WINE is a joke - it can't even run Simcity 2000 without crashing.
Try harder: Simcity 2000 (DOS) works perfectly with DOSBOX (Linux, Win etc.), Simcity 2000 (Win95) does not work with windows Vista/7, while it runs under Wine (although with a few bugs).
What? App Store developed from iTunes Store, XBLIG has nothing to do with it. By the way XBLIG/XBLA is a half-baked rip-off of Steam: 2DBoy (creators of World of Goo) made this interesting survey about XBLA. Actually PSN is more open than XBLA, as in "more accessible".
Surely their objective is something like iTunes, that is something that appeals a snobbish crowd, and not a XBLA, that is the Zune of the online store services.
With Islam, there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
Turn the clock back 600 years or so (the difference in age between Christianity an Islam) and look at the behavior of the Catholic Church.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition....
Except for the fact that the Spanish Inquisition was independent from the Catholic Church (as an organization), it was founded by the Spanish monarchs to take control over the Inquisition tribunals and so it served the monarchy, not the Church.
Moreover 600 hundreds years ago secular trials weren't better than the Inquisition (actually they were worse).
Well the original report (from the Guardian) reads:
Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport "following a request made to us by Interpol" the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Exactly, that's what I learned attending the Operating Systems course at the university:
A lawyer does not work for only one client at time. While one case is waiting to go to trial or have papers typed, the lawyer can work on another case. If she has enough clients, the lawyer will never be idle for lack of work. (Idle lawyers tend to become politicians, so there is a certain social value in keeping lawyers busy.)
Silberschatz, Galvin & Gagne, Operating System Concepts
It must also be accounted the fact that French military strategy, and also the entire french military, was invested in the Maginot line, which relied heavily on the belief that Germany would never invade Luxembourg or Belgium.
That happened in WWI when the Germans invaded the plains of Nederlands and Belgium, in WWII the allied thought that an armored force could not pass through the mountains of southern Belgium (the Ardennes), but the German tanks made it flanking both the French and the Belgians.
Mussolini - 'Mussolini publicly reconciled with the Pope Pius XI in 1932, but "took care to exclude from the newspapers any photography of himself kneeling or showing deference to the Pope." He wanted to persuade Catholics that "[f]ascism was Catholic and he himself a believer who spent some of each day in prayer..." The Pope began referring to Mussolini as "a man sent by Providence." Despite Mussolini's efforts to appear pious, by order of his party, pronouns referring to him "had to be capitalized like those referring to God..."'
Mussolini was a radical socialist (Communism was born in 1921), he founded Fascism as an anticlerical movement and he was a self proclaimed atheist. The "Fasci da combattimento" (hence the name fascism) were a paramilitary formation born to repress the socialist and catholic trade unions. However most of Italy was deeply religious at the time and he could not gain a complete control of the Italian society without a truce with the Catholic Church. But that was Realpolitik, yeah: he was atheist and a hypocrite.
Just confront what you posted with this text about the Second World War in USSR: "Stalin abolished the League of the Godless (founded in the 1920s) and arranged a temporary truce with the Orthodox Church; in return, the Metropolitan of Moscow publicly announced in 1942 that Stalin was "the divinely anointed leader of our armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion." Church reopenings were attended by multitudes of devout believers. The regime proudly communicated news about fund-raising efforts by churchmen and congregations to purchase tanks for the army; Ehrenburg openly described people praying, and Simonov wrote poetically and movingly of "the simple crosses on Russian graves." .
I don't know what Wikipedia says but I can assure you that Stalin was in fact an atheist.
Napoleon - 'As an adult, Napoleon was described as a "deist with involuntary respect and fondness for Catholicism." He never believed in a living God; Napoleon's deity was an absent and distant God, but he pragmatically considered organised religions as key elements of social order, and especially Catholicism, whose, according to him, "splendorous ceremonies and sublime moral better act over the imagination of the people than other religions".'
