I believe the Commonwealth Bank will give you a student credit card. $400 limit or so, but that's enough to order Solaris.
Alternately, you could try to get a debit card - a Mastercard/Visa that debits from a savings account, like EFTPOS, rather than drawing on money you don't actually have:P The big four don't do it, but I think St George's does. (Although other issues mean I'll never bank with St George's again.. sigh..) You could also try the building societies/credit unions.
There's nothing in the article to suggest that AMD is abandoning the PC chip market.
Their president said that they're branching out into different markets, and Forbes went on the comment that this is a shift away from an emphasis solely on the PC market. But nobody said that AMD is going to stop making chips for PCs.
I use both Windows and *nix. I'm a software developer. I also use computers for recreational web browsing and communications (email, IRC, various IMs etc).
Generally I'll sit at a Windows desktop, and access a FreeBSD box remotely. Why? Because it's easy to do. Sitting on the FreeBSD box and accessing Windows would be painful.
Most of the Unix-specific stuff is accessed via a shell. There's no real difference to me between an X display full of aterms, and a Windows display full of PuTTYs.
Exporting graphical applications works better this way. X applications are swift remotely, and can be displayed rootlessly given the right X server on the Windows machine. The same doesn't apply in reverse.
Windows command line barely works remotely. For some reason, it's always slow and jittery. It's also far too prone to breakage. I telnetted into a work Windows machine from home the other day (ssh'd through the firewall first:), tried to run an application and it appeared to hang. Got into work the next morning and there's a standard Windows error message about a missing dynamic library. In a dialog box, waiting for an "OK" click, whilst the app waiting on it was in a telnet session.
The actual applications that I use don't differ much between platforms; I spend most of my time in OpenOffice, gvim, Xircon/xchat and IE/Galeon. Neither Galeon or IE are notably worse than the other.
So funnily enough, it's one of *nix's strengths (easy and powerful remote access) that puts Windows on my actual desktop.
How does this kind of thing fit in with the Austrailian Constitution? Must be something in there about a right to assemble.
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and certainly there's no constitutional protection of a right to assemble. In the state of Western Australia, any group of 3 or more people may be ordered to disperse by an officer of the law, and said group is subject to arrest and charge if they don't. This law was, IIRC, introduced and enforced about 20 years ago in response to union protests that the government didn't like.
If I remember correctly, Doom wasn't released under the GPL. It was released under some other license (maybe id's own?) but the most obvious difference was that it didn't require developers to release their source code
IIRC, it didn't allow commercial exploitation either. So this Nokia port must be either GPLed, or they bought a separate license from id.
I'm an Australian, and we use the "instant runoff" system described in the article. My view on it is that rather than putting the most popular candidate into office, it keeps the least popular candidates out of office.
There is a problem that the article neglected to mention - "how to vote" cards. Each candidate will generally recommend how they think people should vote - themselves first, naturally. The same sheep mentality that leads to 70% of the population voting for the same party every election leads to many religiously following these how to vote cards.
The end result is a heap of wheeling and dealing between candidates for these "directed preferences." It even becomes a stick in between elections that the minor parties can use to beat a major party with; in a marginal seat, having a minor party favour you over your primary opposition can be the difference between winning and losing.
WRONG! You are confusing free as in speech with free as in beer.
No, I'm not.
When I buy any GPL derived work, I can demand and get the original source code to tweak and modify at will [...] BSD does not do this.
I know this.
GPL allows derivative works to be sold without redistribution rights
No, it doesn't. If I sell someone a program (source and/or binary) under the GPL, I must grant them the right to redistribute it under the same terms. I am not able to sell it to them without also providing them with rights to redistribute.
GPL is good, but when you really think about it, source code for government software isn't really something that should fall into the wrong hands
This is a non-issue, surely. Not letting dangerous government information (ie classified information) into the public's hands is covered by secrecy laws that have nothing to do with copyright law, which exists to secure the "rights" (whether you believe them too many, too few, or just right) of IP holders.
If you come across a classified military report, you can't spread it around, regardless of what licence it is under. I'm pretty sure it would be completely uncopyrighted, if it was produced by the government - once they become unclassified, you can copy them as much as you like.
You imply that the BSD license somehow prevents people from redistributing and copying code
Hmm, I think you may have a point. The photograph wasn't meant to be under the BSDL, though, just the original landscape:)
Let me adjust things slightly: If the park was under the BSD license, the photographer would be able to sell copies of his photograph without giving away exclusive rights to it's distribution. Of course, if he wanted to, he could let people share it in turn. If the park was GPL'd, he wouldn't have this choice: he would have to let people share the picture in turn.
