I have an SB Live 5.1 and my alsa seems to work fine as well. Rumor has it that the OSS emulation layer is broken in 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 though. I haven't noticed anything, but then again, I can't remember whether I've run any OSS stuff since I upgraded.
I work for University of Texas and we're seeing the same thing. In fact, this morning I got the honor of putting up about 16 quadrillion signs about it. We sent out an email to everyone on the mail system (e.g. everyone) about it. Of course, that hasn't stopped people from opening the stupid thing. Their excuse? "Well, it said it was from utexas.edu!" Nevermind the other emails (that we digitally signed, so people could trust us [like we do with everything else]), the notice on the university's website's frontpage, the signs in the computerlabs, and the oddity of somebody mass mailing a "virus scanner".
It seems to be like this is more about copyrighting collections of facts than the facts themselves. For example, if it is a trivial collection of facts (for example, the collection of information "My name is Foo"), I don't believe it is coverable. Thusly, the companies couldn't copyright a pairing between you and your phone number and then sue you for giving your number out. Similarly, a maker of encyclopedias couldn't copyright the fact "The marmot is a mammal." and then sue other people/companies who also make the claim that marmots are mammals.
In the case of encyclopedias, the collection of information would already be covered by copyright (it is a written work). However, legally, the idea of databases as copyrightable material is a little shakey. Is it a work of art? A written work? It falls under that hard to define region of 'other' works of authorship. The law aims to clarify this.
The open source zealots are committing suicide by the thousands in front of the borders of Utah!! No infidel penguinistas will ever devaluate our stock! Never!
Umm, either my twenties are borked or my microwave... or... these guys are full of shit!! I can't reproduce the effect at all here. There must be something else going on here. Like an attempt to create an urban legend...
Those are the CFLAGS I was talking about (-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer whatever). However, in Gentoo, there is also the ability to have a set of USE flags, which controls which functionalities get built when you build your packages. For example, a lot of packages that include optional GUI components can be told not to build those components, from your global settings. I'm not sure whether debian and apt-build can do this or not, but I'd be interested to find out.
Someone finally gets it. It isn't the CFLAGS so much as the USE flags. Don't want evolution to build with PDA support? -pda. Want to make sure that nothing on your system gets built with X support (because this machine doesn't run X): -X. Gnome fanatic that wants to be free of all traces of kde? -kde. vice-versa for the kde fans. That's the level of control you can't get on a "binaries only" distro.
They didn't say it was more expensive than Windows-- they said that it was more expensive than keeping what they had (i.e. having Windows and never upgrading/maintaining it) and more expensive than they anticipated. And I don't know if the Munich government works the same as city governments around here, but it seems to be traditional to severely lowball the costs of projects, just to get them rolling. Later, no one wants to kill a 'city improvement' plan, so everyone grudingly agrees to more funding.
Sure those things all exist for Linux. You're set then. But all I have to say is: Photoshop photoshop photoshop Quark Quark Quark Dreamweaver dreamweaver? acrobat! acrobat!
let's see them sup up...
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 4, Funny
... my 1990 volvo 240.
On second thought, I'd like to see them burn it out:)
.NET and C# are both open standards. They were originally developed by MS, sure, but they are now in the hands of the EDMA. Anyway, if Microsoft thought that they could lock everyone into Windows using a programming language, they would have bought Sun. That's right, they would have used Java, years ago. Obviously, the DoJ isn't going to actually enforce any anti-trust issues against ms. At this point, if microsoft were to sue novell and friends for mono, or gnu for dotgnu, they wouldn't win, the same way Sun lost when they tried to stop people from developing their own forms of java.
Could it be that we want to run.NET programs under Linux? Or, better than that, that we (linux using programmers) would like to be able to write.NET programs without booting into windows? His points about mono and dotGNU just replicating features already availible in.NET is irrelevant... because they aren't availible on our platforms. Sure, there would be nothing great about windows.forms in X, if we already had a way to do windows.forms stuff in unix. We don't. And his points about microsoft adding all kinds of features to the languages and the.NET library is pretty irrelevant: a) mono is probably going to add those features to the compiler and libraries as soon as possible anyway b) in the state mono is in right now, it is possible to do just about anything you would need to write any possible.NET application c) as long as ms's.NET compiler still generates the same CLI, it would be possible to run the programs in mono (assuming it is something that doesn't have huge chunks of embedded C or anything).
(And isn't this the guy who writes all those books about ASP.NET and VB?)
I love these case studies...
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
All of the dates mentioned in the case studies are early 90s and back. Zenez started with SCO in 1983! Gee, I wonder why they didn't consider Linux? Hmm...
The claimed lines of code appear to be in jfs (which is from AIX, not Sconix), evms (once again from AIX), and RCU. Total number of lines is about 600, plus a few complete files claimed to have be contributed illegally by sequent. I fail to see how IBM is prevented by their contract from contributing their own enhancements (or hell, compatible implementations of their filesystems). The rest of the document seems to just be complaining that with IBM's help, linux is going to wipe a lot of proprietary unixes off of the map. Which I believe fails under the legal term "toughus-fucking-luckus."
Slashdot Mirror
I have an SB Live 5.1 and my alsa seems to work fine as well. Rumor has it that the OSS emulation layer is broken in 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 though. I haven't noticed anything, but then again, I can't remember whether I've run any OSS stuff since I upgraded.
It doesn't worry me that some people don't want and don't need to learn how their computer works...
It worries me that I've heard almost the exact same phrase out of several 'computer science' majors...
No.
It isn't even worth $0. I don't want it near me.
No, really, I'll get a restraining order.
