Well, AFAICT, choosing between non-free software programs is only a matter of choosing who your owner is going to be.
With Free (Livre) Software a governmant will have true soverneity over what it's computers do (well, that may need some support --> business model here?).
If it doesn't like the way some things are being done, it can always be done by others. With non-free software, all who can really do anything at all are the owneres, so they get to "tell to" the government what it can (or can't) do with its computers.
I'm sorry, but this _is_ a choice a government can do that is somewhat important. It will get to choose who can give it support. It'll get it control over what the software is doing, and talking about plenty software choices, well... the FUD some idiots spread around is that there's too much Free Software programs for you to choose... so there you go. You can choose the best Free tool for the job. Freedom is what the government is mandating for itself by choosing to use only Free Software. Why are you against it? Do you rather your government can't tell you wether some software company has secret access to your records?
It depends... McDonalds was sued for not including a warning that coffe is hot and may burn you...
Trade Paperbacks vs Monthly Comics...
on
Ask Warren Ellis
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Hello,
I'm a huge Portuguese fan of yours, and I've bought many books without any other references other than having your name, up untill now without disappointments. To me you're on a place I reserve for great comic book writers. You're up there, right besides Gaiman, Moore, Morrison, etc... Your take on X-Counter was awesome (a pity nobody really stood up properly on your shoulders). It elevated the way the X-Books were going, and proved that it was worth investing in good writers (just look at the current portfolio with the exception of Austen;)). However, most of I have written by you is in trade paperbacks of old collections.
Enough flattery. If i can have the choice, I much rather buy the tradepaperback to get a "full" storyline without the stress of waiting for the next month. It's also a much better way to appreciate story, drawing and inking.
SO, do you feel that the grwing trend from fans of prefering trade paperbacks (and Marvel seems to be grabbing a hold on that market too) is beneficial for you? If not, why?:)
No you're not though, the program could be linking in a different library at run time to the one it was coded against.
With *some* libraries, you may be able to do that, technically (borderline cases). However, the running program is *still* including the code it needs. In certain cases, maybe it's the user who's breaking a license, and not just the distributor. You can't treat them all in the same way as long as you have copyright. Tough.
Now if Wine had been GPL instead of LGLP would have have ment that all windows programs under through Wine would then become GPL?
Only those made using the winlib, if it was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed. You would need to expect the coders to honour the library, of course.
What if you use piping? Can a program pipe through a GPL program without being absorbed by the GPL licence?
LOL a pipe is a means to connect the stdout of one program to the stdin of another. That's two different running programs. All those supposed doubpts are quite clearly explained in the GPL FAQ. If it invoves fork & exec you're on the clear. The output of a GPL'ed program is not covered by the GPL. Same thing for input , etc... etc...
Now, go read the faq, see how it all clears up. In doubpt, many mailing lists exist. Ask a simple question...
Larry, this post you did (if that's really you, because I don't recognize any digital signature in here) is a graveous disservice to us ALL.
Please, allow me to technically shatter point number two: 2) The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs. When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.
When you link to library, you can do it dynamically or statically. I suppose I really don't have to explain much about the static linking, since it's extremely obvious that the library code that is used is being distributed, so let's concentrate on dynamic linking.
When you link dynamically, you aren't distributing, as such, any linked code... however, dynamic linking is just a facilty to reduce memory size, and facilitate distribution: you are effectively including the code when you run the program. You just don't distribute it due to technical artifacts that make programming and distribution much simpler. It's a techincal feat, that changes nothing and is completely olrthogonal to copyright issues.
That said, when you use a function of a library, you are basing your work on that library (a third party's work); without it, the program won't run. So, unless you carry your own version of those certain functions you need, yes, you are making a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, HENCE: DERIVATIVE, as you, yourself, quoted.
Please, don't add to the confusion. You are a recognized person who has the power to form opinions. Casting such graveous comments only adds power to a confusion that would certainly be usefully exploited by big powers unfriendly to Free Software. Or "open source", or whatever you rather call it.
