The question is rather why one _needs_ to trust Google... do you want to marry it? Do you tell Gmail your most secret knowledge? Do you use unqncrypted e-mail communication to set up your world domination plans? If yes, then that question really doesn't matter. anyway.
> or is it merely a politicised 'anything you can do we can do better' by the European Space Agency?"
Military-owned: they can and will shut it down whenever they think it is necessary. What will airplanes do then? There have been really bad accidents because of that. I thought you Americans like freedom? How does that go together with a military-owned GPS system? Plus: it won't have an artificially limited resolution.
Selling video on portable media has always been rather a necessity than a convenience -- in contrast to newspapers or books. So the next obvious step is to use the internet and online storage, which is also much better for backup purposes as the backups can be checked on a regular basis and does not need user interaction.
So, so. Respectable/. user. I already thought that a majority of/.ers runs WinXP. Or didn't you already notice that Google primarily produces software for Windows????
So much Linux distros are out there. The Gentoo developers, for example, do not even fix a blocking bug (marked as minor) for mplayer since weeks.... although it is extremely obvious how to do that...
I'm a physician and I have never heard the word 'cat'. Quantum entanglement is not very complicated. In fact, it is pretty easy to explain if one takes two facts as granted:
1.) Nature realizes all possibilities which we cannot exclude. 2.) There are conservation laws.
Now take two photons from which you know that they have been produced in a decay of a spinless particle. Their spins must add up to one. So measuring one photon's spin immediately allows to determine the other one's spin just by looking at the angular conservation law.
I personally think that the basic problem of this all is due to the mixture of dynamical evolution and discrete restrictions not being part of the evolution. The evolution itself respects conservation laws as can be seen from Noether symmetries in the Lagrangian, but symmetrization (the knowability problem) must be introduced separately by a symmetrization procedure. Example: when can you separate two identical particles and when not? If you know their initial states, you can determine their identities by looking at their positions: assuming some momentum distribution it is up to some point in time very well possible to identify a particle with an initial state particle... IMHO this illustrates the basic problem of enforcing a symmatrization procedure which is not part of the evolution....
> Reply from: WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003) > > gimp > n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet > [syn: lameness, limping, gimpiness, gameness, > claudication]
It is EXCELLENT to remember. How many application names are there which contain 'photo' in their names? And what does 'shop' have to do with a graphical editor??? The name is even misleading. It is done by a soul-less marketing strategist.
Secondly, if you cannot remember GIMP among up to 20 programs in your KDE/Graphics menu, accompanied by a nice icon and a short description, you are probably so brainless that you cannot even find the power button of your PC. Let Microsoft stick to support the brainless among the users. That's their fair share of the market.
Third: people involved in such discussions are ALWAYS those who have never done anything useful for the open-source community -- and who will never do. Check it for yourself. It is almost a law of nature.
You can use the xosd library for all sorts of monitoring purposes, ie. to warn you when disk space gets low or someone tries to log into your computer. Just let a script run in the background and pipe the messages to the screen by using the osd_cat binary.
"The current version of the licence, which was written in 1991 and is now 14 years old, has become central to the activities and operation of a large part of all companies and governments and is now in need of review."
Isn't it already integrated into the OS??? Can't I already run MySQL and Postgres on a regular desktop Linux system? The only thing that is lacking is a common desktop database interface that makes all independent of the actual database backend and lets desktop apps connect to the database. But, "unfortunately," there is already Berkeley DB which already does a pretty good job at providing database functionality for desktop apps. So what? Could someone give me a clue as to why we need a giant DB running on each dumb desktop? Why should it make sense to integrate a DB with the file system or with the OS -- whatever the latter means? Hasn't Linux not proven already that a modular structure like we have today is the best and most accepted solution and will probably ever be?
Scratching my head and wondering what this fuss is all about... ????
No. If you are the author of some work, you have the copyright and therefore the decision is up to you under which license(s) you want to sell or distribute your work.
Uhm, I wouldn't call that an invention. Making requests is nothing new. Maybe it was something new to make a request without actually making a request, but, heck, it is just what it is: some network functionality for yet another programming language...
First of all, dependency hell arises due to users wanting to do something they wouldn't even dream of doing under Windows. It is due to using unofficial third-party package repositories together with "fixed" distributions like Fedora etc.
As I always have said: use Linux only if you are willing to spend a lot of time. Then you can use Gentoo Linux and you WON'T end up in dependency hell! The dependency hell problem is unavoidable if you don't care for Linux but nonetheless want to use it. Then you buy some "fixed" distribution which usually works pretty well. But then you go on to import packages missing in the distribution and quickly get into trouble -- probably because these packages were left out of the distro for good reasons.
