His graph he gets out of his ass. There is no evidence that backs up the graph. I can draw a nice graph and then conclude anything. Even the Laffer Curve is a non-model.
From Wikipedia: "[...] the curve need not be single peaked nor symmetrical at 50%". And in fact the peak range from 32% to 70%. So first, it can have multiple maxima, and second, studies shows that the peak range from 32% to 70%.
It's just his opinion. And his curve is a straw man that he puts out of his ass. Where is the evidence that some patent protection is good? Ah right there is none. Everybody just assumes that some patent protection is good for innovation. That is just like creationism or like any other theology.
There is evidence that more patent protection is bad. See software patents. But where is the evidence for the other side, i.e. no patent protection as bad?
Don't come to me with some mind experiments like "But without patent protection where is the incentive to innovate". People have innovate for freaking 50,000 years. Our patent system, or our capitalist system is just about 250 years old.
I repeat. There is no evidence that any patent protection increases innovation.
There is plenty of evidence that too strong patent protection hampers innovation. See software patents, patents on DNA, business patents, and so on.
There is also evidence that no patent protection actually increases innovation (I posted already here but I post again) The only real empirical study that I know of is The patent game. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Pi4w8ddA8 And they come with quite surprising conclusions.
"pure common system" means no patent protection.
1. patents increase innovations?
Average unique innovations is lower in the "pure patent system", and is higher in the "pure common system" Productivity, aka economic activity, the "pure common system" is almost double the "pure patent system" Per capita wealth, the total amount of dollars generated in the system: "pure common system" is almost 4 times that of the "pure patent system".
Conclusion: "Despite received wisdom, commons spur innovation better then do patents"
Please stop assuming that economics is a physical science like physics. About the Laffer curve from Wikipedia:
This is the curve as drawn by Arthur Laffer,[3] however, the curve need not be single peaked nor symmetrical at 50%.
and further:
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[12] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[13] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[14] A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[11]
So what curve is the Laffer curve? It can have multiple maxima, it can be asymmetric, the peak can range between 32% and 70%. If physical science were based on such curves the Moon landing would miss the Moon and fly to the Sun, and probably miss the Sun and fly to Jupiter.
Economics is a social science with a lot of psychology mixed in. The assumption that every individual in the economy works with maximum efficiency and have only his greed in mind is a nice hypothesis but is based on nothing. So is the Laffer curve based on nothing which explains the random properties of the curve.
The problem is then that the politicians are using this social and psychology based science and try to apply some magic formula and try to make public politics based on it. The results are mismanagement and at the worse case suffering of real people. Like the austerity politics introduced by the USA and which leads to economic meltdown of whole Europe.
Coming back to patents. There are no empirical studies at all in the field of patents, copyright and other "I.P." The politics just assume that more protection = more innovation, but that is not based on anything but lobby work from the parties that have personal gains in increasing monopoly rights. See Mickey Mouse Extension Act and all other copyright extension acts.
Why don't we have such lobbing for ever increasing extension of patents? Because patents are a two-way street whereas copyright is only a one-way street. Companies use patents that have expired as well as do new innovations, and the new innovations are often rooted in older patents. So there is as much interest in lower the patent protection as there is interests in increase protection. But with copyright there is only one big lobby, the copyright lobby. There are no lobby for the public good, for the common people. So you can see copyright and patent protection have nothing to do whether or not it increase innovation, but with the lobbing effort of the stakeholders.
Average unique innovations is lower in the "pure patent system", and is higher in the "pure common system" Productivity, aka economic activity, the "pure common system" is almost double the "pure patent system" Per capita wealth, the total amount of dollars generated in the system: "pure common system" is almost 4 times that of the "pure patent system".
Conclusion: "Despite received wisdom, commons spur innovation better then do patents"
I can agree with that. Java Applets are sunk just like Silverlight and hopefully Flash.
I just wanted that Java Applets are sunk for the right reasons. And JavaScript is not the right reason. Java developers are still using them because they are good. Like my example. You can either embed the application in the web browser or you can do a web start (the app is downloaded and started).
Now Silverlight and Flash are sunk because of the right reasons. Because they are proprietary closed source code and something like that should have nothing to do with the open Web.
First of all XML is text. I can write any tool I want that can parse text and call it "extensible". The "extensible" part have nothing to do with XML but with the tools that parse the XML text.