Hi, you can always checkout octave which is provides a convenient command line interface for
solving linear and nonlinear problems numerically, and for performing
other numerical experiments using a language that is mostly compatible
with Matlab.
Legislation is being prepared in the background that will force them to comply, as well, in Portugal. Freedom of Speech _does_not_ exist in Portugal either (even though the constitutios says it does), which makes laws like this very dangerous.
Well, there is a small number of empowered people who 'own' the masses by being the only ones who can dictate what happens to your computer and the things you do. I consider this a certain return to medieval times, yes.
Now, whoever thinks that independence and freedom are easy paths, then some history needs to be learned.
Microsoft and Apple are in a perfect situation to tell you you can't do this or that at their will. You have no rights over what you bought, not even the rights fair use gives you. Of course you can disobey the license, but then, you will be violating international copyright law. I rather keep those problems at a distance that can never be far enough.
The right to reverse engineer someone else's IP that they worked hard to create and should be able to earn an income from?
First, you are wrong to say that it is intelectual property, since that is precisely proving that you bought the propaganda and are now confusing copyright law, patent law, trademark law, etc... all mixed in a bag like they are the same thing when they are, in fact, ortogonal.
Reverse engineer _is_ covered in the law and is widely considered a benefitial thing. Only proprietary software vendors want to forbid that, so that no one can make products that will even interoperate with theirs, thus resulting in a monopoly that leaves you at their mercy.
You are also confusing ideas with expressions of ideas. You can't own an idea, for instance, since _anyone_ can have the same idea (since all ideas are developed incrementally above older ideas) even without knowledge that someone else had the same idea. They lost both their time (and possibly money), but one will have to give up because of the other one? That's ridiculous. But if you copy the expression of an idea and then change it, you then are falling under copyright law. If you allow software patents, you will automatically forbid anyone of creating Free Software that could compete with the proprietary software, thus lacking the completeness you complain... no wonder... they can't compete, it's not a free market but a monopolistic market!
I'm just trying to explain why I harbor no sympathy for freeloaders, which I think makes up the bulk of the open source and free software using communities.
So I can safely assume you are in favour of the not invented here syndrome, and that everyone should loose their time re-inventing the wheell so that they can't loose their time making better and more complex software... ok, that's what you want.
I didn't buy a computer to help out in some "movement". I bought one to help me complete a given task in a shorter amount of time thus increasing my personal productivity.
I'm not intending to force you into joining a movement. Just noticing that you have no right whatsoever to complain. YOU are the freeloader when you use Free Software and yet complain, as if you paid anything, as if you helped develop anything. You can shoot yourself now since you harbor no sympathy for yourself.
I'm not exactly a Linux user, well, I am, indirectly, since that is the current kernel of the GNU system. Since I choose not being a subject to the kings above me, who could dicatate over my freedoms, I'll wait as long as its needed.
Did we pay them _anything_ in order to be able to demand _anything_?
Probably not. So, we don't have to put up with almost ready applications. We can help them get there, always without compromising our freedom. Besides, I'd ask how long will Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS users have to put up without their rights?
Well, the worst thing you can say about GIMP is not supporting CYMK and a probably a couple more other patented stuff.
Plugins, it will not load Photoshop's, AFAICS even if run on Windows, but that is hardly something you will really miss, since it has a huge amount of plugins by itself, and if you're not happy with how one works, or need something extra, it's *relatively* easy to change and extend (or maybe you could convince a more experienced GIMP user/developer to help you extend it).
GUI, it's not Photoshop (and who said Photoshop's gui was simple?) but it has already won some prizes, and, its the origin of GTK+ (GIMP ToolKit), which is used in one of the two most used Free Software desktop environments.
Feature set, if you consider Photoshop as a 100% feature set app, GIMP may not be 100% to your eys, but if you consider PaintShopPro as 100%, then GIMP is eons ahead.
