*snort* So, basically, you're bitching because you have the opportunity to compile Apache to your very specific needs? That's not exactly a drawback if the admin has a clue. Furthermore, you keep spouting your bullshit in threads about Linux's desktop suitability, not its server suitability. Last I heard, Apache wasn't a server app. When was the last time you had to recompile StarOffice?
(*SNORT*)?????????
I think you have been spending too much time on slashdot. (by this tell-tale signature, I can tell you are the same anonymous troll that responded to my last post).
but anyway...to my point..Linux is mainly used as a server OS (rough estimate about 70%). If all I would like to do is to get apache running with server extensions (which many people do) I don't want to spend days looking up the hidden sequence of compilation options. I have noticed this with many..MANY linux applications. It's mainly because they were built with the intent that programmers would be using them.
No, I mean stop spouting nothing but four-year-old FUD and unsupported lying bullshit
Unsupported??? Just look at ANY server app. for linux. If you want to use an option that is even the slightest bit different than the ones that the programmer wanted you to have, you have to recompile it. Until things like this change, linux will remain underground.
With 30 different distros, each different than the next, a programmer is basically forced to release their work open-sourced (or support only some distributions. Look at kylix. They are only able to support redhat and slackware). Standards are really the key to the success of linux.
Take the gnutella network as an example. A year ago, it was totally decentralized. It also had severe stability problems (in a sense, this is what linux is now, with all the distros). After bearshare and limewire came onto the scene, they centralized it with their host cache servers. Look at gnutella now. It has improved in performance 10 fold.(this is what linux would become, if it was a little more standardized)
and having the opportunity to recompile your apps when needed (reality)?
not re-compiling your applications is fine, if you have no specific purpose for linux. (IE. It's a hobby) If I actually am trying to run a business website, I am going to have to recompile many apps. If I have no real purpose to run linux (like most people), I won't.
Don't we want businesses to have a reason to move over to linux?
So, since I say you're an idiot and you say you aren't, do Slashdotters also suffer from multiple personality disorder? When one person says one thing in one thread and another person says another thing in another thread in the same forum that doesn't exactly make either of them hypocrites. However, your inability to comprehend this extremely simple fact does make you an idiot.
Im talking about the slanted views of the editors and producers of slashdot, not the people that post.
OPEN your eyes....The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend
This was said with the notion that you, like many others, use linux because it is against the best interest of big companies, like microsoft. Although I would not like a microsoft owned world...A "GNU" owned world would be just as bad.
It seems to me that that's a message lots of Slashdot readers should take to heart. Knowing how to program doesn't mean I know how to sell my work.
not necessarily true. If you are involved in the technical industry (ie: a techie), you will know what sells, and what doesn't.
Take P2P for instance. Would a pay service such as Napster sell right now? Probably not. Why? because things like gnutella,morpheus are free. A business person might think otherwise.
I think techies SHOULD be making the market decisions. We might not have as many dot bombs.
Whether we like it or not, companies like limewire and bearshare really make or break the stablility of the gnutella network. (they run the servers for the host caching).
Getting the open-sourced version, and ripping out the ads will just push gnutella's stability closer to what it was about a year ago. (remember the slashdot articles about the death of gnutella? This is also due to the "open-ness" of the network. Any joe programmer can create a client, no matter how poorly designed. In the case of limewire and bearshare, it was for the better.).
because I have to compile all my applications because I'm too almighty stupid to get a distro more recent than Slackware 1.1
ok, tell me how to do this (without compiling).
I would like the latest version of apache installed, with php (and mysql extentions). This should also be statically linked. Although I know how to do this, and have it running on my servers, I could not find a way to do it without having to compile php/apache. I probably have used linux a hell of a lot longer than you have.
BTW. Im using Debian.
Slashdotters are hypocrites because some of them support prosecuting GPL violations while others violate copyrights owned by the RIAA companies.
this is the truth. The proof is in the pudding.
Demonstrate intelligence for once
You mean with leftist dribble. Sure, ok. Linux is a Masterpiece. (and it has NO security flaws). Richard stallman is a genius (I want him to have my kids). Microsoft is an EVIL corporation that DESERVES to get their billions of dollars take away. (they also STOLE QDOS from an un-suspecting company).
OPEN your eyes....The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
kinda funny...funny that when things such as the GNU license are violated, there is an outspoken response to "correct" the situation. But when music (IE. People's protected work under the copyright) is freely distributed, and the owner's rights are violated, it's alright.
It shouldn't matter who has control of the copyright (big businesses ot individuals). It is a license, and it should be treated as such.
Then microsoft is a pretty big part of the P2P community. They did write the tools used to build kazaa/morpheus/grokster.
Stallman is trying to take credit for everything under the GNU licese/compiled with GCC. Im sure glad borland is starting to forge a new path for linux developers...it's called kylix.