We just need to agree on a definition how to write the "extensible" part. In XML it is done with a begin tag and a closing tag. That have mostly to do because with a begin tag and an end tag it's very easy to write a parser. Just like all C-like languages are using { and } to mark blocks. In Python for example, a block is with whitespace. So in Python it is a little bit more difficult to write the parser, but you can see that the "extensible" can be anything.
Which life you want to make easier? With XML you make the life of the XML parser developer more easier, but the life of the user that have to write those XML is a nightmare. I propose to make the life of the user that have to write and read the source code easier. Because the ratio is like 1000000:1 user:tool-developer.
IMHO one of the worst aspects of C# is that Microsoft have decided to use XML for documentation. I've already complaining a lot to use HTML for Javadoc in the source code, but XML is so many orders of magnitude worst.
I understand why Javadoc is using Html, because Html is hipp and modern or whatever. But there are so many better altrenatives. For example Textile.
At least with Javadoc they saw the trouble and introduced tags:
@author @version @since etc.
It's already difficult to write and read Javadoc comments:
/**
* <code>JPanel</code> is a generic lightweight container.
* For examples and task-oriented documentation for JPanel, see
* <a
href="http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/uiswing/components/panel.html">How to Use Panels</a>,
* a section in <em>The Java Tutorial</em>.
* <p>
* <strong>Warning:</strong> Swing is not thread safe. For more
* information see <a
* href="package-summary.html#threading">Swing's Threading
* Policy</a>.
* <p>
* <strong>Warning:</strong>
But to read or to write C# XML comments you have to be really a masochist.
<summary> btnImport control. </summary> <remarks> Auto-generated field. To modify move field declaration from designer file to code-behind file. </remarks> <list type=""table""> <listheader> <term>Employee</term> <description>Employee Type</description> </listheader> <item> <term>XXXX</term> <description>Administrator</description> </item> <item> <term>YYYY</term> <description>User</description> </item> </list>
PS: Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. with the XML stuff.
What a BS. Only because you have more bugs _reported_ you now call one system is more worse then the other? That is really really stupid. Java is Open Source, anyone can find and report bugs. That isn't true for.NET.
Do you call Linux more insecure, only because for a Linux distribution like RedHat there are many more bugs and vulnerable reported then for Windows? Do you call Microsoft IIS more secure, only because Apache have more bugs reported? Fuck you.
Applets are still freaking good. Look at for example: http://jchart2d.sourceforge.net/applet.shtml I can get a full demo of the application in my web browser, how cool is that. IMHO the browser developers sunk Java Applets, because of their concentration to Flash and JavaScript. Java Applets are still way better then what you can do with JavaScript. For example, 3D with OpenGL, and it don't take 50% of my CPU like with JavaScript.
Open source is one of the strongest points of Java. There are now 500,000 open source libraries* for Java and the best frameworks and libraries in Java are all open source. Hibernate, Spring, Apache Tomcat, Maven, Ant, etc.
Well, of course you can just copy everything. But you can't just get the repository with Svn, because the repository is divided in those idiotic.svn directories that must be in every thing sub-directory. If you just want the repository you need to download it from the server.
With Git you have your whole repository local on your hard disk containing in one single directory:.git. I really don't understand who came up with the brilliant idea to pollute everything with the.svn directories.
Have Subversion still those horrible.svn in every single sub-directory?
You know, with Git I can just move/copy the.git directory and have the whole repository. You know I can just do: cd/my/usb/stick git clone file://my/repository And have all my files.
PS: looks like they try to make svn more like git. The only real problem with git is submodules, but anything else you can do with git. The argument that with git you have more smaller projects, is actually a good thing. Never heart before that modularity is bad. But since your users running away from you, you have to make some arguments*.
The adoption of Git as a developers primary source code management system continues to move forward and at the expense of Subversion. Interestingly, Subversion continues to be the #1 SCM but just barely. If you combine Git and GitHub usage, Subversion leads by only 1.5% points. Next year I am sure Git and GitHub will be #1.
Parents buy Internet access. Parent buy computers. By definition, since child labor is forbidden. All Internet is already accessible only for 18 or older. Now if some parents don't want to or not able to parenting their children, then it is their problem. (I'm talking about private home, schools, libraries etc. can have their filter system if they want).
Today it is porn, tomorrow it will be Wikipedia, next day the Torrent site and next day it will be the Twitter post that is anti UK government. First it is "to protect children", then "to fight terrorists", then "to prosecute traitors" (aka whistleblowers).
