A delete in svn does delete the local files but the files are still there in the repository, a delete is basically a flag for the file there. If it where very old version of svn there might even been a local copy left in hidden.svn folders all over your project folder full with the old files.
I don't think that Source Safe ever works fine for any definition of the word. Back some 12-15 years when I was working at a "Omg we can only use Microsofts products" place it was common to see our dev chief roll back the entire Source Safe repository from backups. Some times I saw him do this on a daily basis. Another fine touch where when some dev checked out some files and went on a 5 week vacation leaving the file locked in Source Safe, not the good old days:)
OR better yet, identify them as antivaxxers with the poll and force them to travel through ebola infected areas while asking them if they would like to be vaccinated before they travel.
I think that what we have to do is create some big conspiracy where "Big Homoeopathy" (or whatever) is spreading the antivaxxer ideas and see how quickly these idiots hop onboard.
Why are you hooking up with prostitutes and think that they are your GF? Perhaps that's the problem that you have to address first. It's hardly adultery if you hook up with a prostitute and later realises that s(he) fucks other people to, it's in their work description.
I feel the same, but unfortunately the public at large does not share our views which is why we get the politicians that we get. They have no incentive to speak the truth because the voters will vote on the one who makes most promises (which will mean that they also have to create the biggest lies).
Or sites where they accept an unlimited length in the setup but silently truncates to some arbitrary length and then when on the login page they accept an unlimited length again but this time compares your entered password with the truncated one and you get a mismatch even with copy+paste. Have stumbled on a few of those.
So they never saw any problems with "check that the new password was not previously used or too similar to a previously-used PW" besides the non plain text storage? Best solution would of course to go one step further:
"You have entered the password "sdfsdfwefjsfj", unfortunately this is already used by user "charlie23" so please choose a different one".
That is because as a politician the public will never reward you for admitting that you where wrong, it will only be used by the opposition as a proof that you are always wrong.
Well you can (run make -j ), just be prepared to rerun that if/when it segfaults... For most people so far they only get the segfault if they do "make clean && make -jX" a few times so a single make of even a large project should probably work most of the time. Will be interesting to see if/when AMD will be able to fix it, particular why Windows does not seam to suffer from it yet will be interesting to see.
I think that you are stuck in a mindset where you still think that we argue that you can sell rights to a software when we only talk about charging money for access to the actual bits. Looks like you are stuck in the mindset of how Microsoft and Apple sells their software (i.e the sell only a usage license). I can put the download link to my CD behind a paywall and still charge money for it. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents this and FSF have never once moved to even indicate that they would want to prevent this. Thanks to the GPL I have distribution rights for the bits and it does not matter that my form of distribution includes payment.
And btw their errata and documentation used to be completely free, they only put it behind a paywall when Oracle started to sell support for Red Hat systems and used Red Hats own errata and documentation to do so. So a few years back you would only get the install media for RHEL for the $349 and nothing else, note that this is not a license to use RHEL. Mention this since you keep thinking that we are talking about selling licenses and not actual software.
Of course it's legal, no one have argued otherwise. But you can still put CentOS on DVD:s and sell them for money from your local Wallmart. You might not get many purchases since most people interested in CentOS probably knows that they can download it for free from the Internet but you are still allowed legally to sell it for money. What you cannot do is claim that people who download CentOS for free is somehow infringing your copyright or any other such nonsense.
The LGPL was created so that pieces of software (usually libraries) could have it's own source code licensed as GPL but still allow linking without forcing the derived works to be also GPL. So this is still only a licensing issue and not a "charge money" issue, the AC above are completely free to charge money for his derivative works regardless of if the library he used where GPL or LGPL. The only difference is that if the library where LGPL then he would not have to GPL his own code.
No one is talking about "buying a license to run the software" but you, all of the rest of us are only talking about "buy the software". And this is perfectly fine in GPLv3 as well since it's no abuse what so ever (trying to sell a license to it would however be a clear abuse).
Since you talk about selling people rights that they already have I guess that this thinking is what makes you so confused. No one is talking about selling any rights, we are talking about selling copies of software, nothing else. I can put Debian on a CD and sell it to you for money, I cannot sell you any rights or licenses but I sure can sell you that specific CD with Debian on it for money and there is nothing in the GPL that forbids this. Why is this so hard for you to understand when even the FSF themselves says that this is perfectly legal (they even have it as an item on their FAQ for the GPL for heavens sake).
Still does not prevent you from charging for the prebuilt binaries. Yes you have all the right in the world to download the sources of my derivative works if they are published somewhere (note that if none of my customers have decided to utilize their rights under the GPL then you have no sources to download!), but that fact does not prevent me from selling you prebuilt binaries of said sources.
It might sound strange that people would pay for something that they can get for free, but that is besides the point since you are falsely believing that this is somehow illegal under the GPL when it's not.
If you still don't believe my the go right ahead and create a class action lawsuit against Red Hat because they do exactly this, here: https://www.redhat.com/en/stor... you can buy a copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for $349 completely without their support (it's a "self-support" version).
And the legal issue is that you are allowed to sell copies of other peoples GPL software including your derivative works of said software, as long as you abide by the license (i.e the GPL).
Slashdot Mirror
A delete in svn does delete the local files but the files are still there in the repository, a delete is basically a flag for the file there. If it where very old version of svn there might even been a local copy left in hidden .svn folders all over your project folder full with the old files.