Yes, it's called business. It's the type of business behaviour that got the DOJ involved.
no, it is not.
the type of behavior that got the DOJ involved was things like making computer manufacturers like compaq,dell, and gateway sign agreements making microsoft the only OS they could use.
The agreement was to buy the code for $50k with a condition that Seattle Computer Products (as I think the company was) was not to ask who then end client was.
If I buy product X from company Y, and keep it a secret that im going to sell it to company Z at a 200 percent markup, im a smart business man. This is in NO WAY screwing someone, unethical, or illegal.
As in the microsoft and QDOS agreement, they got their $50K, which I would imagine, at the time was a lot of money.
This is in essence the definition of business. Figuring out how to sell something for a profit.
Needless to say, when they found out it was IBM they were Not Amused and I believe eventually successfully sued Micro$haft.
I can't see how that company could EVER win in court against microsoft (unless microsoft violated their license agreement somehow).
It brings the term SORE LOSER to mind.
Typical Microsoft modus operandi: very clever, very sneaky, based on manipulating information, not exactly illegal but highly unethical.
this absolute FUD, spoken from a true linux zealout
Q: And Mr. Stallman, what do you think about...
A: Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!
Q: Uh, never mind... please stop dancing around, Mr. Stallman, and for god's sake, man, use some fuckin' anti-perspirant!
Hey Bill and Steve, you know what? You don't like opensource? Good, take IP out of Windows. Lets see how far you get without FREE SOFTWARE... grr...
Microsoft could OWN the linux market, if they really wanted to. They could just as easily come out with their own version of X-windows, and because they have some of the best programmers/artists/designers in the world, it would put the final nail in linux's coffin.
Mandrake, on the other hand, has never properly recognized all of my hardware, is somewhat cryptic, and requires considerably more knowledge to repair the install if it doesn't proceed perfectly. These are not the hallmarks of an easy to install product.
hardware support is one of the problems with linux (any flavor). Next, is software support. (I loathe having to compile almost everything I would like to install, or the fact that noone can decide on standards.)
I think you're missing the point. The GPL is a LICENSE, and so is the copyright. Violating one, is just as bad as the other. (obviously you can't live without your free music, so you have to legitimize it some how).
also, it seems to me the main reason people "excused" sharing music, was because of such laws as the "DCMA" and the "SSCA". (laws I am against) Sharing music, because "music and information should be free" is bullshit. It's just a bad excuse for getting something for nothing.
When individuals buy music, the sale doesn't benefit everyone. Instead, it benefits the very few. The record company, the record executive, and if he or she is very, very lucky, the artist who originated the music.
welcome to the world of business. When I buy a microsoft product, it helps one entitity: MICROSOFT. The record companies OWN the music that they sell, LEGALLY, by the artists that sold them the rights.
*snort* According to the idiot you're responding to, every Linux advocate is basically the same anyway. So in his tiny little mind, you did post that comment
This would, at least, get rid of all those cookies associated with images, etc. that get sent by various add sites.
1) if you don't pay for a website, it's going to have ads.
2) if a website has ads, wouldn't you rather see things that you are generally interested in (from your habits), rather than tampon or feminine itch cream ads? (im assuming you're a guy).
The only reason ad companies would even have a reason to track you, is so they can get a better idea of what you might be interested in buying.
To tell you the truth, if they don't care about the "free speech" in linux, and only the "free beer" I can't understand why they didn't choose FreeBsd. It might have saved them about a year and a half ago when they were getting D.o.S. attacked..........
I am bit suspicious of companies that keep on changing their business strategy as if it was a pair of gloves at a first sign of economic trouble.
I am a bit suspicious of a company that tries to make a profit off of something that is described as "better" because it is "free", and im talking about beer.
Re:Does Micrsoft still license DOS?
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 0
I had a adaptec scsi raid card, and it used a bootable CD, with a version of X-Windows with linux on it. It was kinda cool. You could create a floppy, with drivers on it for the OS of your choice.
the parent company of slashdot would sue the shit out of the person/site, and the supporters (the one's that believe music should all be "free") would agree that it was the right thing to do. It's identical to the GNU license. Somebody violates it, they deserve to get taken to court. Somebody violates the copyright, they are "online Freedom fighters, fighting against the tyranny of the copyright laws".
And if viruses and trojans became commonplace on Linux, then what -- would we would see programmers whining about how viruses are industrial terrorism, and attempting to get them made even more illegal than they are now?
maybe, and maybe not.Im just saying that most end users are stupid, and they will be affected by worms and viruses regardless of what OS they are using.
Slashdot Mirror
*snort* So, basically, you're bitching because you have the opportunity to compile Apache to your very specific needs? That's not exactly a drawback if the admin has a clue. Furthermore, you keep spouting your bullshit in threads about Linux's desktop suitability, not its server suitability. Last I heard, Apache wasn't a server app. When was the last time you had to recompile StarOffice?