2. Vodka mixes well with everything.
Yeah, especially more vodka.
I work for University of Texas and we're seeing the same thing. In fact, this morning I got the honor of putting up about 16 quadrillion signs about it. We sent out an email to everyone on the mail system (e.g. everyone) about it. Of course, that hasn't stopped people from opening the stupid thing. Their excuse? "Well, it said it was from utexas.edu!" Nevermind the other emails (that we digitally signed, so people could trust us [like we do with everything else]), the notice on the university's website's frontpage, the signs in the computerlabs, and the oddity of somebody mass mailing a "virus scanner".
It seems to be like this is more about copyrighting collections of facts than the facts themselves. For example, if it is a trivial collection of facts (for example, the collection of information "My name is Foo"), I don't believe it is coverable. Thusly, the companies couldn't copyright a pairing between you and your phone number and then sue you for giving your number out. Similarly, a maker of encyclopedias couldn't copyright the fact "The marmot is a mammal." and then sue other people/companies who also make the claim that marmots are mammals.
In the case of encyclopedias, the collection of information would already be covered by copyright (it is a written work). However, legally, the idea of databases as copyrightable material is a little shakey. Is it a work of art? A written work? It falls under that hard to define region of 'other' works of authorship. The law aims to clarify this.
Oh, and make the overlords happy.
I think we may have to add stage four to the cycle.
1. Microsoft
2. SCO
3. RIAA
4. ???^H^H^HInfinium!!
The open source zealots are committing suicide by the thousands in front of the borders of Utah!! No infidel penguinistas will ever devaluate our stock! Never!
Umm, either my twenties are borked or my microwave... or... these guys are full of shit!! I can't reproduce the effect at all here. There must be something else going on here. Like an attempt to create an urban legend...
Those are the CFLAGS I was talking about (-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer whatever). However, in Gentoo, there is also the ability to have a set of USE flags, which controls which functionalities get built when you build your packages. For example, a lot of packages that include optional GUI components can be told not to build those components, from your global settings. I'm not sure whether debian and apt-build can do this or not, but I'd be interested to find out.
Someone finally gets it. It isn't the CFLAGS so much as the USE flags. Don't want evolution to build with PDA support? -pda. Want to make sure that nothing on your system gets built with X support (because this machine doesn't run X): -X. Gnome fanatic that wants to be free of all traces of kde? -kde. vice-versa for the kde fans. That's the level of control you can't get on a "binaries only" distro.
Actually, there are a lot of definitions of republic, not all of which agree on what, exactly, it take to be a republic.
...or voting...?
Not exactly. See, generally the error occurs before you ctrl-alt-delete...
They didn't say it was more expensive than Windows-- they said that it was more expensive than keeping what they had (i.e. having Windows and never upgrading/maintaining it) and more expensive than they anticipated. And I don't know if the Munich government works the same as city governments around here, but it seems to be traditional to severely lowball the costs of projects, just to get them rolling. Later, no one wants to kill a 'city improvement' plan, so everyone grudingly agrees to more funding.
They are a funny people. This would never have happened in the good old US of A. Oh, wait...
Actually, i always thought Kerry looked more like caveman lawyer...
Sure those things all exist for Linux. You're set then. But all I have to say is:
Photoshop photoshop photoshop
Quark Quark Quark
Dreamweaver dreamweaver?
acrobat! acrobat!
... my 1990 volvo 240.
:)
On second thought, I'd like to see them burn it out
.NET and C# are both open standards. They were originally developed by MS, sure, but they are now in the hands of the EDMA. Anyway, if Microsoft thought that they could lock everyone into Windows using a programming language, they would have bought Sun. That's right, they would have used Java, years ago. Obviously, the DoJ isn't going to actually enforce any anti-trust issues against ms. At this point, if microsoft were to sue novell and friends for mono, or gnu for dotgnu, they wouldn't win, the same way Sun lost when they tried to stop people from developing their own forms of java.
Could it be that we want to run .NET programs under Linux? Or, better than that, that we (linux using programmers) would like to be able to write .NET programs without booting into windows? His points about mono and dotGNU just replicating features already availible in .NET is irrelevant... because they aren't availible on our platforms. Sure, there would be nothing great about windows.forms in X, if we already had a way to do windows.forms stuff in unix. We don't. And his points about microsoft adding all kinds of features to the languages and the .NET library is pretty irrelevant: a) mono is probably going to add those features to the compiler and libraries as soon as possible anyway b) in the state mono is in right now, it is possible to do just about anything you would need to write any possible .NET application c) as long as ms's .NET compiler still generates the same CLI, it would be possible to run the programs in mono (assuming it is something that doesn't have huge chunks of embedded C or anything).
In the end, I feel like I've been ASTed.
what ghandi-con does this put us at?
(And isn't this the guy who writes all those books about ASP.NET and VB?)
All of the dates mentioned in the case studies are early 90s and back. Zenez started with SCO in 1983! Gee, I wonder why they didn't consider Linux? Hmm...
This reminds me of something I read the other day in the gentoo forums: Installing Portage on Other Distros
You could turn off images in a normal browser and at least the html/css part of the site would look somewhat normal...
The claimed lines of code appear to be in jfs (which is from AIX, not Sconix), evms (once again from AIX), and RCU. Total number of lines is about 600, plus a few complete files claimed to have be contributed illegally by sequent. I fail to see how IBM is prevented by their contract from contributing their own enhancements (or hell, compatible implementations of their filesystems). The rest of the document seems to just be complaining that with IBM's help, linux is going to wipe a lot of proprietary unixes off of the map. Which I believe fails under the legal term "toughus-fucking-luckus."