He was so fond of Catholicism that he crowned himself as emperor and doubted that Jesus was a divine being. Citing Dupuy, reported by Bainville: "We are fooling Egyptians with our pretended interest for their religion; neither Bonaparte nor we believe in this religion more than we did in Pius the Defunct's one (that is Pope Pius VI)".
Again he was pretty much an atheist and a hypocrite ("It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon"). Nothing new.
Hitler - 'After his move to Germany, Hitler did not leave his church. Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he "can be classified as Catholic", but that "nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context."' His interest in the occult is also widely documented.
Considering Hitler a Catholic is risible. Hitler's position is ambiguous but it's well documented that he mocked transubstantiation (a Catholi
Probably you never heard of the Russian Revolution or the French Revolution or the Mexican Revolution or the Spanish Civil War. Probably none told you that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Napoleon Bonaparte, Pol Pot were atheist. Probably you never heard of Tibet.
Some alternatives have been proposed: pre-conception (Catholic)
It never was "pre-conception" for the Catholic doctrine and early abortion (i.e. just after conception) is equaled to murder since 1869 (before it was considered just lust). By the way the Catholic doctrine does not state that an embryo is a "human being", but a "human life" (a concept that was introduced in the second half of the XX century): they don't think it is a baby until later in its development, however an agreement about how much later is missing since the Middle Age.
The reasons for the lack of female participation in open source are a touchy subject, and I probably risk offending some folks, but the fact is that the movement is largely made up of male computer nerds with few social skills and little female contact.
This is a bad generalization at best. Not too different from the first post.
My guess is that women fare better in proprietary software development because it implies a level of professionalism, since if you can't interact well socially with co-workers, you usually don't work there anymore.
As far as I could see there aren't much more female closed source software programmers than female open source software programmers. Obviously some closed source software company employed female workers, but not extensively as programmers or server admins or the likes. Closed source software legendary programmers are all men as far as I know.
In my opinion it should be easier for a female programmer to develop for open source software because when you post some patch to a project you are pretty much anonymous: there is no race, gender or else, just an email account and a pseudonym. If it works, it is accepted; if not, it is rejected. Simply as that.
AC are not paid shills because AC never get the mod points needed by the true shills to mod themselves up. Moreover AC post start with zero points against regular users' one point (or two).
I don't think that I'm offtopic if I ask you how you could read the FTA and write the first post (citing the FTA btw) in less than a minute after that the story was published. I'm not offtopic because the answer could invalidate all your points.
You may have a point... I didn't notice the timestamp and the account number, but after reading your post I took a look at his posting history and I have to say that there's something fishy.
What? She's got no G+ page, search "Katy Perry" on Google and tell me what you see.
I just did it and I see: wikipedia, KP's offical site, mtv, her twitter account, a fan site, an english newspaper with an article about her, a couple of pictures (not from G+) and some more news. The only thing related to Google is a couple of youtube videos...
Probably because those searching for "Katy Perry" on Google are not looking for her facebook profile and never click on it. I mean, If I'm a facebook registered user and I'm looking for her facebook profile, I'd search Katy Perry on facebook, not on Google; and if I'm not a facebook user I can't see the point of searching for her facebook profile...
It doesn't seem a big deal.
Granted, all the open source work they done is in their interest - but that's the same for any company contributing to open source.
What is not the same, it's when someone works against the interests of other companies (or even of the community).
* they have assisted the NodeJS project in implementing Windows support
* they have contributed 3 (maybe more) concepts/libraries to the jQuery community
* they lead a fully open source project called NuGet (.NET package manager)
* they host the source code for Azure tooling on GitHub, and accept pull requests
* they ship jQuery (and other open-source JavaScript libraries) in ASP.NET MVC
* they release the source code for ASP.NET MVC, and probably a few other libraries
That stuff seems a lot Azure-centric (perhaps you're a web developer) and that is not a bad thing per se. However I must remark that Azure is heavily locked in with Microsoft technologies (IIS, Microsoft SQL, Hyper-V...).
