You seem to be referring to section 3 subsection b. Indeed, the definitions of "third party" is arguable; I'd argue it means those who receive the GPL'd work or derivative thereof from you, the licensee, and not just "anyone else".
This is a distraction, though. Note that this subsection is optional; you may choose subsection a or c instead. If we choose subsection a and distribute source code along with the binaries, then there is no further obligation on our part as distributors. "Third parties" don't come into it.
So, yes, I am technically correct, and you are on Planet Twylite!
I don't know why you're distinguishing between open source and Open Source.
"Open Source" has a definition; "open source" is just two words strung together to mean whatever you want it to mean at the time. Using vague terms doesn't strengthen any argument, except in the minds of the ignorant (I'm not calling you ignorant, mind).
I don't consider a consultant's key selling point to be "information" - that's what the Internet and books are for.
Consultants should be appointed for their ability to produce the right answers faster than anyone else. Obviously it helps to have the information in their head, but they should also have the skills to apply it to your situation, to use best practice and to communicate what they are doing.
To get back on topic, you suggest that the decision comes down to money. I think this is a bit short sighted.
Usually a consultant is paid for their time, unless they are being expected to complete specific project goals. If you are paid hourly, how does it hurt to stand by your professional beliefs and maintain your reputation? If it's project work, then you either achieve the goal or you don't. If you disagree with the goal, then either your client is wrong, or you are wrong. Work out which one it is and take it from there.
"Wireless networking allow computers to talk to each other using radio waves. You need to attach a wireless network card to each computer, and if you have more than two computers you might need a device called an access point.
There are industry standards in place to allow different manufacturers' devices to talk to each other, so you can have a Cisco access point and a Linksys wireless network card. The most common standard for consumers is called 802.11b. Look for '802.11b' on the box."
I also like the way that in their mad rush to capitalise CERTIFICATION for no determinable reason, they capitalised the final 'i' in WiFI too (the second time round)!
They must use the same chap who thinks up their marketing terms to type up their web pages. Let's hope he's not having to design technologies too.
Not according to Weca! They specifically say it is the name of the technology, in their FAQ. Morons.
To understand the value of Wi-Fi CERTIFICATION, you need to know that
Wi-Fi is short for "Wireless Fidelity," and it is the popular name for 802.11-based technologies that have passed Wi-FI CERTIFICATION testing. This includes IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b or technologies that contain both 802.11a and 802.11b technologies -- commonly called "dual band.
This is the first time I've actually seen "Wi-Fi" associated with the term "Wireless Fidelity". I'd always assumed this was the origin of the term Wi-Fi, by comparison with the terms Hi-Fi and High Fidelity.
In the world of audio, High Fidelity means closely approaching the nature of the original sound source.
What the hell does Wireless Fidelity mean? Prevention of adultery through remote control? Some kind of 802.11b connected chastity belt?
Perhaps means closely approaching the nature of the Ethernet medium. If so, it's an outright lie. There is no similarity.
I don't like the term Wi-Fi. I encourage others not to use it. It's vague and stupid and I wish it didn't exist.
I don't understand. I run 2.4.20, standard Debian package. I am listening to the Ozric Tentacles with XMMS as I write. As I test I installed mpg321 and played an Eddie Izzard track from the command line at the same time. No problem., mixed seamlessly.
Now, let's try more channels...
Now, I've mixed Wagner, Ride of the Valkyries into that too. I'm kind of dizzy, but it all works.
Maybe this is a feature of the EMU10k1 driver, or something, but it just works for me.
Are you talking about prototypes or just old cards?
What kind of adapters? Network (NE1000 perhaps)? SCSI?
What has this got to do with Win 2003 anyway? They won't be releasing drivers for very old cards, will they? That would be a hardware certification nightmare.
Art XIV is COMPLIMENTING this sales chap for being the only technical salesman in the entire universe to actually want to know about the product he was selling.
Go to the applications shelf at PC world or whatever. Show me the boxed software for other operating systems. If you can find it, then Microsoft is not a monopoly.
I can't say either of these two women are my cup of tea. I've never even heard of Hayek until now. But I've found some pics on the net and I can say this.
Hayek is bland. There is nothing particularly distinctive or memorable about her looks. She is certainly symmetrical and has nice skin, but you can computer-generate that stuff.
Julia Roberts has quirky good looks. Her mouth is too big for "perfection" but it gives her a warm, happy look. She has character!
At first I didn't understand why it was necessary for you to point out that email doesn't need port 80. You see, to me, email is SMTP, POP3, IMAP, and the like. SMTP daemons usually run on port 25, POP3 on 110, IMAP on 143.
