You can compile it into MS help format, output it as ps (html2ps or whatever), any other format you wish. Or you can hide it behind server pushes like asp, php, scripts, etc... If the site uses any java, it's been compiled. OS doesn't mean ``viewable source'', os does.
There are many other opportunities to get OS and its ilk positive publicity. Not everyone's a democrat (or a US citizen, or likes gore). This could hurt more than it could possibly help. It could also help make him seem clued in, and possibly get us a clueless president.
As long as Intel and the OEM's keep selling single-cpu boards, selling extra cpu's instead of entire systems shouldn't be too much of a problem. Most end-users don't like swapping mobo's and cpu's.
Most users don't need the horsepower of their current K6-350, or PII-300, I'm still using a P-133. How much of their sales are going to be towards companies that can afford a hardware guy, or hard core gamers who have the skill and motivation to do this though? That might be a problem.
That would also be enough motivation to keep on churning out a more advanced, speed and instruction-wise, processor though. Intel has been pretty good at making a new cpu ever 3 years or so, the average time between upgrades. They've been even faster with the improved chipsets. The rest of the computer has gotten better as well.
As long as it's more expensive to build/upgrade to a state of the art system, I don't think the OEM's will have too many problems. Everyone, especially the hardcore gamers, know that the cpu isn't everything. The compiler is another story, but that'll happen too.
``But the type of freedom I want is the ability to grant free use of *MY* code to others... but that does not mean that I want to *infect* those others.''
You can do this with GPL'd code too, all you have to do is make a note in the license covering your part of the code, that *your particular* code can also be used under a BSD, or what have you, license. Otherwise I agree with most of your statements. The GPL is equal to proprietary software, it's just alot easier to get ahold of than most proprietaries.
So what you learn in church defines your concept of right and wrong? Do you ever analyze what you have learned to see whether it has a basis or not? Theologians have been arguing for millenia over right and wrong; entire books have been included or not included in religious texts such as the Bible based on what these theologians think. If you just take the churches word for it, you're doing the evolution of your faith a disservice (by my standards at least).
Sorry, didn't see that you were the same poster. Here I'm defining ``wrong'' as something that impedes the advancement of CS. I don't mean wrong as in evil, just the wrong way to go about things. I probably should have stated that differently in the post.
The person I was responding to said something to the effect that there are many things worse in the world than non-open source. That implies non-open source is wrong. I accepted that implication and stated that that is not an excuse to ignore a wrong.
I state other reasons why non-open source, at least over long periods of time is ``wrong''. It's ``wrong'' because it delays development of a better product.
That there are other things wrong with the world should not be used as an excuse to ignore something else that's wrong. It may just be code to you, but that code is increasingly more important to the way the world functions. Proprietary development of software can make tremendous leaps in a short amount of time, but so can open-source software. If the proprietary code / algorithm isn't folded back into the community, it means a slower rate of growth in the quality of the proprietary product, and the open product. A certain amount of redundancy is definitely a good thing, but the different bases should be able to see what the other bases are doing, in order to increase the quality, useability, and functionality of all software.
If software had remained open, or at the very least had gone open after the proprietary hot-shots had had a few years to make money, we would be years ahead of where we are now, both in software and hardware. If patents and copyrights expired after a few years for the software (possibly hardware) sectors, the incentive to bring better and better products would excellerate. The license wouldn't matter in this case. Since this is not so, I believe the GPL is the best license so far. It is identical in concept to proprietary licenses, while giving people automatic NDA's, and charging them any source code changes they wish to distribute outside of their organization as a license fee.
I'm not sure about the law, but many laws are laws of fact, not intent. If you're drunk and kill someone with your car, no matter what your intent, you still get charged for vehicular manslaughter.
The article said it interferred with communications. Considering the swamped email boxes, etc... it definitely did. The net was created to withstand a nuclear attack, it's no suprise to me that it's also covered under such a communication act. Taking down or greatly interfering with such an important means of communication is detrimental to everyone who uses it.