Did they? He literally said something like I'm sorry to hear that (from Mocality?), we're investigating. Those seem to me preemptive apologies. By the way, the database was publicly available: Google Kenya vs Mocality Controversy: Scandal or Tantrums?.
This FUD about Google is getting really annoying. A random guy from a Kenya-based obscure society posts an entry blog accusing Google of breaking the law in every possible manner and then the usual suspects start ranting? Come on.
This whole story could be just a bad forgery and nonetheless the Google bashing starts again: I don't know how it works there in Kenya, but where I live if someone is suspecting such a misbehaving the first step is to call the police or the lawyers. Do you know that all those facts(?) the guy is showing us would be null in a trial? What did he achieve doing this? Just bad advertisement for Google and some more clicks for his obscure company, nothing more. This is a non-story, like when Microsoft claims that Linux infringes 200 patents or so. No trial, no way to know the truth, no story.
Whatever happens this year, I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.
Why? Samsung is selling more smartphones than Apple right now[1], so if they are going to fork Android to, say, Samsungoid, the new number one will be Samsungoid. And the number two could very likely be Vanilla Android...
I'm sorry for your Apple shares, but the iPhone, iPod prime time is past. Well, I don't know if you own Apple shares (so I'm sorry if I'm mistaken), but you are always so readily vocal against Google (harsh first post here, harsh first post yesterday with the Korea investigation story...) and so in love with iPhones that you look like you own a lot of them.
[1] Gartner report for the third quarter 2011
David Ulevitch, founder of OpenDNS, had a more likely hypothesis, which is that Google is protecting itself from increased antitrust scrutiny. Remember that they often display a message on Google.com trying to convince people to download Chrome. Along with Android, Google needs to appear like it's not too dominant.
So, in your opinion, Google is paying Mozilla to strengthen its search engine market share (85%) at the expense of its web browser market share (25%) because they fear the antitrust scrutiny. Just to point out, an antitrust investigation on Chrome is just impossible: it is not by any means in the same position as IE was, the only browser bundled with a monopolistic OS.
It's like how Microsoft keeps releasing Office for Mac and various other utilities to make sure the Mac is out there just enough to keep antitrust regulators off its back.
No. MS keeps releasing Office for Mac because: it makes money (1), it secures the Office lock-in by spreading the OOXML format (2). The second point is extremely important to MS, they want to spread their inextricable file formats everywhere so to secure their monopoly. See? All the contrary to what you said.
RMS himself says the goal of GPL is to destroy non free software and RMS makes it clear he WANTS GPL to be "viral" and cause businesses to be forced to open up their code, as his whole goal is to destroy non free software.
Maybe... however the post by RMS you linked says otherwise: "writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so
if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better", which means that RMS thinks that non-free software is bound to fail and that's a good thing in his opinion. GPL or not.
So yes having a more permissive license is of the good, it means that companies that might need a document engine or spreadsheet engine can easily use OO.o as a base without worrying of running afoul of the GPL. Remember that like it or not RMS IS a militant, always has been, and with each version of GPL he tries his damnedest to close any and all possible loopholes that would allow a non free company to use it.
This is exactly the FUD I was talking about. If a company wants to use parts of a GPL program as a base for its own program without distributing the source code, it can. The GPL (version 1,2,3...) says that the aforementioned company has to distribute the source code alongside the compiled binaries, however if it does not distribute them to third parties, it is not bound to release the source code. Obviously if it intends to sell the program (in a way or the other), there's a price, like for everything I could add, and that price is the release of the source code.
As for RMS willing to destroy non-free companies, I've got the impression that the feeling is reciprocal and that's not just because RMS is used to talking over the top, but because GNU and Linux (and not BSD) are a threat to the revenues of some companies. Even the mighty Apache web server owes a big part of its success to all those Linux servers.
Slashdot Mirror
WINE is a joke - it can't even run Simcity 2000 without crashing.