BTW: even under distributions like Fedora, the dependency hell may be avoided by using the LD_LIBRARY_PATH correctly. But, of course, this is not recommend for not-so-inclined users and it may take time until you have all packages installed into their own "root".
Quiz: can you just download the source code old Windows libraries and build them into another root directory in order to support even the oldest applications? Come on, guys. Why must I read all this mindless **** on slashdot?
For those of you, who have enough of that, go to kerneltrap and groklaw. They haven't much news, but it is at least worth reading. And you may learn from them.
Isn't one reason for having a distro like SuSE or RedHat to have some sort of user-friendly setup? Isn't it the only reason?
The/etc configuration scheme is open and easy to understand -- at least for those who care. Maybe a "consolidation" could actually be done by setting up something like a common configuration framework which "understands" each package's configuration files. That way we could have user interfaces which could be run with any package combination and which could even enforce some package combinations depending on the user's wishes for specific features.
1.) Most open-source developers work for immediate reasons -- other than to attract many customers. They just need to fulfill specific purposes.
2.) Why is there always someone mixing up "Linux" and open source??? And why TFH is there always someone who posts such mindless stories here on slashdot?
3.) Having dozens of distros around doesn't mean that all of them are important. Many aren't.
4.) Having dozens of distros around doesn't mean that each one is working on his own. They all share 99% and more of the same code base.
5.) Restricting ourselves to specific solutions isn't possible. We work for free. We do what we like. I do what I want. And we probably wouldn't like it that much if we were forced to consolidate.
6.) Consolidation is there. Look at X11. Look at Firefox. Look at KDE and, maybe, GNOME -- although I don't take the latter one as a serious competitor. Are there many different kernel branches around? Not one which is of any importance! And the -mm patches are always done against the mainstream kernel branch. So what?
7.) To comprehend Linux, use Gentoo. Gentoo Linux is a first step into the right direction: distributing Linux without using distributions -- each package gets released using its own "schedule".
Slashdot Mirror
What about copyright???
firefox seems to never release any memory... do you have the same problem?
The question is rather why one _needs_ to trust Google... do you want to marry it? Do you tell Gmail your most secret knowledge? Do you use unqncrypted e-mail communication to set up your world domination plans? If yes, then that question really doesn't matter. anyway.
/. post.
Yet another senseless
...calling them nerds.
"privilege of reaching AOL subscribers"
... another totally irrelevant /. post.
Think about it. Now think again.
Who cares?
> or is it merely a politicised 'anything you can do we can do better' by the European Space Agency?"
Military-owned: they can and will shut it down whenever they think it is necessary. What will airplanes do then? There have been really bad accidents because of that. I thought you Americans like freedom? How does that go together with a military-owned GPS system? Plus: it won't have an artificially limited resolution.
Selling video on portable media has always been rather a necessity than a convenience -- in contrast to newspapers or books. So the next obvious step is to use the internet and online storage, which is also much better for backup purposes as the backups can be checked on a regular basis and does not need user interaction.
So, so. Respectable /. user. I already thought that a majority of /.ers runs WinXP. Or didn't you already notice that Google primarily produces software for Windows????
So much Linux distros are out there. The Gentoo developers, for example, do not even fix a blocking bug (marked as minor) for mplayer since weeks.... although it is extremely obvious how to do that...
> But some of their comments are well worth reading and thinking about.
Which ones? I have just read the first four ones and find them rather old and unspectacular.
Aha. So let's drop 'Micro' from 'Microsoft' and you have got something that tells you nothing. Drop Schroedinger from cat and all you have is a pet.
Correction: the spins must add up to zero.
I'm a physician and I have never heard the word 'cat'. Quantum entanglement is not very complicated. In fact, it is pretty easy to explain if one takes two facts as granted:
1.) Nature realizes all possibilities which we cannot exclude.
2.) There are conservation laws.
Now take two photons from which you know that they have been produced in a decay of a spinless particle. Their spins must add up to one. So measuring one photon's spin immediately allows to determine the other one's spin just by looking at the angular conservation law.
I personally think that the basic problem of this all is due to the mixture of dynamical evolution and discrete restrictions not being part of the evolution. The evolution itself respects conservation laws as can be seen from Noether symmetries in the Lagrangian, but symmetrization (the knowability problem) must be introduced separately by a symmetrization procedure. Example: when can you separate two identical particles and when not? If you know their initial states, you can determine their identities by looking at their positions: assuming some momentum distribution it is up to some point in time very well possible to identify a particle with an initial state particle... IMHO this illustrates the basic problem of enforcing a symmatrization procedure which is not part of the evolution....
First of all, the name 'GIMP' is very unique.