Port 80 is where web servers listen for HTTP requests.
So I didn't see how you could have confused the two.
Then I realised: your understanding of TCP/IP is based on ZoneAlarm's pop-up messages, and you run some really nasty pieces of software. Why does your email client try to open connections to port 80? I really want to know.
Now, the scary thing is, these shitty applications which do all kinds of non-standard things are forcing people to run stupid pieces of software like ZoneAlarm which block packets based on the name of the software package which sends them! How ridiculous!
And the software has to be installed on every bloody machine, unless you have some idiotic spoofable centralised thing like an identd for applications.
I refuse to run software which puts packets on the network which are unrelated to its primary task.
You know, I did read the dictionary definition before making my post.
The primary definition of "novel" is "new". It is a synonym.
Noting that there are suggestions of special newness about the word "novelty" I included a sentence about how the word suggests some creative act on the part of the novelty-generating individual.
Does that make sense to you?
I didn't deserve to be moderated to +5, by pointing out simple facts, but my post was factually accurate. Conversely, you seem keen to make cheap and ill-aimed shots, sporting the inappropriate garb of arrogance.
May the coming new year bring you much joy and happiness, may your dreams, however wicked, be realised!
And what about novelity (is that a word?)? Screw the prior art searches, we need examiners that can say "This is not novel, so it's not patentable, even tho no one else has done it."
"Novelty" is "newness". "Novel" means "new". If no-one else has done something then by definition it is novel.
You might argue that "novelty" suggests something which is actually imaginative. But I think that here the word "novel" is used to define what is imaginative.
So don't throw away your prior art database out of a desire for novelty; you'll be throwing away your primary objective indicator of novelty.
Slashdot Mirror
They also make some serious firewall appliances.
You seem to be referring to section 3 subsection b. Indeed, the definitions of "third party" is arguable; I'd argue it means those who receive the GPL'd work or derivative thereof from you, the licensee, and not just "anyone else".
This is a distraction, though. Note that this subsection is optional; you may choose subsection a or c instead. If we choose subsection a and distribute source code along with the binaries, then there is no further obligation on our part as distributors. "Third parties" don't come into it.
So, yes, I am technically correct, and you are on Planet Twylite!
No, you're on planet Twylite where the GPL has another meaning.
The "Earth" GPL does not require submission of code back to licensor.
Rather, it requires the distributor of a GPL'd binary to make the source available to the recipient of the binary, at a reasonable fee to cover costs.
It requires other things too, but none of them coincide with the "Twylite" GPL clause you are pushing...
I don't know why you're distinguishing between open source and Open Source.
"Open Source" has a definition; "open source" is just two words strung together to mean whatever you want it to mean at the time. Using vague terms doesn't strengthen any argument, except in the minds of the ignorant (I'm not calling you ignorant, mind).
I don't consider a consultant's key selling point to be "information" - that's what the Internet and books are for.
Consultants should be appointed for their ability to produce the right answers faster than anyone else. Obviously it helps to have the information in their head, but they should also have the skills to apply it to your situation, to use best practice and to communicate what they are doing.
To get back on topic, you suggest that the decision comes down to money. I think this is a bit short sighted.
Usually a consultant is paid for their time, unless they are being expected to complete specific project goals. If you are paid hourly, how does it hurt to stand by your professional beliefs and maintain your reputation? If it's project work, then you either achieve the goal or you don't. If you disagree with the goal, then either your client is wrong, or you are wrong. Work out which one it is and take it from there.
Either way, money doesn't come into it.
Thanks for that clarification. Do you think I'm stupid?
By the way, I am indeed running Linux on an Athlon.
mpacey@kermit:~$ uname -a
Linux kermit 2.4.20-686 #1 Mon Jan 13 22:22:30 EST 2003 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
That would be easy.
"Wireless networking allow computers to talk to each other using radio waves. You need to attach a wireless network card to each computer, and if you have more than two computers you might need a device called an access point.
There are industry standards in place to allow different manufacturers' devices to talk to each other, so you can have a Cisco access point and a Linksys wireless network card. The most common standard for consumers is called 802.11b. Look for '802.11b' on the box."
No need to say "Wi-Fi".
I also like the way that in their mad rush to capitalise CERTIFICATION for no determinable reason, they capitalised the final 'i' in WiFI too (the second time round)!
They must use the same chap who thinks up their marketing terms to type up their web pages. Let's hope he's not having to design technologies too.
Oh, I'm vitriolic today; must be the hangover.
(Emphasis mine).
In the world of audio, High Fidelity means closely approaching the nature of the original sound source.