Try harder: Simcity 2000 (DOS) works perfectly with DOSBOX (Linux, Win etc.), Simcity 2000 (Win95) does not work with windows Vista/7, while it runs under Wine (although with a few bugs).
Wine 1 - 0 Windows
What? App Store developed from iTunes Store, XBLIG has nothing to do with it. By the way XBLIG/XBLA is a half-baked rip-off of Steam: 2DBoy (creators of World of Goo) made this interesting survey about XBLA. Actually PSN is more open than XBLA, as in "more accessible".
Surely their objective is something like iTunes, that is something that appeals a snobbish crowd, and not a XBLA, that is the Zune of the online store services.
With Islam, there is no such thing as moderate Islam.
Turn the clock back 600 years or so (the difference in age between Christianity an Islam) and look at the behavior of the Catholic Church.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ....
Except for the fact that the Spanish Inquisition was independent from the Catholic Church (as an organization), it was founded by the Spanish monarchs to take control over the Inquisition tribunals and so it served the monarchy, not the Church.
Moreover 600 hundreds years ago secular trials weren't better than the Inquisition (actually they were worse).
Well the original report (from the Guardian) reads:
Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport "following a request made to us by Interpol" the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
It seems he was fleeing to New Zealand, he stopped in Malaysia because it is an airline hub.
A lawyer does not work for only one client at time. While one case is waiting to go to trial or have papers typed, the lawyer can work on another case. If she has enough clients, the lawyer will never be idle for lack of work. (Idle lawyers tend to become politicians, so there is a certain social value in keeping lawyers busy.)
Silberschatz, Galvin & Gagne, Operating System Concepts
It must also be accounted the fact that French military strategy, and also the entire french military, was invested in the Maginot line, which relied heavily on the belief that Germany would never invade Luxembourg or Belgium.
That happened in WWI when the Germans invaded the plains of Nederlands and Belgium, in WWII the allied thought that an armored force could not pass through the mountains of southern Belgium (the Ardennes), but the German tanks made it flanking both the French and the Belgians.
Mussolini - 'Mussolini publicly reconciled with the Pope Pius XI in 1932, but "took care to exclude from the newspapers any photography of himself kneeling or showing deference to the Pope." He wanted to persuade Catholics that "[f]ascism was Catholic and he himself a believer who spent some of each day in prayer..." The Pope began referring to Mussolini as "a man sent by Providence." Despite Mussolini's efforts to appear pious, by order of his party, pronouns referring to him "had to be capitalized like those referring to God..."'
Mussolini was a radical socialist (Communism was born in 1921), he founded Fascism as an anticlerical movement and he was a self proclaimed atheist. The "Fasci da combattimento" (hence the name fascism) were a paramilitary formation born to repress the socialist and catholic trade unions. However most of Italy was deeply religious at the time and he could not gain a complete control of the Italian society without a truce with the Catholic Church. But that was Realpolitik, yeah: he was atheist and a hypocrite.
Just confront what you posted with this text about the Second World War in USSR: "Stalin abolished the League of the Godless (founded in the 1920s) and arranged a temporary truce with the Orthodox Church; in return, the Metropolitan of Moscow publicly announced in 1942 that Stalin was "the divinely anointed leader of our armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion." Church reopenings were attended by multitudes of devout believers. The regime proudly communicated news about fund-raising efforts by churchmen and congregations to purchase tanks for the army; Ehrenburg openly described people praying, and Simonov wrote poetically and movingly of "the simple crosses on Russian graves." .
I don't know what Wikipedia says but I can assure you that Stalin was in fact an atheist.
Napoleon - 'As an adult, Napoleon was described as a "deist with involuntary respect and fondness for Catholicism." He never believed in a living God; Napoleon's deity was an absent and distant God, but he pragmatically considered organised religions as key elements of social order, and especially Catholicism, whose, according to him, "splendorous ceremonies and sublime moral better act over the imagination of the people than other religions".'