I make the observation quite frequently that people who complain about the GPL never seems to realize that you can just contact the original developer and negotiate with him a different license. For a big project like the Linux kernel there is of course the problem to contact every contributor, but most projects are rather small or the copyrights are belonging to a company or organization.
So if you see a GPL code out there just think of it as a demo version, that is fully functional. If you want to take the code for your proprietary project, you can contact the developer and negotiate a different license.
As a followup here is a short tutorial how to setup rss2email on your computer: as root: yum install rss2email as user: r2e new devent@localhost Edit the file/home/devent/.rss2email/config.py
# The email address messages are from by default: # change to the user DEFAULT_FROM = "devent@localhost" #... # 1: Use SMTP_SERVER to send mail. # 0: Call/usr/sbin/sendmail to send mail. # change to 0 SMTP_SEND = 0
After it's setup you can add new RSS feeds (it's a good idea to quote the URL): as user: r2e add "https://www.archlinux.org/feeds/packages/"
First run will get the feeds and send them to your local account: as user: r2e run To periodically get the feeds and send them add a cronjob: as user: crontab -e enter: "*/30 * * * */usr/bin/r2e run" without quotes
I never understood this desire to put everything as a web service. Why is RSS not just an Email mailer that can send news to my Email address? IMAP is perfect for it, and POP3 is also capable. Plus you have encryption (IMAPS), user management, and you don't need Yet Another App.
I think you confusing. I'm meaning the Ssh client. I need to use Ssh with Git and for remote control of servers. I try to setup an Ssh agent that can be used. In Linux it's easy, every shell gets the shell variables inherited from the parent shell. So every shell gets automatically the variable SSH_AGENT_PID and SSH_AGENT_SOCK. That means, that I can do ssh-add in any terminal I like and it will work for all applications. But in Windows it's just a mess to do that. Just try and setup Cygwin, mysisgit, and mingw all with Ssh in Windows. In Linux it's of course simple as Apple Pie: yum install xxxx (or if you prefer a GUI package manager like Apper).
It's not a matter if you use or need that features. You can always dismiss any argument I make by saying: but I don't need that feature. That are all common modern features of an OS and it should be there. The GUI of Windows have no innovation, and lacks those modern features.
Interesting opinion. I think Windows is just a mess. You mention Ssh. In Linux Ssh is already installed and all you need is to enter "ssh-add". Even if Ssh would not be installed, just do "yum install open-ssh" and you good to go. Last time I spend hours in Windows to setup Ssh and it's still no way convenient as in Linux.
Java development is the same. In Linux I do: "yum install openjdk-jre openjdk-jdk openjdk-source maven2 ant" and download Eclipse, unpack it somewhere, and I'm good to go. Under Windows, not only you have to go to Oracle, accept some licenses, install some "updater app", then Java is still not working because the entry in the PATH is missing. You have to navigate in this tiny little dialog to add your path.
When I restart Windows then I'm greeted with at least 5 update apps. Java, Hp, and some other stupid popups. In Linux I just get a full working desktop without any updater apps or popup annoyances. (no I have no viruses it's just the usual programs that always on autostart in Windows).
The GUI of Windows is still years behind Gnome or KDE, or even Xfce. No tabs in Explorer? No multiple desktops? Try to remap your Control Key. Try to switch languages (for the whole desktop and all apps). etc. etc. it's just amateurish and lacks a lot of features of a modern Linux desktop.
For me Windows is just a gaming console for my computer. All my work I do from Linux and hibernate to switch to Windows to start a game, and then switch to Linux again do to web surfing and work. I guess I could try and install some games with Wine but since Windows comes pre-installed I can use it for the games.
I'm using Fedora Linux with KDE. Works extremely well. I use LibreOffice, Java development in Eclipse, Firefox, Skype, TeamViewer, and Latex for documents, letters and presentations.
For me Windows is just a toy system that is only good to start my games, since the AAA games don't target Linux. Lets see maybe it will change with Steam for Linux.
I don't know about SEC regulations, but it's just a Shareholder meeting. Google is a publicly traded company all you need to do is to buy one share and you are a shareholder.
It's the same shit like Microsoft "Gets The Facts" campaign. Or the stupid "comparisons" where the end result is that Windows Server is cheaper then a Linux server.
I think there are some people (business people and marketing drones mostly) that cannot think that there is really a full blown enterprise ready operating system for free. (aka zero cost), So they invent some arguments "but but in enterprise you need support, so it's not free".
