> Really? So where can I download the GoogleFS in-kernel filesystem that they use on several million machines worldwide? Oh, right, I can't because they don't distribute it.
Well done.
>> I'm thinking of the modifications for their Android OS which they distribute, rather than their server/filesystem modifications for their own own in-house use.
> As I said in the post that you replied to which used Google as the example, companies that use GPL'd software in-house and don't distribute it are not required to share their changes.
Bollocks.
You wrote: > It doesn't, for example, force Google to contribute back any of the changes they made to the Linux kernel.
Which is bollocks. They *were* forced to contribute back *all* of the changes that they made to the linux kernel to do with wake-ups/scheduling for the android OS they distributetd on all the android phones. Linus didn't want to pull it, but it was still made available as per the GPL's demands.
If you meant "all of", then you shouldn't have spelt it "any of".
Don't jest about such things - Ferrari have trademarked a particular shade of red. Amusingly, their flagship Formula 1 racing cars are a different shade of red, as the colour on screen of their real red isn't imposing enough.
"Congratulations on buying your new Samsung Galaxy tablet. Before using, please open the battery compartment on the front and insert a compatible battery..."
> You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well.
That statement is just as true even if you replace "GPL licensed code" with "anything", apart from the fact that you then don't have the right to distribute the binary even if you do make the modified source code available as well. That restriction is called "copyright".
If you don't like the restrictions that copyright places on you, then your criticism of the GPL is nothing more than pissing in the wind.
It's pro a whole bunch of Free Software licences, including GPL. It specifically names GPL as one of the licences it approves of, something that can only be said about soemthing like 5 licences. Sure, it's not an exclusive favouritism, but I think it's hard to deny that there isn't some small bias.
> It doesn't, for example, force Google to contribute back any of the changes they made to the Linux kernel.
Erm, it does. Which is why they did it. They didn't offer to maintain it, so it got rejected, but that didn't stop it from being made public. I'm thinking of the modifications for their Android OS which they distribute, rather than their server/filesystem modifications for their own own in-house use.
> free from restriction # the gpl imposes restrictions on distribution if you modify the code, and also on how you can license mods, and restrictions on linking or licensing under another license.
False. Under copyright law, you didn't have the freedom to distribute anyway. The GPL has given you the conditional right to distribute. That's more than no right to distribute.
> free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
False. I can modify the source to GPL software and use the modified version to my heart's content.
You seem to not understand the GPL. It only gives you *more* rights than you previously had (under copyright law), and in so doing *removes no rights*. You are even free to not accept the terms of the GPL - it even says so explicitly - but if you do so, you don't get any of the extra rights that you were being offered, you've not actually lost anything.
> discourages free use
The GPL says nothing about use, merely distribution.
> Why should Japanese users benefit from a work funded by British taxpayers?
As a British tax payer, I certainly think that I'm getting the better half of the bargain if I can benefit from the work funded by Japanese taxpayers. I'd also benefit from the work funded by German taxpayers, and American taxpayers. What's not to like about that situation?
But to be perfectly honest, you should have never released such a half-baked survey in the first place. As someone who's been using nothing but debian since the 90s, a fan of the GPL licences, and a linux kernel developer, even I recoiled when I read the summary - your methodology was clearly flawed to the core - it reeked of effectively being a self-selecting sample. If anything, you've done the GPL a disservice, by making it a laughing stock.
Presenting bullshit "to stimulate further discussion" isn't just bullshit, it's trolling too, that's even worse.
Word 6 was *significantly* slower than Word 2. When the company I worked for rolled out Word 6, I remember loads of us surreptitiously used Word 2 for practically everything.
> Hard to believe this is true: http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
Hard to believe that a Republican politician would put the needs of a few personal colleagues and associates above the needs of the many, and use other people's resources in order to do that?
I really don't see that as much of a stretch of the imagination at all. (Feel free to replace "Republican" with "Democrat", or even the empty string, if you like.)
Android is not linux, android is linux plus a whole lot of crud that's waking up too often. Blame userspace, not linux. Nokia's linux devices have far better battery life (over 2 weeks on my N9).