He was so fond of Catholicism that he crowned himself as emperor and doubted that Jesus was a divine being. Citing Dupuy, reported by Bainville: "We are fooling Egyptians with our pretended interest for their religion; neither Bonaparte nor we believe in this religion more than we did in Pius the Defunct's one (that is Pope Pius VI)".
Again he was pretty much an atheist and a hypocrite ("It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon"). Nothing new.
Hitler - 'After his move to Germany, Hitler did not leave his church. Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he "can be classified as Catholic", but that "nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context."' His interest in the occult is also widely documented.
Considering Hitler a Catholic is risible. Hitler's position is ambiguous but it's well documented that he mocked transubstantiation (a Catholi
Probably you never heard of the Russian Revolution or the French Revolution or the Mexican Revolution or the Spanish Civil War. Probably none told you that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Napoleon Bonaparte, Pol Pot were atheist. Probably you never heard of Tibet.
Some alternatives have been proposed: pre-conception (Catholic)
It never was "pre-conception" for the Catholic doctrine and early abortion (i.e. just after conception) is equaled to murder since 1869 (before it was considered just lust). By the way the Catholic doctrine does not state that an embryo is a "human being", but a "human life" (a concept that was introduced in the second half of the XX century): they don't think it is a baby until later in its development, however an agreement about how much later is missing since the Middle Age.
That's why the use of the GOTO statement is accepted by the Linux kernel coding style (Chapter 7: Centralized exiting of functions).
The reasons for the lack of female participation in open source are a touchy subject, and I probably risk offending some folks, but the fact is that the movement is largely made up of male computer nerds with few social skills and little female contact.
This is a bad generalization at best. Not too different from the first post.
My guess is that women fare better in proprietary software development because it implies a level of professionalism, since if you can't interact well socially with co-workers, you usually don't work there anymore.
As far as I could see there aren't much more female closed source software programmers than female open source software programmers. Obviously some closed source software company employed female workers, but not extensively as programmers or server admins or the likes. Closed source software legendary programmers are all men as far as I know.
In my opinion it should be easier for a female programmer to develop for open source software because when you post some patch to a project you are pretty much anonymous: there is no race, gender or else, just an email account and a pseudonym. If it works, it is accepted; if not, it is rejected. Simply as that.
AC are not paid shills because AC never get the mod points needed by the true shills to mod themselves up. Moreover AC post start with zero points against regular users' one point (or two).
I don't think that I'm offtopic if I ask you how you could read the FTA and write the first post (citing the FTA btw) in less than a minute after that the story was published. I'm not offtopic because the answer could invalidate all your points.
You may have a point... I didn't notice the timestamp and the account number, but after reading your post I took a look at his posting history and I have to say that there's something fishy.
What? She's got no G+ page, search "Katy Perry" on Google and tell me what you see.
I just did it and I see: wikipedia, KP's offical site, mtv, her twitter account, a fan site, an english newspaper with an article about her, a couple of pictures (not from G+) and some more news. The only thing related to Google is a couple of youtube videos...
Probably because those searching for "Katy Perry" on Google are not looking for her facebook profile and never click on it. I mean, If I'm a facebook registered user and I'm looking for her facebook profile, I'd search Katy Perry on facebook, not on Google; and if I'm not a facebook user I can't see the point of searching for her facebook profile...
It doesn't seem a big deal.
Granted, all the open source work they done is in their interest - but that's the same for any company contributing to open source.
What is not the same, it's when someone works against the interests of other companies (or even of the community).
* they have assisted the NodeJS project in implementing Windows support
* they have contributed 3 (maybe more) concepts/libraries to the jQuery community
* they lead a fully open source project called NuGet (.NET package manager)
* they host the source code for Azure tooling on GitHub, and accept pull requests
* they ship jQuery (and other open-source JavaScript libraries) in ASP.NET MVC
* they release the source code for ASP.NET MVC, and probably a few other libraries
That stuff seems a lot Azure-centric (perhaps you're a web developer) and that is not a bad thing per se. However I must remark that Azure is heavily locked in with Microsoft technologies (IIS, Microsoft SQL, Hyper-V...).
on one day you get a massive push for right stuff like open source and other good practices
Please, answer me because I am not sarcastic: what are you referring to with that phrase?