Blub. Of course I mean a full operating system with no strings attached. It's like I say here you have the game for free, and you say but here you can download a demo version of my game.
> "free goods": free good n. Econ. a useful resource, such as air or sunlight, which is sufficiently abundant to be available without any opportunity cost.
Exactly that is Linux. Any cost are external costs and are not fixed. Support, training, what-have-you, that differs from situation to situation. But for Windows you have to pay no matter the support, training or anything else. Hence Windows is not free.
Linux is like air or sunlight. It's free for you to be exploited.
> Well that's the point, Linux is no longer "free" in that situation.
Whatever. The power for the server is not free too. So you could say: Because my server is using power Linux is no longer free. Or my sysadmin have to drink coffee to install Linux and since coffee is not free, Linux is not free. You see what a straw man point that is?
Linux is free period. It's just a fact. Like the sun is bright. Only because you chose to pay for support, you now proclaim "but but but for support I still have to pay"
Example: I can go to debian.org download and install full Linux. Or I download and install CentOS if I want Redhat Linux. This is free. Please point to where I can download Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for free (and legal). There is no such site. You have to pay first $$$ to Microsoft.
Now how you handle support is entirely up to you. You can get a support contract by the Linux vendor, like Redhat, Novel or Canonical. You can get support from anywhere else. Or you could hire some inside your company to support Linux. Or you could just try support from a students.
"Linux can do everything for free and better" This statement is at first entirely true. You don't have to pay for Linux to download it, to install it, to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
His graph he gets out of his ass. There is no evidence that backs up the graph. I can draw a nice graph and then conclude anything.
Even the Laffer Curve is a non-model.
From Wikipedia:
"[...] the curve need not be single peaked nor symmetrical at 50%". And in fact the peak range from 32% to 70%.
So first, it can have multiple maxima, and second, studies shows that the peak range from 32% to 70%.
It's just his opinion. And his curve is a straw man that he puts out of his ass.
Where is the evidence that some patent protection is good? Ah right there is none. Everybody just assumes that some patent protection is good for innovation. That is just like creationism or like any other theology.
There is evidence that more patent protection is bad. See software patents. But where is the evidence for the other side, i.e. no patent protection as bad?
Don't come to me with some mind experiments like "But without patent protection where is the incentive to innovate". People have innovate for freaking 50,000 years. Our patent system, or our capitalist system is just about 250 years old.
I repeat. There is no evidence that any patent protection increases innovation.
There is plenty of evidence that too strong patent protection hampers innovation. See software patents, patents on DNA, business patents, and so on.
There is also evidence that no patent protection actually increases innovation (I posted already here but I post again)
The only real empirical study that I know of is The patent game.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Pi4w8ddA8
And they come with quite surprising conclusions.
"pure common system" means no patent protection.
1. patents increase innovations?
Average unique innovations is lower in the "pure patent system", and is higher in the "pure common system"
Productivity, aka economic activity, the "pure common system" is almost double the "pure patent system"
Per capita wealth, the total amount of dollars generated in the system: "pure common system" is almost 4 times that of the "pure patent system".
Conclusion: "Despite received wisdom, commons spur innovation better then do patents"
Please stop assuming that economics is a physical science like physics. About the Laffer curve from Wikipedia:
This is the curve as drawn by Arthur Laffer,[3] however, the curve need not be single peaked nor symmetrical at 50%.
and further:
The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[12] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[13] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[14] A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[11]
So what curve is the Laffer curve? It can have multiple maxima, it can be asymmetric, the peak can range between 32% and 70%. If physical science were based on such curves the Moon landing would miss the Moon and fly to the Sun, and probably miss the Sun and fly to Jupiter.
Economics is a social science with a lot of psychology mixed in. The assumption that every individual in the economy works with maximum efficiency and have only his greed in mind is a nice hypothesis but is based on nothing. So is the Laffer curve based on nothing which explains the random properties of the curve.
The problem is then that the politicians are using this social and psychology based science and try to apply some magic formula and try to make public politics based on it. The results are mismanagement and at the worse case suffering of real people. Like the austerity politics introduced by the USA and which leads to economic meltdown of whole Europe.
Coming back to patents. There are no empirical studies at all in the field of patents, copyright and other "I.P." The politics just assume that more protection = more innovation, but that is not based on anything but lobby work from the parties that have personal gains in increasing monopoly rights. See Mickey Mouse Extension Act and all other copyright extension acts.