What the hell does Wireless Fidelity mean? Prevention of adultery through remote control? Some kind of 802.11b connected chastity belt?
Perhaps means closely approaching the nature of the Ethernet medium. If so, it's an outright lie. There is no similarity.
I don't like the term Wi-Fi. I encourage others not to use it. It's vague and stupid and I wish it didn't exist.
I have it running on a dual processor SparcStation 20 which recent versions of the Linux kernel wont even compile on, let alone boot.
I think you need to qualify what you mean by "recent versions". Are we talking 2.5.66 here, or have you shown a releasedkernel not to compile or boot?
I don't understand. I run 2.4.20, standard Debian package. I am listening to the Ozric Tentacles with XMMS as I write. As I test I installed mpg321 and played an Eddie Izzard track from the command line at the same time. No problem., mixed seamlessly.
Now, let's try more channels...
Now, I've mixed Wagner, Ride of the Valkyries into that too. I'm kind of dizzy, but it all works.
Maybe this is a feature of the EMU10k1 driver, or something, but it just works for me.
Woooah my head is spinning! Stop!
I gather I owe you an apology. Sorry!
Read Txiasaeia's other posts. He speaks English very well.
What makes you think he is not a native English speaker?
I don't think I was being a smart-ass. I found the error amusing.
I know the USA is not the only country in world. I live in one of the other ones.
Why pick on me? Is there a chip on YOUR shoulder?
Are you talking about prototypes or just old cards?
What kind of adapters? Network (NE1000 perhaps)? SCSI?
What has this got to do with Win 2003 anyway? They won't be releasing drivers for very old cards, will they? That would be a hardware certification nightmare.
Oh wait, you mean early adopters! Sorry!
An AC makes the point, but to make it clearer:
Art XIV is COMPLIMENTING this sales chap for being the only technical salesman in the entire universe to actually want to know about the product he was selling.
Not an asshole!
My mod points just ran out. Sorry.
I read the post more like this: "I needed the ability to write closed source apps, I reviewed the options, KDE didn't allow this, so I picked Gnome."
He's not asking Trolltech to do anything, he doesn't need them to; Gnome gives him what he needs.
Go to the applications shelf at PC world or whatever. Show me the boxed software for other operating systems. If you can find it, then Microsoft is not a monopoly.
I can't say either of these two women are my cup of tea. I've never even heard of Hayek until now. But I've found some pics on the net and I can say this.
Hayek is bland. There is nothing particularly distinctive or memorable about her looks. She is certainly symmetrical and has nice skin, but you can computer-generate that stuff.
Julia Roberts has quirky good looks. Her mouth is too big for "perfection" but it gives her a warm, happy look. She has character!
Can't act though.
At first I didn't understand why it was necessary for you to point out that email doesn't need port 80. You see, to me, email is SMTP, POP3, IMAP, and the like. SMTP daemons usually run on port 25, POP3 on 110, IMAP on 143.
Port 80 is where web servers listen for HTTP requests.
So I didn't see how you could have confused the two.
Then I realised: your understanding of TCP/IP is based on ZoneAlarm's pop-up messages, and you run some really nasty pieces of software. Why does your email client try to open connections to port 80? I really want to know.
Now, the scary thing is, these shitty applications which do all kinds of non-standard things are forcing people to run stupid pieces of software like ZoneAlarm which block packets based on the name of the software package which sends them! How ridiculous!
And the software has to be installed on every bloody machine, unless you have some idiotic spoofable centralised thing like an identd for applications.
I refuse to run software which puts packets on the network which are unrelated to its primary task.
You can't remember her cell phone number because it's programmed into your cellphone...
You know, I did read the dictionary definition before making my post.
The primary definition of "novel" is "new". It is a synonym.
Noting that there are suggestions of special newness about the word "novelty" I included a sentence about how the word suggests some creative act on the part of the novelty-generating individual.
Does that make sense to you?
I didn't deserve to be moderated to +5, by pointing out simple facts, but my post was factually accurate. Conversely, you seem keen to make cheap and ill-aimed shots, sporting the inappropriate garb of arrogance.
May the coming new year bring you much joy and happiness, may your dreams, however wicked, be realised!
And what about novelity (is that a word?)? Screw the prior art searches, we need examiners that can say "This is not novel, so it's not patentable, even tho no one else has done it."
"Novelty" is "newness". "Novel" means "new". If no-one else has done something then by definition it is novel.
You might argue that "novelty" suggests something which is actually imaginative. But I think that here the word "novel" is used to define what is imaginative.
So don't throw away your prior art database out of a desire for novelty; you'll be throwing away your primary objective indicator of novelty.