The lack of CYMK, makes GIMP not ready for the world of print, but in the fully digital world, there's absolutely no need for Photoshop. It may have a different UI, or you may not like the interface, the extensibility and the Freedom (no, you are not free to share a Photoshop copy with your friends or family, for instance).
But do join the GIMP mailing lists, and you'll see that in the digital world, you can (and probably will) live very happy without Photoshop.
also in linux you don't get photoshop, or perhaps other commercial tools that most web developers are familiar with.
If not directed to print media, The GIMP surpasses Photoshop in quality (not to mention that it by FAR surpasses Photoshop in Freedom). And if you're a web developer that uses a GUI to do web pages, well, you just plain suck as pro man:)
Does this issue have to be addressed, definetly, but I think he knows he's not the one to do it. It's better suited for Redhat or maybe HP, not developers.
I fear you think too small and that moderating you as insightfull or even interesting is excessive. However, you do have a point, it's better suited for RedHat (who pays the income of some kernel developers like Alan 'just-as-important-if-not-more-than-Linus' Cox) and others, who _are_ able to pay for developers to dedicate full time into Free Software.
Think broader... Anyone who can gather a 'troop' of faithfull fans has a moral obligation to incentivate the fans into cooperating into the creation of a better world. Look at some other famous people like late Princess Di.. I don't give half a cent for monarchy but she used her fame to promote public awareness of a lot of important issues. Why shouldn't Linus? Alan is trying to (as far as he can... remember the DMCA protest he did some kernel version back?).
To the article poster and to all who can't distinguish, here is a rule that you should learn:
Proprietary Software != Commercial Software
It's proprietary software (regardless of being commercial or not -- realplayer is proprietary but free of charge) that will not work. This is due to the usual bad support that proprietary software vendors inflict upon the consumers.
With Free Software (regardless of being commercial or not -- Mandrake cd's can be bought), you can recompile (if someone's not done that for you already) in order to have it work on this new environment, regardless of the wish for profit of the vendor. If you don't have the expertise, you can ask someone else to do it for you (either gratis or for some amount of money).
So remember kids: There is Proprietary Software which is not commercial There is Free Software that is commercial Proprietary has nothing to do with Commercial
What is so imperative about supporting proprietary software? Specially from a third party?
If the java community really cared, they'd be pressing sun to make java GPL, instead of whining about the evolution of Free Software... Now... THAT would rock...
...that allow XFree86 drivers to be built and work potentially as well (or better) as their proprietary couterparts (or even better, if they work on Free Software drivers), I'll gladly buy this card. If not, oh well, my Matrox Millenium G200 still has pretty good 2D, and 3D is just about a tad slower than geforce's Free drivers (not the proprietary ones), so its a win-win situation... they sell one more card, and I finally can enjoy good and decent 3D:)
Many don't digitally sign their sources with a secure key, and thus there is absolutely no way to verify that those sources are the ones the developer intended to release.
Many think that a simple md5sum alongside the sources is enough. IT IS NOT. Any attacker who replaces the sources can as easily replace the md5sum, which can be generated by anyone.
A digital signature (I suggest using gpg) can only be generated by YOU if you keep it in a secure place, and use it to sign the sources. The public side of this key should be widely distributed and preferably signed (that is recognized) by third parties... the most trustworthy these third parties can be, the better.
After the huge attack on the network where such sites as Apache were hosted, other Apache projects which did not sign their packages suddenly started signing them. They got scared. You should be too.
A lot of people instinctively trust their dns resolutions (oops) and also think that if they go to http://www.mozilla.org they will get their favorite browser for sure. They are also wrong. dns can be spoofed under certain conditions, so they could be going to crackersR.us instead, and downloading a neat trojaned source, for instance.
The more a project grows in fame, the more it will become a likely target for these kinds of attacks, so the more need to a degree of responsability that should not be needed, but it unfourtunately is since the danger is ubiquitous.