And in a desktop/laptop context, you also have to remember that MS have got NDAs with the hardware manufacturers and BIOS writers regarding power control, which prevents linux from being as aggressive. Linux hackers are trying to reverse engineeer these interfaces, clearly, but progress is slow. Have you run powertop? Have you done what it's advised?
It's generally more efficient to work hard, and then rest more, than to work slowly. This is sometimes called "race to sleep", "race to idle", or similar.
Your final word "power" is inappropriate, as power is a rate over time. Something like "capacity" would have been a better word.
If anyone has balls of steel in the face of the building police state, the EFF probably do - so there's stuff like this still up: http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/
> Do you really think we could get away with letting the driver communicate back to the outside world with that much data and not have it all over the news?
Other companies have. Look at the recent mobile phone privacy scares, for example (sometimes where every button press has been recorded and transmitted).
Given that you can't even enforce the rules of punctuation and capitalisation, I suspect you bound around your "castle" weilding the thighbone of an ox, or similar.
To my eyes it looks like the bottom row with 6 stars, and the row above that with 7 stars. That doesn't match any US flag of *any* vintage, let alone a 50-state one (having 6 with 5 above). It be used for a 52-state flag, I think. Not that it matters, fake is fake is fake.
> > Lack of evidence of a god when that evidence should be there is in fact evidence that there isn't a god.
> Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Nope. "Lack of evidence of a god is evidence that there isn't a god." would be poor logic, certainly, but the "when that evidence should be there" completely changes the premises.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Erm, it does. Which is why they did it.
> Really? So where can I download the GoogleFS in-kernel filesystem that they use on several million machines worldwide? Oh, right, I can't because they don't distribute it.
Well done.
>> I'm thinking of the modifications for their Android OS which they distribute, rather than their server/filesystem modifications for their own own in-house use.
> As I said in the post that you replied to which used Google as the example, companies that use GPL'd software in-house and don't distribute it are not required to share their changes.
Bollocks.
You wrote:
> It doesn't, for example, force Google to contribute back any of the changes they made to the Linux kernel.
Which is bollocks. They *were* forced to contribute back *all* of the changes that they made to the linux kernel to do with wake-ups/scheduling for the android OS they distributetd on all the android phones. Linus didn't want to pull it, but it was still made available as per the GPL's demands.
If you meant "all of", then you shouldn't have spelt it "any of".
> 2. The color black.
Don't jest about such things - Ferrari have trademarked a particular shade of red. Amusingly, their flagship Formula 1 racing cars are a different shade of red, as the colour on screen of their real red isn't imposing enough.
"Congratulations on buying your new Samsung Galaxy tablet. Before using, please open the battery compartment on the front and insert a compatible battery..."
It limits my access to the modified version in the proprietary product.
Ever heard of Apple?
> You cannot modify GPL licensed code, compile it to binary form, and distribute that binary without the additional requirement that you must make the modified source code available as well.
That statement is just as true even if you replace "GPL licensed code" with "anything", apart from the fact that you then don't have the right to distribute the binary even if you do make the modified source code available as well. That restriction is called "copyright".
If you don't like the restrictions that copyright places on you, then your criticism of the GPL is nothing more than pissing in the wind.
It's pro a whole bunch of Free Software licences, including GPL. It specifically names GPL as one of the licences it approves of, something that can only be said about soemthing like 5 licences. Sure, it's not an exclusive favouritism, but I think it's hard to deny that there isn't some small bias.
> It doesn't, for example, force Google to contribute back any of the changes they made to the Linux kernel.
Erm, it does. Which is why they did it. They didn't offer to maintain it, so it got rejected, but that didn't stop it from being made public. I'm thinking of the modifications for their Android OS which they distribute, rather than their server/filesystem modifications for their own own in-house use.
> free from restriction # the gpl imposes restrictions on distribution if you modify the code, and also on how you can license mods, and restrictions on linking or licensing under another license.
False. Under copyright law, you didn't have the freedom to distribute anyway. The GPL has given you the conditional right to distribute. That's more than no right to distribute.