Why don't we have such lobbing for ever increasing extension of patents? Because patents are a two-way street whereas copyright is only a one-way street. Companies use patents that have expired as well as do new innovations, and the new innovations are often rooted in older patents. So there is as much interest in lower the patent protection as there is interests in increase protection. But with copyright there is only one big lobby, the copyright lobby. There are no lobby for the public good, for the common people. So you can see copyright and patent protection have nothing to do whether or not it increase innovation, but with the lobbing effort of the stakeholders.
The only real empirical study that I know of is "The patent game. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Pi4w8ddA8
And they come with quite surprising conclusions.
"pure common system" means no patent protection.
1. patents increase innovations?
Average unique innovations is lower in the "pure patent system", and is higher in the "pure common system"
Productivity, aka economic activity, the "pure common system" is almost double the "pure patent system"
Per capita wealth, the total amount of dollars generated in the system: "pure common system" is almost 4 times that of the "pure patent system".
Conclusion: "Despite received wisdom, commons spur innovation better then do patents"
I can agree with that. Java Applets are sunk just like Silverlight and hopefully Flash.
I just wanted that Java Applets are sunk for the right reasons. And JavaScript is not the right reason.
Java developers are still using them because they are good. Like my example. You can either embed the application in the web browser or you can do a web start (the app is downloaded and started).
Now Silverlight and Flash are sunk because of the right reasons. Because they are proprietary closed source code and something like that should have nothing to do with the open Web.
First of all XML is text. I can write any tool I want that can parse text and call it "extensible".
The "extensible" part have nothing to do with XML but with the tools that parse the XML text.
We just need to agree on a definition how to write the "extensible" part. In XML it is done with a begin tag and a closing tag. That have mostly to do because with a begin tag and an end tag it's very easy to write a parser. Just like all C-like languages are using { and } to mark blocks. In Python for example, a block is with whitespace. So in Python it is a little bit more difficult to write the parser, but you can see that the "extensible" can be anything.
Which life you want to make easier? With XML you make the life of the XML parser developer more easier, but the life of the user that have to write those XML is a nightmare. I propose to make the life of the user that have to write and read the source code easier. Because the ratio is like 1000000:1 user:tool-developer.
IMHO one of the worst aspects of C# is that Microsoft have decided to use XML for documentation.
I've already complaining a lot to use HTML for Javadoc in the source code, but XML is so many orders of magnitude worst.
I understand why Javadoc is using Html, because Html is hipp and modern or whatever.
But there are so many better altrenatives. For example Textile.
At least with Javadoc they saw the trouble and introduced tags:
@author
@version
@since
etc.
It's already difficult to write and read Javadoc comments:
/**
* <code>JPanel</code> is a generic lightweight container.
* For examples and task-oriented documentation for JPanel, see
* <a
href="http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/uiswing/components/panel.html">How to Use Panels</a>,
* a section in <em>The Java Tutorial</em>.
* <p>
* <strong>Warning:</strong> Swing is not thread safe. For more
* information see <a
* href="package-summary.html#threading">Swing's Threading
* Policy</a>.
* <p>
* <strong>Warning:</strong>
But to read or to write C# XML comments you have to be really a masochist.
<summary>
btnImport control.
</summary>
<remarks>
Auto-generated field.
To modify move field declaration from designer file to code-behind file.
</remarks>
<list type=""table"">
<listheader>
<term>Employee</term>
<description>Employee Type</description>
</listheader>
<item>
<term>XXXX</term>
<description>Administrator</description>
</item>
<item>
<term>YYYY</term>
<description>User</description>
</item>
</list>
PS: Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. with the XML stuff.
What a BS. Only because you have more bugs _reported_ you now call one system is more worse then the other? .NET.
That is really really stupid. Java is Open Source, anyone can find and report bugs. That isn't true for
Do you call Linux more insecure, only because for a Linux distribution like RedHat there are many more bugs and vulnerable reported then for Windows? Do you call Microsoft IIS more secure, only because Apache have more bugs reported? Fuck you.
Applets are still freaking good.
Look at for example: http://jchart2d.sourceforge.net/applet.shtml
I can get a full demo of the application in my web browser, how cool is that. IMHO the browser developers sunk Java Applets, because of their concentration to Flash and JavaScript. Java Applets are still way better then what you can do with JavaScript. For example, 3D with OpenGL, and it don't take 50% of my CPU like with JavaScript.