The license is fine, it just doesn't meet OS criteria. Since it does not, Apple claiming it does weakens the OSD trademark, making things more confusing than they need to be.
Tannenbaum started the microkernel thing. You can read it at a link above (or below depending on your preferences). ast said Linus deserved an "F" for writing a mono-kernel in the 90's, he also started the usenet thread bashing Linux.
In a reply though, Linus said he probably wuold get an "F", because he got into a verbal argument with his OS teacher over something completely unrelated. I guess Linus' diplomatic skills are about average.
When the Linux name is mentioned, alot can be assumed about the system, including GNU. The same is not true when mentioning GNU. Just about every OS in existence can and commonly does use GNU utils.
The problem is that others see the situation differently. I don't want to call it GNU/Linux, it doesn't sound right. If the BSD/Linux people make an impact then I'll start calling it GNU/Linux, or something, to differentiate. As of now there is no reason to. Keeping the Kernel separate from other stuff is the main reason Linus has been able to keep control of it. I don't call my win98 partition Litestep/Windows, but I mention LS if anyone asks what shell I use; I don't call my system GNU/Linux, but I mention BASH when someone asks what shell I use.
The vast majority of people who write software to address shortcomings in Linux are not members of the FSF.
400 is probably a good enough sampling for story moderation to work, but I thought that was what rob and the other story posters were already doing. If the majority of moderators are partial to computing, let's say, physics articles might not get the positive votes to be posted to slashdot. The place for rejected stories sounds good; reject.slashdot.org?
What about making the slashdot site more of a portal, ala amazon.com, with tabs to a physicsdot, biodot; or, more generally, a sciencedot, computersdot, editorialsdot, etc...?
Slashdot Mirror
You can compile it into MS help format, output it as ps (html2ps or whatever), any other format you wish. Or you can hide it behind server pushes like asp, php, scripts, etc... If the site uses any java, it's been compiled. OS doesn't mean ``viewable source'', os does.
Buzzwords go out of fashion. OS should never go out of fashion.
There are many other opportunities to get OS and its ilk positive publicity. Not everyone's a democrat (or a US citizen, or likes gore). This could hurt more than it could possibly help. It could also help make him seem clued in, and possibly get us a clueless president.
Check out Steve Mann's www.wearcomp.org, his glasses do things similar things such as people tracking.
They're just being Gatesian about it. No big deal.
As long as Intel and the OEM's keep selling single-cpu boards, selling extra cpu's instead of entire systems shouldn't be too much of a problem. Most end-users don't like swapping mobo's and cpu's.
Most users don't need the horsepower of their current K6-350, or PII-300, I'm still using a P-133. How much of their sales are going to be towards companies that can afford a hardware guy, or hard core gamers who have the skill and motivation to do this though? That might be a problem.
That would also be enough motivation to keep on churning out a more advanced, speed and instruction-wise, processor though. Intel has been pretty good at making a new cpu ever 3 years or so, the average time between upgrades. They've been even faster with the improved chipsets. The rest of the computer has gotten better as well.
As long as it's more expensive to build/upgrade to a state of the art system, I don't think the OEM's will have too many problems. Everyone, especially the hardcore gamers, know that the cpu isn't everything. The compiler is another story, but that'll happen too.
``But the type of freedom I want is the ability to grant free use of *MY* code
to others... but that does not mean that I want to *infect* those others.''
You can do this with GPL'd code too, all you have to do is make a note in the license covering your part of the code, that *your particular* code can also be used under a BSD, or what have you, license. Otherwise I agree with most of your statements. The GPL is equal to proprietary software, it's just alot easier to get ahold of than most proprietaries.
So what you learn in church defines your concept of right and wrong? Do you ever analyze what you have learned to see whether it has a basis or not? Theologians have been arguing for millenia over right and wrong; entire books have been included or not included in religious texts such as the Bible based on what these theologians think. If you just take the churches word for it, you're doing the evolution of your faith a disservice (by my standards at least).
Sorry, didn't see that you were the same poster. Here I'm defining ``wrong'' as something that impedes the advancement of CS. I don't mean wrong as in evil, just the wrong way to go about things. I probably should have stated that differently in the post.