(*SNORT*)?????????
I think you have been spending too much time on slashdot. (by this tell-tale signature, I can tell you are the same anonymous troll that responded to my last post).
but anyway...to my point..Linux is mainly used as a server OS (rough estimate about 70%). If all I would like to do is to get apache running with server extensions (which many people do) I don't want to spend days looking up the hidden sequence of compilation options. I have noticed this with many..MANY linux applications. It's mainly because they were built with the intent that programmers would be using them.
No, I mean stop spouting nothing but four-year-old FUD and unsupported lying bullshit
Unsupported??? Just look at ANY server app. for linux. If you want to use an option that is even the slightest bit different than the ones that the programmer wanted you to have, you have to recompile it. Until things like this change, linux will remain underground.
With 30 different distros, each different than the next, a programmer is basically forced to release their work open-sourced (or support only some distributions. Look at kylix. They are only able to support redhat and slackware). Standards are really the key to the success of linux.
Take the gnutella network as an example. A year ago, it was totally decentralized. It also had severe stability problems (in a sense, this is what linux is now, with all the distros). After bearshare and limewire came onto the scene, they centralized it with their host cache servers. Look at gnutella now. It has improved in performance 10 fold.(this is what linux would become, if it was a little more standardized)
and having the opportunity to recompile your apps when needed (reality)?
not re-compiling your applications is fine, if you have no specific purpose for linux. (IE. It's a hobby) If I actually am trying to run a business website, I am going to have to recompile many apps. If I have no real purpose to run linux (like most people), I won't.
Don't we want businesses to have a reason to move over to linux?
So, since I say you're an idiot and you say you aren't, do Slashdotters also suffer from multiple personality disorder? When one person says one thing in one thread and another person says another thing in another thread in the same forum that doesn't exactly make either of them hypocrites. However, your inability to comprehend this extremely simple fact does make you an idiot.
Im talking about the slanted views of the editors and producers of slashdot, not the people that post.
OPEN your eyes....The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend
This was said with the notion that you, like many others, use linux because it is against the best interest of big companies, like microsoft. Although I would not like a microsoft owned world...A "GNU" owned world would be just as bad.
It seems to me that that's a message lots of Slashdot readers should take to heart. Knowing how to program doesn't mean I know how to sell my work.
not necessarily true. If you are involved in the technical industry (ie: a techie), you will know what sells, and what doesn't.
Take P2P for instance. Would a pay service such as Napster sell right now? Probably not. Why? because things like gnutella,morpheus are free. A business person might think otherwise.
I think techies SHOULD be making the market decisions. We might not have as many dot bombs.
Whether we like it or not, companies like limewire and bearshare really make or break the stablility of the gnutella network. (they run the servers for the host caching).
Getting the open-sourced version, and ripping out the ads will just push gnutella's stability closer to what it was about a year ago. (remember the slashdot articles about the death of gnutella? This is also due to the "open-ness" of the network. Any joe programmer can create a client, no matter how poorly designed. In the case of limewire and bearshare, it was for the better.).
because I have to compile all my applications because I'm too almighty stupid to get a distro more recent than Slackware 1.1
ok, tell me how to do this (without compiling).
I would like the latest version of apache installed, with php (and mysql extentions). This should also be statically linked. Although I know how to do this, and have it running on my servers, I could not find a way to do it without having to compile php/apache. I probably have used linux a hell of a lot longer than you have.
BTW. Im using Debian.
Slashdotters are hypocrites because some of them support prosecuting GPL violations while others violate copyrights owned by the RIAA companies.
this is the truth. The proof is in the pudding.
Demonstrate intelligence for once
You mean with leftist dribble. Sure, ok. Linux is a Masterpiece. (and it has NO security flaws). Richard stallman is a genius (I want him to have my kids). Microsoft is an EVIL corporation that DESERVES to get their billions of dollars take away. (they also STOLE QDOS from an un-suspecting company).
OPEN your eyes....The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
kinda funny...funny that when things such as the GNU license are violated, there is an outspoken response to "correct" the situation. But when music (IE. People's protected work under the copyright) is freely distributed, and the owner's rights are violated, it's alright.
It shouldn't matter who has control of the copyright (big businesses ot individuals). It is a license, and it should be treated as such.
In the mind of a zealout, "freedom" is selective.
really?
Then microsoft is a pretty big part of the P2P community. They did write the tools used to build kazaa/morpheus/grokster.
Stallman is trying to take credit for everything under the GNU licese/compiled with GCC. Im sure glad borland is starting to forge a new path for linux developers...it's called kylix.
Yes, it's called business. It's the type of business behaviour that got the DOJ involved.
no, it is not.
the type of behavior that got the DOJ involved was things like making computer manufacturers like compaq,dell, and gateway sign agreements making microsoft the only OS they could use.