Open source is one of the strongest points of Java. There are now 500,000 open source libraries* for Java and the best frameworks and libraries in Java are all open source. Hibernate, Spring, Apache Tomcat, Maven, Ant, etc.
* http://mvnrepository.com/
Well, of course you can just copy everything. .svn directories that must be in every thing sub-directory. If you just want the repository you need to download it from the server.
But you can't just get the repository with Svn, because the repository is divided in those idiotic
With Git you have your whole repository local on your hard disk containing in one single directory: .git. .svn directories.
I really don't understand who came up with the brilliant idea to pollute everything with the
Have Subversion still those horrible .svn in every single sub-directory?
You know, with Git I can just move/copy the .git directory and have the whole repository. /my/usb/stick
You know I can just do:
cd
git clone file://my/repository
And have all my files.
PS: looks like they try to make svn more like git. The only real problem with git is submodules, but anything else you can do with git. The argument that with git you have more smaller projects, is actually a good thing. Never heart before that modularity is bad. But since your users running away from you, you have to make some arguments*.
* http://ianskerrett.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/eclipse-community-survey-results-for-2013/
The adoption of Git as a developers primary source code management system continues to move forward and at the expense of Subversion. Interestingly, Subversion continues to be the #1 SCM but just barely. If you combine Git and GitHub usage, Subversion leads by only 1.5% points. Next year I am sure Git and GitHub will be #1.
From the survey: Git (+Github) 36%, Svn 38%
Parents buy Internet access. Parent buy computers. By definition, since child labor is forbidden.
All Internet is already accessible only for 18 or older. Now if some parents don't want to or not able to parenting their children, then it is their problem. (I'm talking about private home, schools, libraries etc. can have their filter system if they want).
Today it is porn, tomorrow it will be Wikipedia, next day the Torrent site and next day it will be the Twitter post that is anti UK government. First it is "to protect children", then "to fight terrorists", then "to prosecute traitors" (aka whistleblowers).
You want to bed how fast the next legislature will include Torrent sites?
You want to bed how fast such news such as GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits will find their way in the porn filter by "accident"?
* gitosis https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Gitosis
Easy to setup, limited. Good to setup quick remote repositories with Ssh for user management.
* gitolite https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Gitolite
Easy to setup, no web client. Good to setup quick remote repositories with more features then gitosis.
* gitorious http://gitorious.org/gitorious/pages/Home
* gitlab https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Gitlab
With web clients.
* redmine http://www.redmine.org/
My all time favourite project management web client.
I make the observation quite frequently that people who complain about the GPL never seems to realize that you can just contact the original developer and negotiate with him a different license. For a big project like the Linux kernel there is of course the problem to contact every contributor, but most projects are rather small or the copyrights are belonging to a company or organization.
So if you see a GPL code out there just think of it as a demo version, that is fully functional. If you want to take the code for your proprietary project, you can contact the developer and negotiate a different license.
Not every web site out there is like Facebook.
"fork" means copy. So you can interpret "view and fork" as "view and copy" which implies that you give permission to copy your code unrestricted.
As a followup here is a short tutorial how to setup rss2email on your computer: /home/devent/.rss2email/config.py
as root: yum install rss2email
as user: r2e new devent@localhost
Edit the file
# The email address messages are from by default: ... /usr/sbin/sendmail to send mail.
# change to the user
DEFAULT_FROM = "devent@localhost"
#
# 1: Use SMTP_SERVER to send mail.
# 0: Call
# change to 0
SMTP_SEND = 0
After it's setup you can add new RSS feeds (it's a good idea to quote the URL):
as user: r2e add "https://www.archlinux.org/feeds/packages/"
First run will get the feeds and send them to your local account: /usr/bin/r2e run" without quotes
as user: r2e run
To periodically get the feeds and send them add a cronjob:
as user: crontab -e
enter: "*/30 * * * *
And you are good to go. Add new feeds as desired.
I never understood this desire to put everything as a web service.
Why is RSS not just an Email mailer that can send news to my Email address?
IMAP is perfect for it, and POP3 is also capable. Plus you have encryption (IMAPS), user management, and you don't need Yet Another App.