> Reply from: WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003)
>
> gimp
> n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet
> [syn: lameness, limping, gimpiness, gameness,
> claudication]
It is EXCELLENT to remember. How many application names are there which contain 'photo' in their names? And what does 'shop' have to do with a graphical editor??? The name is even misleading. It is done by a soul-less marketing strategist.
Secondly, if you cannot remember GIMP among up to 20 programs in your KDE/Graphics menu, accompanied by a nice icon and a short description, you are probably so brainless that you cannot even find the power button of your PC. Let Microsoft stick to support the brainless among the users. That's their fair share of the market.
Third: people involved in such discussions are ALWAYS those who have never done anything useful for the open-source community -- and who will never do. Check it for yourself. It is almost a law of nature.
I don't care. If there is no open-source driver for Linux, I simply won't buy the product. If they can live with that, I can do so too.
You can use the xosd library for all sorts of monitoring purposes, ie. to warn you when disk space gets low or someone tries to log into your computer. Just let a script run in the background and pipe the messages to the screen by using the osd_cat binary.
"The current version of the licence, which was written in 1991 and is now 14 years old, has become central to the activities and operation of a large part of all companies and governments and is now in need of review."
Why?
Again: that is nonsense. No company may tell you how you use your internet. Still another totally dumb slashdot story. Argh.
Isn't it already integrated into the OS??? Can't I already run MySQL and Postgres on a regular desktop Linux system? The only thing that is lacking is a common desktop database interface that makes all independent of the actual database backend and lets desktop apps connect to the database. But, "unfortunately," there is already Berkeley DB which already does a pretty good job at providing database functionality for desktop apps. So what? Could someone give me a clue as to why we need a giant DB running on each dumb desktop? Why should it make sense to integrate a DB with the file system or with the OS -- whatever the latter means? Hasn't Linux not proven already that a modular structure like we have today is the best and most accepted solution and will probably ever be?
Scratching my head and wondering what this fuss is all about... ????
No. If you are the author of some work, you have the copyright and therefore the decision is up to you under which license(s) you want to sell or distribute your work.
Uhm, I wouldn't call that an invention. Making requests is nothing new. Maybe it was something new to make a request without actually making a request, but, heck, it is just what it is: some network functionality for yet another programming language...
First of all, dependency hell arises due to users wanting to do something they wouldn't even dream of doing under Windows. It is due to using unofficial third-party package repositories together with "fixed" distributions like Fedora etc.
As I always have said: use Linux only if you are willing to spend a lot of time. Then you can use Gentoo Linux and you WON'T end up in dependency hell! The dependency hell problem is unavoidable if you don't care for Linux but nonetheless want to use it. Then you buy some "fixed" distribution which usually works pretty well. But then you go on to import packages missing in the distribution and quickly get into trouble -- probably because these packages were left out of the distro for good reasons.
BTW: even under distributions like Fedora, the dependency hell may be avoided by using the LD_LIBRARY_PATH correctly. But, of course, this is not recommend for not-so-inclined users and it may take time until you have all packages installed into their own "root".
Quiz: can you just download the source code old Windows libraries and build them into another root directory in order to support even the oldest applications? Come on, guys. Why must I read all this mindless **** on slashdot?
For those of you, who have enough of that, go to kerneltrap and groklaw. They haven't much news, but it is at least worth reading. And you may learn from them.
Could someone please explain me why TNC needs to be implemented on the hardware side?
Isn't one reason for having a distro like SuSE or RedHat to have some sort of user-friendly setup? Isn't it the only reason?
/etc configuration scheme is open and easy to understand -- at least for those who care. Maybe a "consolidation" could actually be done by setting up something like a common configuration framework which "understands" each package's configuration files. That way we could have user interfaces which could be run with any package combination and which could even enforce some package combinations depending on the user's wishes for specific features.
The
1.) Most open-source developers work for immediate reasons -- other than to attract many customers. They just need to fulfill specific purposes.
2.) Why is there always someone mixing up "Linux" and open source??? And why TFH is there always someone who posts such mindless stories here on slashdot?
3.) Having dozens of distros around doesn't mean that all of them are important. Many aren't.
4.) Having dozens of distros around doesn't mean that each one is working on his own. They all share 99% and more of the same code base.
5.) Restricting ourselves to specific solutions isn't possible. We work for free. We do what we like. I do what I want. And we probably wouldn't like it that much if we were forced to consolidate.
6.) Consolidation is there. Look at X11. Look at Firefox. Look at KDE and, maybe, GNOME -- although I don't take the latter one as a serious competitor. Are there many different kernel branches around? Not one which is of any importance! And the -mm patches are always done against the mainstream kernel branch. So what?
7.) To comprehend Linux, use Gentoo. Gentoo Linux is a first step into the right direction: distributing Linux without using distributions -- each package gets released using its own "schedule".