The agreement was to buy the code for $50k with a condition that Seattle Computer Products (as I think the company was) was not to ask who then end client was.
If I buy product X from company Y, and keep it a secret that im going to sell it to company Z at a 200 percent markup, im a smart business man. This is in NO WAY screwing someone, unethical, or illegal.
As in the microsoft and QDOS agreement, they got their $50K, which I would imagine, at the time was a lot of money.
This is in essence the definition of business. Figuring out how to sell something for a profit.
Needless to say, when they found out it was IBM they were Not Amused and I believe eventually successfully sued Micro$haft.
I can't see how that company could EVER win in court against microsoft (unless microsoft violated their license agreement somehow).
It brings the term SORE LOSER to mind.
Typical Microsoft modus operandi: very clever, very sneaky, based on manipulating information, not exactly illegal but highly unethical.
this absolute FUD, spoken from a true linux zealout
figures, the zealouts mark the bill gates jab up as a 3, but mine as -1.
zealouts
Q: And Mr. Stallman, what do you think about...
A: Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!
Q: Uh, never mind... please stop dancing around, Mr. Stallman, and for god's sake, man, use some fuckin' anti-perspirant!
Hey Bill and Steve, you know what? You don't like opensource? Good, take IP out of Windows. Lets see how far you get without FREE SOFTWARE... grr...
Microsoft could OWN the linux market, if they really wanted to. They could just as easily come out with their own version of X-windows, and because they have some of the best programmers/artists/designers in the world, it would put the final nail in linux's coffin.
Mandrake, on the other hand, has never properly recognized all of my hardware, is somewhat cryptic, and requires considerably more knowledge to repair the install if it doesn't proceed perfectly. These are not the hallmarks of an easy to install product.
hardware support is one of the problems with linux (any flavor). Next, is software support. (I loathe having to compile almost everything I would like to install, or the fact that noone can decide on standards.)
it's called linux propaganda.
if he hadnt stolen QDOS
stolen QDOS???
You mean bought legally from another company?
it's called business.
linux zealoutry at its best
I think you're missing the point. The GPL is a LICENSE, and so is the copyright. Violating one, is just as bad as the other. (obviously you can't live without your free music, so you have to legitimize it some how).
also, it seems to me the main reason people "excused" sharing music, was because of such laws as the "DCMA" and the "SSCA". (laws I am against) Sharing music, because "music and information should be free" is bullshit. It's just a bad excuse for getting something for nothing.
When individuals buy music, the sale doesn't benefit everyone. Instead, it benefits the very few. The record company, the record executive, and if he or she is very, very lucky, the artist who originated the music.
welcome to the world of business. When I buy a microsoft product, it helps one entitity: MICROSOFT. The record companies OWN the music that they sell, LEGALLY, by the artists that sold them the rights.
is dangerous
*snort* According to the idiot you're responding to, every Linux advocate is basically the same anyway. So in his tiny little mind, you did post that comment
I REST my CASE.
This would, at least, get rid of all those cookies associated with images, etc. that get sent by various add sites.
1) if you don't pay for a website, it's going to have ads.
2) if a website has ads, wouldn't you rather see things that you are generally interested in (from your habits), rather than tampon or feminine itch cream ads? (im assuming you're a guy).
The only reason ad companies would even have a reason to track you, is so they can get a better idea of what you might be interested in buying.
To tell you the truth, if they don't care about the "free speech" in linux, and only the "free beer" I can't understand why they didn't choose FreeBsd. It might have saved them about a year and a half ago when they were getting D.o.S. attacked..........
I am bit suspicious of companies that keep on changing their business strategy as if it was a pair of gloves at a first sign of economic trouble.
I am a bit suspicious of a company that tries to make a profit off of something that is described as "better" because it is "free", and im talking about beer.
I had a adaptec scsi raid card, and it used a bootable CD, with a version of X-Windows with linux on it. It was kinda cool. You could create a floppy, with drivers on it for the OS of your choice.
the parent company of slashdot would sue the shit out of the person/site, and the supporters (the one's that believe music should all be "free") would agree that it was the right thing to do. It's identical to the GNU license. Somebody violates it, they deserve to get taken to court. Somebody violates the copyright, they are "online Freedom fighters, fighting against the tyranny of the copyright laws".
yeah,I am. You were implying that I was an arrogant prick.
I was just reposting a comment that you posted, demonstrating your own arrogance.
MS has repeatedly shown that despite all their resources, they can't produce anything but crap.
really?
'nuff said
And if viruses and trojans became commonplace on Linux, then what -- would we would see programmers whining about how viruses are industrial terrorism, and attempting to get them made even more illegal than they are now?
maybe, and maybe not.Im just saying that most end users are stupid, and they will be affected by worms and viruses regardless of what OS they are using.