Windows CE/Embedded CE/EC was released 16 years ago. I know that Microsoft want us to believe it never existed...
Did they? He literally said something like I'm sorry to hear that (from Mocality?), we're investigating. Those seem to me preemptive apologies. By the way, the database was publicly available: Google Kenya vs Mocality Controversy: Scandal or Tantrums?.
This FUD about Google is getting really annoying. A random guy from a Kenya-based obscure society posts an entry blog accusing Google of breaking the law in every possible manner and then the usual suspects start ranting? Come on.
This whole story could be just a bad forgery and nonetheless the Google bashing starts again: I don't know how it works there in Kenya, but where I live if someone is suspecting such a misbehaving the first step is to call the police or the lawyers. Do you know that all those facts(?) the guy is showing us would be null in a trial? What did he achieve doing this? Just bad advertisement for Google and some more clicks for his obscure company, nothing more. This is a non-story, like when Microsoft claims that Linux infringes 200 patents or so. No trial, no way to know the truth, no story.
I post this for the posterity: Naspers to benefit from facebook ipo, Napsters is Mocality's parent company.
Whatever happens this year, I'm sure iPhone users will grab the popcorn and enjoy the show.
Why? Samsung is selling more smartphones than Apple right now[1], so if they are going to fork Android to, say, Samsungoid, the new number one will be Samsungoid. And the number two could very likely be Vanilla Android...
I'm sorry for your Apple shares, but the iPhone, iPod prime time is past. Well, I don't know if you own Apple shares (so I'm sorry if I'm mistaken), but you are always so readily vocal against Google (harsh first post here, harsh first post yesterday with the Korea investigation story...) and so in love with iPhones that you look like you own a lot of them.
[1] Gartner report for the third quarter 2011
So, in your opinion, Google is paying Mozilla to strengthen its search engine market share (85%) at the expense of its web browser market share (25%) because they fear the antitrust scrutiny. Just to point out, an antitrust investigation on Chrome is just impossible: it is not by any means in the same position as IE was, the only browser bundled with a monopolistic OS.
It's like how Microsoft keeps releasing Office for Mac and various other utilities to make sure the Mac is out there just enough to keep antitrust regulators off its back.
No. MS keeps releasing Office for Mac because: it makes money (1), it secures the Office lock-in by spreading the OOXML format (2). The second point is extremely important to MS, they want to spread their inextricable file formats everywhere so to secure their monopoly. See? All the contrary to what you said.
RMS himself says the goal of GPL is to destroy non free software and RMS makes it clear he WANTS GPL to be "viral" and cause businesses to be forced to open up their code, as his whole goal is to destroy non free software.
Maybe... however the post by RMS you linked says otherwise: "writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better", which means that RMS thinks that non-free software is bound to fail and that's a good thing in his opinion. GPL or not.
So yes having a more permissive license is of the good, it means that companies that might need a document engine or spreadsheet engine can easily use OO.o as a base without worrying of running afoul of the GPL. Remember that like it or not RMS IS a militant, always has been, and with each version of GPL he tries his damnedest to close any and all possible loopholes that would allow a non free company to use it.
This is exactly the FUD I was talking about. If a company wants to use parts of a GPL program as a base for its own program without distributing the source code, it can. The GPL (version 1,2,3...) says that the aforementioned company has to distribute the source code alongside the compiled binaries, however if it does not distribute them to third parties, it is not bound to release the source code. Obviously if it intends to sell the program (in a way or the other), there's a price, like for everything I could add, and that price is the release of the source code.
As for RMS willing to destroy non-free companies, I've got the impression that the feeling is reciprocal and that's not just because RMS is used to talking over the top, but because GNU and Linux (and not BSD) are a threat to the revenues of some companies. Even the mighty Apache web server owes a big part of its success to all those Linux servers.