But not for every law. This could be one of the laws that it is not a factor of.
The person I was responding to said something to the effect that there are many things worse in the world than non-open source. That implies non-open source is wrong. I accepted that implication and stated that that is not an excuse to ignore a wrong.
I state other reasons why non-open source, at least over long periods of time is ``wrong''. It's ``wrong'' because it delays development of a better product.
``Who cares? It's just code.''
That there are other things wrong with the world should not be used as an excuse to ignore something else that's wrong. It may just be code to you, but that code is increasingly more important to the way the world functions. Proprietary development of software can make tremendous leaps in a short amount of time, but so can open-source software. If the proprietary code / algorithm isn't folded back into the community, it means a slower rate of growth in the quality of the proprietary product, and the open product. A certain amount of redundancy is definitely a good thing, but the different bases should be able to see what the other bases are doing, in order to increase the quality, useability, and functionality of all software.
If software had remained open, or at the very least had gone open after the proprietary hot-shots had had a few years to make money, we would be years ahead of where we are now, both in software and hardware. If patents and copyrights expired after a few years for the software (possibly hardware) sectors, the incentive to bring better and better products would excellerate. The license wouldn't matter in this case. Since this is not so, I believe the GPL is the best license so far. It is identical in concept to proprietary licenses, while giving people automatic NDA's, and charging them any source code changes they wish to distribute outside of their organization as a license fee.
I'm not sure about the law, but many laws are laws of fact, not intent. If you're drunk and kill someone with your car, no matter what your intent, you still get charged for vehicular manslaughter.
The article said it interferred with communications. Considering the swamped email boxes, etc... it definitely did. The net was created to withstand a nuclear attack, it's no suprise to me that it's also covered under such a communication act. Taking down or greatly interfering with such an important means of communication is detrimental to everyone who uses it.
The license is fine, it just doesn't meet OS criteria. Since it does not, Apple claiming it does weakens the OSD trademark, making things more confusing than they need to be.
The article wasn't there! My only access to the net currently is through a menu-based shell account. Sorry.
You don't find this interesting????? Spaceships drives.
The femto-laser fissions Uranium, it doesn't fuse anything (though it could be used for fusion, the point is that it's being used for fission).
/. and the news site have it wrong, unless they're leaving something out of the article.
Both
AFAIK, US export law does not require embedding itself in your license.
Tannenbaum started the microkernel thing. You can read it at a link above (or below depending on your preferences). ast said Linus deserved an "F" for writing a mono-kernel in the 90's, he also started the usenet thread bashing Linux.
In a reply though, Linus said he probably wuold get an "F", because he got into a verbal argument with his OS teacher over something completely unrelated. I guess Linus' diplomatic skills are about average.
When the Linux name is mentioned, alot can be assumed about the system, including GNU. The same is not true when mentioning GNU. Just about every OS in existence can and commonly does use GNU utils.
The problem is that others see the situation differently. I don't want to call it GNU/Linux, it doesn't sound right. If the BSD/Linux people make an impact then I'll start calling it GNU/Linux, or something, to differentiate. As of now there is no reason to. Keeping the Kernel separate from other stuff is the main reason Linus has been able to keep control of it. I don't call my win98 partition Litestep/Windows, but I mention LS if anyone asks what shell I use; I don't call my system GNU/Linux, but I mention BASH when someone asks what shell I use.
The vast majority of people who write software to address shortcomings in Linux are not members of the FSF.
400 is probably a good enough sampling for story moderation to work, but I thought that was what rob and the other story posters were already doing. If the majority of moderators are partial to computing, let's say, physics articles might not get the positive votes to be posted to slashdot. The place for rejected stories sounds good; reject.slashdot.org?
What about making the slashdot site more of a portal, ala amazon.com, with tabs to a physicsdot, biodot; or, more generally, a sciencedot, computersdot, editorialsdot, etc...?
Though throwing money at one is equally pointless.
He wasn't commenting on Linux, he was showing that MS saying Linux is splintered is hypocritical.