There is for example rss2email that can receive RSS feeds and send them as Email. Here is come better documentation: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rss2email
I think you confusing. I'm meaning the Ssh client. I need to use Ssh with Git and for remote control of servers. I try to setup an Ssh agent that can be used. In Linux it's easy, every shell gets the shell variables inherited from the parent shell. So every shell gets automatically the variable SSH_AGENT_PID and SSH_AGENT_SOCK. That means, that I can do ssh-add in any terminal I like and it will work for all applications. But in Windows it's just a mess to do that. Just try and setup Cygwin, mysisgit, and mingw all with Ssh in Windows. In Linux it's of course simple as Apple Pie: yum install xxxx (or if you prefer a GUI package manager like Apper).
It's not a matter if you use or need that features. You can always dismiss any argument I make by saying: but I don't need that feature. That are all common modern features of an OS and it should be there. The GUI of Windows have no innovation, and lacks those modern features.
Interesting opinion. I think Windows is just a mess. You mention Ssh. In Linux Ssh is already installed and all you need is to enter "ssh-add". Even if Ssh would not be installed, just do "yum install open-ssh" and you good to go. Last time I spend hours in Windows to setup Ssh and it's still no way convenient as in Linux.
Java development is the same. In Linux I do: "yum install openjdk-jre openjdk-jdk openjdk-source maven2 ant" and download Eclipse, unpack it somewhere, and I'm good to go. Under Windows, not only you have to go to Oracle, accept some licenses, install some "updater app", then Java is still not working because the entry in the PATH is missing. You have to navigate in this tiny little dialog to add your path.
When I restart Windows then I'm greeted with at least 5 update apps. Java, Hp, and some other stupid popups. In Linux I just get a full working desktop without any updater apps or popup annoyances. (no I have no viruses it's just the usual programs that always on autostart in Windows).
The GUI of Windows is still years behind Gnome or KDE, or even Xfce. No tabs in Explorer? No multiple desktops? Try to remap your Control Key. Try to switch languages (for the whole desktop and all apps). etc. etc. it's just amateurish and lacks a lot of features of a modern Linux desktop.
For me Windows is just a gaming console for my computer. All my work I do from Linux and hibernate to switch to Windows to start a game, and then switch to Linux again do to web surfing and work. I guess I could try and install some games with Wine but since Windows comes pre-installed I can use it for the games.
I'm using Fedora Linux with KDE. Works extremely well. I use LibreOffice, Java development in Eclipse, Firefox, Skype, TeamViewer, and Latex for documents, letters and presentations.
For me Windows is just a toy system that is only good to start my games, since the AAA games don't target Linux. Lets see maybe it will change with Steam for Linux.
I don't know about SEC regulations, but it's just a Shareholder meeting. Google is a publicly traded company all you need to do is to buy one share and you are a shareholder.
It's the same shit like Microsoft "Gets The Facts" campaign.
Or the stupid "comparisons" where the end result is that Windows Server is cheaper then a Linux server.
I think there are some people (business people and marketing drones mostly) that cannot think that there is really a full blown enterprise ready operating system for free. (aka zero cost), So they invent some arguments "but but in enterprise you need support, so it's not free".
Blub. Of course I mean a full operating system with no strings attached.
It's like I say here you have the game for free, and you say but here you can download a demo version of my game.
> "free goods": free good n. Econ. a useful resource, such as air or sunlight, which is sufficiently abundant to be available without any opportunity cost.
Exactly that is Linux.
Any cost are external costs and are not fixed. Support, training, what-have-you, that differs from situation to situation.
But for Windows you have to pay no matter the support, training or anything else. Hence Windows is not free.
Linux is like air or sunlight. It's free for you to be exploited.
> Well that's the point, Linux is no longer "free" in that situation.
Whatever. The power for the server is not free too. So you could say: Because my server is using power Linux is no longer free.
Or my sysadmin have to drink coffee to install Linux and since coffee is not free, Linux is not free.
You see what a straw man point that is?
Linux is free period. It's just a fact. Like the sun is bright.
Only because you chose to pay for support, you now proclaim "but but but for support I still have to pay"
Example: I can go to debian.org download and install full Linux. Or I download and install CentOS if I want Redhat Linux.
This is free. Please point to where I can download Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for free (and legal). There is no such site. You have to pay first $$$ to Microsoft.
Now how you handle support is entirely up to you.
You can get a support contract by the Linux vendor, like Redhat, Novel or Canonical. You can get support from anywhere else. Or you could hire some inside your company to support Linux. Or you could just try support from a students.
"Linux can do everything for free and better"
This statement is at first entirely true. You don't have to pay for Linux to download it, to install it, to use it.