I don't think that Source Safe ever works fine for any definition of the word. Back some 12-15 years when I was working at a "Omg we can only use Microsofts products" place it was common to see our dev chief roll back the entire Source Safe repository from backups. Some times I saw him do this on a daily basis. Another fine touch where when some dev checked out some files and went on a 5 week vacation leaving the file locked in Source Safe, not the good old days :)
64-bit applications can be faster if the code benefits from the twice available registers.
Well there where the Athlon 64 which had it right there in the name.
OR better yet, identify them as antivaxxers with the poll and force them to travel through ebola infected areas while asking them if they would like to be vaccinated before they travel.
I think that what we have to do is create some big conspiracy where "Big Homoeopathy" (or whatever) is spreading the antivaxxer ideas and see how quickly these idiots hop onboard.
Because existing already indexed sites like Slashdot get indexed more frequently than a completely new site that no one have heard about before?
Why are you hooking up with prostitutes and think that they are your GF? Perhaps that's the problem that you have to address first. It's hardly adultery if you hook up with a prostitute and later realises that s(he) fucks other people to, it's in their work description.
Why?
And have round edges for the boxes. Sorry forgot about that one!
I feel the same, but unfortunately the public at large does not share our views which is why we get the politicians that we get. They have no incentive to speak the truth because the voters will vote on the one who makes most promises (which will mean that they also have to create the biggest lies).
Or sites where they accept an unlimited length in the setup but silently truncates to some arbitrary length and then when on the login page they accept an unlimited length again but this time compares your entered password with the truncated one and you get a mismatch even with copy+paste. Have stumbled on a few of those.
So they never saw any problems with "check that the new password was not previously used or too similar to a previously-used PW" besides the non plain text storage? Best solution would of course to go one step further:
"You have entered the password "sdfsdfwefjsfj", unfortunately this is already used by user "charlie23" so please choose a different one".
Well his rules that you should rotate your password was wrong both then and now.
That is because as a politician the public will never reward you for admitting that you where wrong, it will only be used by the opposition as a proof that you are always wrong.
Learn to live in the danger zone :)
Well you can (run make -j ), just be prepared to rerun that if/when it segfaults... For most people so far they only get the segfault if they do "make clean && make -jX" a few times so a single make of even a large project should probably work most of the time. Will be interesting to see if/when AMD will be able to fix it, particular why Windows does not seam to suffer from it yet will be interesting to see.
I think that you are stuck in a mindset where you still think that we argue that you can sell rights to a software when we only talk about charging money for access to the actual bits. Looks like you are stuck in the mindset of how Microsoft and Apple sells their software (i.e the sell only a usage license). I can put the download link to my CD behind a paywall and still charge money for it. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents this and FSF have never once moved to even indicate that they would want to prevent this. Thanks to the GPL I have distribution rights for the bits and it does not matter that my form of distribution includes payment.
And btw their errata and documentation used to be completely free, they only put it behind a paywall when Oracle started to sell support for Red Hat systems and used Red Hats own errata and documentation to do so. So a few years back you would only get the install media for RHEL for the $349 and nothing else, note that this is not a license to use RHEL. Mention this since you keep thinking that we are talking about selling licenses and not actual software.
Of course it's legal, no one have argued otherwise. But you can still put CentOS on DVD:s and sell them for money from your local Wallmart. You might not get many purchases since most people interested in CentOS probably knows that they can download it for free from the Internet but you are still allowed legally to sell it for money. What you cannot do is claim that people who download CentOS for free is somehow infringing your copyright or any other such nonsense.
The LGPL was created so that pieces of software (usually libraries) could have it's own source code licensed as GPL but still allow linking without forcing the derived works to be also GPL. So this is still only a licensing issue and not a "charge money" issue, the AC above are completely free to charge money for his derivative works regardless of if the library he used where GPL or LGPL. The only difference is that if the library where LGPL then he would not have to GPL his own code.
No one is talking about "buying a license to run the software" but you, all of the rest of us are only talking about "buy the software". And this is perfectly fine in GPLv3 as well since it's no abuse what so ever (trying to sell a license to it would however be a clear abuse).
Since you talk about selling people rights that they already have I guess that this thinking is what makes you so confused. No one is talking about selling any rights, we are talking about selling copies of software, nothing else. I can put Debian on a CD and sell it to you for money, I cannot sell you any rights or licenses but I sure can sell you that specific CD with Debian on it for money and there is nothing in the GPL that forbids this. Why is this so hard for you to understand when even the FSF themselves says that this is perfectly legal (they even have it as an item on their FAQ for the GPL for heavens sake).
Still does not prevent you from charging for the prebuilt binaries. Yes you have all the right in the world to download the sources of my derivative works if they are published somewhere (note that if none of my customers have decided to utilize their rights under the GPL then you have no sources to download!), but that fact does not prevent me from selling you prebuilt binaries of said sources.
It might sound strange that people would pay for something that they can get for free, but that is besides the point since you are falsely believing that this is somehow illegal under the GPL when it's not.
If you still don't believe my the go right ahead and create a class action lawsuit against Red Hat because they do exactly this, here: https://www.redhat.com/en/stor... you can buy a copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for $349 completely without their support (it's a "self-support" version).
And the legal issue is that you are allowed to sell copies of other peoples GPL software including your derivative works of said software, as long as you abide by the license (i.e the GPL).