You're right on the second point, of course. Everyone, please read the licenses instead of relying on twisted analogies!
In the non-code world, the government makes choices like that all the time - it might choose to purchase a particular piece of land and commit to making it available to everyone forever by declaring it a National Park and committing to maintain it, a GPL-like philosophy; alternately, it might choose to just dump a particular piece of property on the market, putting it up for auction and letting the purchaser do what he wills with it, a BSD-like philosophy.
I think this analogy is completely flawed. Under the BSD license, the original piece of code will always remain free for everyone to use. When the government sells a piece of property, it's no longer available to the public.
FreeBSD didn't go away when Apple incorporated pieces of the code into OS X.
Both the BSDL and GPL keep the original code free for all, the difference is in the derived works - the GPL stipulates that they, too, must remain free, wheras the BSDL doesn't. I think a more appropriate analogy would be: the BSD license would allow a photographer to take a picture of the sunset in a national park, and retain all rights to it. Under the GPL, the photographer could still make and sell the photograph, but he couldn't stop people who bought the photograph from making copies and giving them away, or selling them.
I'll second the lwm recommendation. My only gripe would be that it's pretty much impossible to use mouseless - I keep intending to hack some keyboard-friendly stuff in, but never seem to get around to (a) learning X and (b) getting around to it:)
So when you say VOIP over TCP/IP, it just means that VOIP uses protocols in the TCP/IP suite as opposed to say X.25 or ATM or IBM SNA.
Makes sense I suppose. It sounded like the parent was criticising the use of TCP/IP as a silly, buzzword-happy solution (let's transmit voice using XML next!), while my point was that (a) it makes sense to send voice over a packet network and (b) if you're going to be doing that, it makes sense to use IP.
Why does everyone insist we need to do absoultely everything over TCP/IP?
Voice over IP doesn't send voice data over TCP, it uses UDP. UDP isn't complicated at all - it just gives you a way to uniquely identify a machine and say "send this data to it." It doesn't even guarantee delivery of the data. It's probably the best, most accepted way of sending addressed, digital data over wires.
Now, imagine you're a company that's just put an office up. Would you rather install two sets of wires to each desk (ethernet and phone network), one of which requires you to get a licensed contractor in if you need work done on it? Or a single set of wires which can be maintained by the people who run your computers?
And who exactly are you, to tell me which products I should or shouldn't use ?
Now, now, I was stating my view on what the issue is - not my view on the issue itself! Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer... if BitKeeper works for the primary developers, then all the power to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I propose we call it .com
.. could taxi drivers lease portable radios with headphones instead?
If I have my own portable radio with headphones, can I use it in a taxi without the driver having to pay?
(Offtopic to all but Australians..)
I believe the Commonwealth Bank will give you a student credit card. $400 limit or so, but that's enough to order Solaris.
Alternately, you could try to get a debit card - a Mastercard/Visa that debits from a savings account, like EFTPOS, rather than drawing on money you don't actually have :P The big four don't do it, but I think St George's does. (Although other issues mean I'll never bank with St George's again.. sigh..) You could also try the building societies/credit unions.
I think the market fall was due to their credit rating being dropped. (It's mentioned briefly in the article)
Their president said that they're branching out into different markets, and Forbes went on the comment that this is a shift away from an emphasis solely on the PC market. But nobody said that AMD is going to stop making chips for PCs.
The Slashdot effect, or Activision (distributors of id's stuff these days) lawyers?
There's no implicit reason that you'd have to choose. At this point, it comes down to developer choice: what do you want to develop on?
I use both Windows and *nix. I'm a software developer. I also use computers for recreational web browsing and communications (email, IRC, various IMs etc).
Generally I'll sit at a Windows desktop, and access a FreeBSD box remotely. Why? Because it's easy to do. Sitting on the FreeBSD box and accessing Windows would be painful.
The actual applications that I use don't differ much between platforms; I spend most of my time in OpenOffice, gvim, Xircon/xchat and IE/Galeon. Neither Galeon or IE are notably worse than the other.
So funnily enough, it's one of *nix's strengths (easy and powerful remote access) that puts Windows on my actual desktop.
No, it isn't. Terrorism is the use of violence and/or threats to frighten a civilian population, to coerce or punish them.
Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and certainly there's no constitutional protection of a right to assemble. In the state of Western Australia, any group of 3 or more people may be ordered to disperse by an officer of the law, and said group is subject to arrest and charge if they don't. This law was, IIRC, introduced and enforced about 20 years ago in response to union protests that the government didn't like.
Patent it!
I haven't used it yet, but looking at Arabica is on my todo list. No STL integration, but it does deliver std::string or std::wstring.
IIRC, it didn't allow commercial exploitation either. So this Nokia port must be either GPLed, or they bought a separate license from id.
I'm an Australian, and we use the "instant runoff" system described in the article. My view on it is that rather than putting the most popular candidate into office, it keeps the least popular candidates out of office.
There is a problem that the article neglected to mention - "how to vote" cards. Each candidate will generally recommend how they think people should vote - themselves first, naturally. The same sheep mentality that leads to 70% of the population voting for the same party every election leads to many religiously following these how to vote cards.
The end result is a heap of wheeling and dealing between candidates for these "directed preferences." It even becomes a stick in between elections that the minor parties can use to beat a major party with; in a marginal seat, having a minor party favour you over your primary opposition can be the difference between winning and losing.
No, I'm not.
I know this.
No, it doesn't. If I sell someone a program (source and/or binary) under the GPL, I must grant them the right to redistribute it under the same terms. I am not able to sell it to them without also providing them with rights to redistribute.
Hmm, so the 4 year countdown begins now? :) If there isn't a site counting down the days already..
(I'm joking. Although, come to think of it, not about there probably being a site already doing it..)
This is a non-issue, surely. Not letting dangerous government information (ie classified information) into the public's hands is covered by secrecy laws that have nothing to do with copyright law, which exists to secure the "rights" (whether you believe them too many, too few, or just right) of IP holders.
If you come across a classified military report, you can't spread it around, regardless of what licence it is under. I'm pretty sure it would be completely uncopyrighted, if it was produced by the government - once they become unclassified, you can copy them as much as you like.
Hmm, I think you may have a point. The photograph wasn't meant to be under the BSDL, though, just the original landscape :)
Let me adjust things slightly: If the park was under the BSD license, the photographer would be able to sell copies of his photograph without giving away exclusive rights to it's distribution. Of course, if he wanted to, he could let people share it in turn. If the park was GPL'd, he wouldn't have this choice: he would have to let people share the picture in turn.
You're right on the second point, of course. Everyone, please read the licenses instead of relying on twisted analogies!
I think this analogy is completely flawed. Under the BSD license, the original piece of code will always remain free for everyone to use. When the government sells a piece of property, it's no longer available to the public. FreeBSD didn't go away when Apple incorporated pieces of the code into OS X.
Both the BSDL and GPL keep the original code free for all, the difference is in the derived works - the GPL stipulates that they, too, must remain free, wheras the BSDL doesn't. I think a more appropriate analogy would be: the BSD license would allow a photographer to take a picture of the sunset in a national park, and retain all rights to it. Under the GPL, the photographer could still make and sell the photograph, but he couldn't stop people who bought the photograph from making copies and giving them away, or selling them.
I'll second the lwm recommendation. My only gripe would be that it's pretty much impossible to use mouseless - I keep intending to hack some keyboard-friendly stuff in, but never seem to get around to (a) learning X and (b) getting around to it :)
I do believe that the (more recent) lwm homepage is at http://www.boognish.org.uk/enh/lwm/
And the daemonette.
Makes sense I suppose. It sounded like the parent was criticising the use of TCP/IP as a silly, buzzword-happy solution (let's transmit voice using XML next!), while my point was that (a) it makes sense to send voice over a packet network and (b) if you're going to be doing that, it makes sense to use IP.
Voice over IP doesn't send voice data over TCP, it uses UDP. UDP isn't complicated at all - it just gives you a way to uniquely identify a machine and say "send this data to it." It doesn't even guarantee delivery of the data. It's probably the best, most accepted way of sending addressed, digital data over wires.
Now, imagine you're a company that's just put an office up. Would you rather install two sets of wires to each desk (ethernet and phone network), one of which requires you to get a licensed contractor in if you need work done on it? Or a single set of wires which can be maintained by the people who run your computers?
Now, now, I was stating my view on what the issue is - not my view on the issue itself! Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer ... if BitKeeper works for the primary developers, then all the power to them.
Your work is appreciated, btw.
A lot of people seem to commenting that there's nothing wrong with BitKeeper being licensed as it is. This isn't really being argued ..
The argument is that because BitKeeper's license is as it is, that the Linux kernel developers shouldn't be using it.