which increases other people's usage of the product, and therefore increases the number of contributors to the project * Good will
There are many many more reasons to release your code, than to not. Just make sure you don't release anything that would give your competitors an easily implementable competitive advantage (which more than likely would not happen, since they probably have no idea you're even involved in the project to begin with).
It doesn't take long to initiate a money transfer over the internet, therefore I don't really see much of an advantage as far as malware goes. That aside, obviously there is a bit more security in the fact that the user can't screw themselves over as easily (assuming that both keys aren't included in the chip). Just as long as these financial institutions look at cross-platform compatibility I'm fine with it.
So what exactly is this protecting against, that a standard SSL connection with dh-key exchange won't do if you present a user/pass anyways (besides propagating the capacity to properly authenticate elsewhere)? If there is malicious software installed it protects against nothing, correct? The malicious software could still hijack the connection. With SSL you have no chance of MIM if credentials are verified. Why not just save some money and give everybody a CD that verifies the security certificate in a more visible fashion. Additionally, it sure would be nice if there was a FDIC CA that financial institions would be required to use, and browsers could display their status in a more prominently visible way.
I agree, but I would like to add something and diverge a bit. Microsoft also rose to the top because of pure dependence. Proprietary software, with its current development models, is not like any other beast or machine. It is built upon once and then effortless duplicated, and built upon again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Because of this build up without ever needing to completely rebuild, software becomes complete and utterly integrated and dependent upon its foundation. And management types, who expect constant "feature enhancements", completely disregard any attempts at changing to a better foundation as redundant and costly. Most products you would have to physically construct anew over and over again allowing chances to shift to different underlying platforms. But software development for some reason or another is seen as something where the foundation you start with is the foundation you should keep, because they can rarely justify remaking the underlying layers no matter what the advantages are. It really has a lot to do with the ill conceived notion of project managers who think that cheap, quick, dirty little tack-on upgrades are the most efficient means to an end. But it is really just a path to dependence, obsolescence, rigidity, platform drift and stagnation issues, and it is ultimately very short sighted in its scope and effectiveness. Most managers just never had to deal with platforms that give out on them, but their days are numbered because Microsoft's platform is getting competitively weaker and weaker. And when they least expect it, they will be undone by their competitors who had the foresight to move to a far more agile and market steered platform like Linux.
Does this prevent man-in-the-middle attacks (possibly with the "man-in-the-middle" running on the same machine as spyware) in any way shape or form? You only need to authenticate once to do a lot of damage.
Quit your bitching. What, did you lose 12 milliseconds of productivity? Boo-fucking-hoo. GTK works fine, is sufficiently fast, is more than likely bound by your input speed than it is bound by your system. I've run GTK on a Zaurus, and its still responsive enough to use easily and without frustration (which is all an interface has to be to people that aren't sadistic about millisecond response times). So to reiterate, boo-fucking-hoo.
These patch diffs would still result in the same body of work being constructed and compiled as the GPLv3 code, and therefore relicensing would not be legal since it would be a copyright violation.
Anybody can use the code released under GPLv2 as GPLv2 code. But FSF can and will relicense their code to GPLv3, making any future code changes from the GPLv3 which may not be relicensed to GPLv2.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not get the 21" laptop and just run Linux on it. Gphoto works with most any camera, since it supports PTP. Is there any particular functionality specific to the Mac that you need?
I believe they offer a free completely integrated Eclipse development solution for Windows. It is actually on Linux when you have to assemble all the components yourself to develop something for PalmOS. The ease of development thing I'm not going to argue with though. Of course if any company ever adopts the Linux version then that would change very quickly as you could run anything your device has the resources to run, and not just stuff specifically designed for Palm (and it would bring along with it tons of free scripting languages).
I am personally really excited about Java becoming free. I quit using it a few years ago because of Stallman's The Java Trap (that and the dark side of easy unmaintainable web development in PHP drew me in... stupid me). I'm currently reevaluating Java right now and Python is really shaping up for the server side too. But back to the point, people forget that there is a MASSIVE collection of libraries out there for Java. And I mean massive. Check apache.org just for a little taste.
Didn't Microsoft turn OpenGL into a second class citizen in Vista by instead of providing direct-to-the-hardware support for OpenGL they just turned OpenGL into a Direct3D wrapper? I may be wrong on that, but I could've sworn I read about it, like a year ago.
It would be slightly more complicated still (they do still have to make 3D environments after all, but they only have to look good from one vantage so you could use a bunch of tricks like billboarding after a certain distance, diminishing detail with distance, and not drawing anything behind the camera), but the animation side of things would probably be a lot smoother I would imagine
You understand, this is open source right? Even if it was added to the kernel by default a quick patch/recompile would eradicate it. And you want to switch to Windows because of 1 of 2 common binary only drivers? Thats pathetic, if you think that you would get more freedom with Windows. Har-dee-fuckin-har-har
Oh come on, he just wants a giant federally collected gallery of kiddie porn that he can get printed as a montage onto his pink anal dildo. Seriously folks, this is just the first step. It just opens up a door to legitimize even more spying on us. It should be blatantly obvious to all that our government has quit serving us and is now in the process of enslaving us.
Fine, make a talking interactive tutorial then. I have been using computers since the original IBM PC when I was 7 just by messing around with them. And that interface (MS-DOS) was a lot less intuitive than this interface (sugar).
Because, although these areas are fairly stable, a lot of these areas don't have electricity. And even if they did have electricity powering those old junker computers with four times the power consumption and about a tenth of the speed of these little computers probably wouldn't be to useful to them (electricity costs money too). Additionally these computers double as wind up lights.