> free to share and copy # the gpl makes you share your modified source
False. I can modify the source to GPL software and use the modified version to my heart's content.
You're just a FUD-peddler, clearly.
> a restrictive license
You seem to not understand the GPL. It only gives you *more* rights than you previously had (under copyright law), and in so doing *removes no rights*. You are even free to not accept the terms of the GPL - it even says so explicitly - but if you do so, you don't get any of the extra rights that you were being offered, you've not actually lost anything.
> discourages free use
The GPL says nothing about use, merely distribution.
> Why should Japanese users benefit from a work funded by British taxpayers?
As a British tax payer, I certainly think that I'm getting the better half of the bargain if I can benefit from the work funded by Japanese taxpayers. I'd also benefit from the work funded by German taxpayers, and American taxpayers. What's not to like about that situation?
But to be perfectly honest, you should have never released such a half-baked survey in the first place. As someone who's been using nothing but debian since the 90s, a fan of the GPL licences, and a linux kernel developer, even I recoiled when I read the summary - your methodology was clearly flawed to the core - it reeked of effectively being a self-selecting sample. If anything, you've done the GPL a disservice, by making it a laughing stock.
Presenting bullshit "to stimulate further discussion" isn't just bullshit, it's trolling too, that's even worse.
Erm, we're talking 1995 here, that was HTML 2.0.
Word 6 was *significantly* slower than Word 2. When the company I worked for rolled out Word 6, I remember loads of us surreptitiously used Word 2 for practically everything.
But, but, but, I've seen Comic Sans for the last 15 years constantly - there's been no swing at all!
> Hard to believe this is true: http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/search.asp
Hard to believe that a Republican politician would put the needs of a few personal colleagues and associates above the needs of the many, and use other people's resources in order to do that?
I really don't see that as much of a stretch of the imagination at all. (Feel free to replace "Republican" with "Democrat", or even the empty string, if you like.)
Android is not linux, android is linux plus a whole lot of crud that's waking up too often. Blame userspace, not linux. Nokia's linux devices have far better battery life (over 2 weeks on my N9).
And in a desktop/laptop context, you also have to remember that MS have got NDAs with the hardware manufacturers and BIOS writers regarding power control, which prevents linux from being as aggressive. Linux hackers are trying to reverse engineeer these interfaces, clearly, but progress is slow. Have you run powertop? Have you done what it's advised?
It's generally more efficient to work hard, and then rest more, than to work
slowly. This is sometimes called "race to sleep", "race to idle", or similar.
Your final word "power" is inappropriate, as power is a rate over time. Something like "capacity" would have been a better word.
If anyone has balls of steel in the face of the building police state, the EFF probably do - so there's stuff like this still up: http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/
> Do you really think we could get away with letting the driver communicate back to the outside world with that much data and not have it all over the news?
Other companies have. Look at the recent mobile phone privacy scares, for example (sometimes where every button press has been recorded and transmitted).
Given that you can't even enforce the rules of punctuation and capitalisation, I suspect you bound around your "castle" weilding the thighbone of an ox, or similar.
The politician, while kept alive, can be an almost endless source of hot air, possible more than any individual fire could supply.
However, if it was in a documentary and it were false, then you can be sure that Monsanto lawyers would be all over it.
Do you know of any evidence that the figures were independently obtained?
To my eyes it looks like the bottom row with 6 stars, and the row above that with 7 stars. That doesn't match any US flag of *any* vintage, let alone a 50-state one (having 6 with 5 above). It be used for a 52-state flag, I think. Not that it matters, fake is fake is fake.
Do you mind if I add the following to my revolving usenet .sig list (at the top, for the sake of freshness):
> I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God.
Pics or it didn't happen.
-- Tom (/. uid 822)
> > Lack of evidence of a god when that evidence should be there is in fact evidence that there isn't a god.
> Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Nope. "Lack of evidence of a god is evidence that there isn't a god." would be poor logic, certainly, but the "when that evidence should be there" completely changes the premises.