This is retarded. The laptops cost $100. I don't go around telling people my laptop cost me $1500 bucks when I only spent $700 on it. Training costs money. Duh. But this project is not about training. Its about providing access to a tool.
This is more akin to Satan making a topical cream that makes skin cancer "look" slightly better in certain cases, but dries your skin out worse than with the other cream. Seriously, do you really think there is a lot new in the word processing world? Honestly? Some kind of killer features that require that many more pages of documentation? And besides that fact, a practical open source reference implementation is by far a better standard than any standards body could ever produce. I wish open source project leaders would wake up and realize: work together and your PROGRAMs are the standards. And the only reason I absolutely abhor the idea of anyone calling Microsoft's documentation a "standard" is because any support of proprietary originated "standards" result in the lag of adoption by others. So its not really a "standard" any more, is it, when other projects are continuously playing catch up with the last Microsoft bullshit deviation of "the standard". By contrast, open source originated standards could even be directly incorporated into other programs so there is no lag for anybody, with feedback and contributions from everybody, and the end result is an actual high compliance standard.
Fuck ECMA. And for that matter fuck IEEE, W3, IETF, etc. Open source *could* play this game far better. Modularize better, incorporate other's modules more, establish best of breed standards in your implementation and make sure its documented. Just imagine where Firefox would be right now if it actually pushed and promoted XUL to a first class, vector themeable, web enabled interface language. The Canvas extension is a nice step, but even it was brought out by ECMA first. Its time the open source community woke up. The other side is never going to actually "play by standards". So make the god damn standard, and shove it up the other side's ass when their users start requesting the features they only see in X open source product. *end rant*
Nice reference. I just got that in on DVD a couple weeks ago ;-).
I agree. I actually am glad I don't have to hear more craptacular voice acting. The way they did it, conveys the emotions without overwhelming you with boring dialog that you'd just end up skipping anyways.
Or you could present it as follows: ...
Reasons for releasing code to the open source community:
* If there is no direct value to your competitors then why not? If the goals of the project are not the goals of your business then you won't be helping your competitors.
* Bug fixes and maintenance are now naturally outsourced.
* You get more control of the open source project itself through inclusion of your code, and through
* Increased respect for your developers and your company in the community
* Adding features creates a feedback effect which increases other people's usage of the product, and therefore increases the number of contributors to the project
* Good will
There are many many more reasons to release your code, than to not. Just make sure you don't release anything that would give your competitors an easily implementable competitive advantage (which more than likely would not happen, since they probably have no idea you're even involved in the project to begin with).
The Frogurt is also cursed.
They already have that buggy implementation.
It doesn't take long to initiate a money transfer over the internet, therefore I don't really see much of an advantage as far as malware goes. That aside, obviously there is a bit more security in the fact that the user can't screw themselves over as easily (assuming that both keys aren't included in the chip). Just as long as these financial institutions look at cross-platform compatibility I'm fine with it.
So what exactly is this protecting against, that a standard SSL connection with dh-key exchange won't do if you present a user/pass anyways (besides propagating the capacity to properly authenticate elsewhere)? If there is malicious software installed it protects against nothing, correct? The malicious software could still hijack the connection. With SSL you have no chance of MIM if credentials are verified. Why not just save some money and give everybody a CD that verifies the security certificate in a more visible fashion. Additionally, it sure would be nice if there was a FDIC CA that financial institions would be required to use, and browsers could display their status in a more prominently visible way.
I agree, but I would like to add something and diverge a bit. Microsoft also rose to the top because of pure dependence. Proprietary software, with its current development models, is not like any other beast or machine. It is built upon once and then effortless duplicated, and built upon again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Because of this build up without ever needing to completely rebuild, software becomes complete and utterly integrated and dependent upon its foundation. And management types, who expect constant "feature enhancements", completely disregard any attempts at changing to a better foundation as redundant and costly. Most products you would have to physically construct anew over and over again allowing chances to shift to different underlying platforms. But software development for some reason or another is seen as something where the foundation you start with is the foundation you should keep, because they can rarely justify remaking the underlying layers no matter what the advantages are. It really has a lot to do with the ill conceived notion of project managers who think that cheap, quick, dirty little tack-on upgrades are the most efficient means to an end. But it is really just a path to dependence, obsolescence, rigidity, platform drift and stagnation issues, and it is ultimately very short sighted in its scope and effectiveness. Most managers just never had to deal with platforms that give out on them, but their days are numbered because Microsoft's platform is getting competitively weaker and weaker. And when they least expect it, they will be undone by their competitors who had the foresight to move to a far more agile and market steered platform like Linux.
Does this prevent man-in-the-middle attacks (possibly with the "man-in-the-middle" running on the same machine as spyware) in any way shape or form? You only need to authenticate once to do a lot of damage.
Quit your bitching. What, did you lose 12 milliseconds of productivity? Boo-fucking-hoo. GTK works fine, is sufficiently fast, is more than likely bound by your input speed than it is bound by your system. I've run GTK on a Zaurus, and its still responsive enough to use easily and without frustration (which is all an interface has to be to people that aren't sadistic about millisecond response times). So to reiterate, boo-fucking-hoo.
These patch diffs would still result in the same body of work being constructed and compiled as the GPLv3 code, and therefore relicensing would not be legal since it would be a copyright violation.
Anybody can use the code released under GPLv2 as GPLv2 code. But FSF can and will relicense their code to GPLv3, making any future code changes from the GPLv3 which may not be relicensed to GPLv2.
Mod this person up. He's absolutely correct. You don't clean your input, you just prepare it for how you intend on working with it.
Don't expect many to recognize religious references here.