Actually, if you had dared to read the documents, the AdTI paper (at least the first incarnation -- I just read the comments on the changes a few days ago, but I didn't read the new incarnation) reeks of bad phrasing, factual mistakes, etc.
It even happens to say (matching word by word) what Microsoft spokespersons have already said... so even though the tone of the rebuttal was not the best one (to learn, read the rebuttal of Microsofts letter to Dr. Edgar Villanueva) it was good enough for the shamefull piece of crap that the AdTI paper was (in both incarnations).
"Talks a lot about RMS's tacticts for getting his acronym included with the kernel's name."
This is not true.
Richard Stallman wants to include the 'GNU/' prefix to the system's name, not to the kernel's name, which is duefully named Linux.
So, when you talk about the system, you're most probably talking about GNU, the Free system the FSF has as a goal, and when you talk about the kernel, you're talking about the HURD or Linux.
The HURD, being a direct GNU project, will enable the GNU system (no strings attached), however it is not yet ready.
So what most usually call Linux (which is a kernel) is the combination of the GNU system (minus a kernel) with the kernel Linux. Therefore, GNU/Linux.
Many incorrectly believe that the whole system's been developed by Linus Torvalds and his faithfull foot soldiers (yes, even XFree86, KDE, GNOME [which is a GNU project], etc...) and calling the whole system only Linux, not only doesn't give any credit to all developers, but also perpetuates this historical error.
More details at:
http://www.fsf.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
http://www.fsf.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
The GNU GPL is very strongly fit into copyright law. If you do not want to respect the GNU GPL, you loose the rights to use and/or distribute the code.
The FSF, by publicly alerting the Lindows project, surely has done so after fruitless discussion with the project managers, and so they have the need to publicly call for respect of the GNU GPL.
Lindows is specially based off Debian GNU/Linux, which uses almost exclusively Free Software. It has building processes that include source packages.
That way, if the source packages for the betas are not there, then they are distributin software under copyright law violation by not respecting the source.
This is the second beta. The FSF surely has been trying to talk privately with the Lindows project so bad publicity could be avoided towards the project.
They choose not to respect the GNU GPL terms of distribution. They choose to either ignore or disregard attempts to privately solve this problem (NOTE: this is speculation).
The FSF must've seen no other choice than making a public alert, as the inventors of the GNU GPL.
There are other Free Software licenses, but The FSF has responsabilities with the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL.
This is not eating your young. Imagine it was Microsoft snithcing to the BSA that Lindows was not respecting the software licences? They would probaly then close the project down.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, AFAICT, choosing between non-free software programs is only a matter of choosing who your owner is going to be.
With Free (Livre) Software a governmant will have true soverneity over what it's computers do (well, that may need some support --> business model here?).
If it doesn't like the way some things are being done, it can always be done by others. With non-free software, all who can really do anything at all are the owneres, so they get to "tell to" the government what it can (or can't) do with its computers.
I'm sorry, but this _is_ a choice a government can do that is somewhat important. It will get to choose who can give it support. It'll get it control over what the software is doing, and talking about plenty software choices, well... the FUD some idiots spread around is that there's too much Free Software programs for you to choose... so there you go. You can choose the best Free tool for the job. Freedom is what the government is mandating for itself by choosing to use only Free Software. Why are you against it? Do you rather your government can't tell you wether some software company has secret access to your records?
It depends... McDonalds was sued for not including a warning that coffe is hot and may burn you...
Hello,
;)). However, most of I have written by you is in trade paperbacks of old collections.
:)
I'm a huge Portuguese fan of yours, and I've bought many books without any other references other than having your name, up untill now without disappointments. To me you're on a place I reserve for great comic book writers. You're up there, right besides Gaiman, Moore, Morrison, etc... Your take on X-Counter was awesome (a pity nobody really stood up properly on your shoulders). It elevated the way the X-Books were going, and proved that it was worth investing in good writers (just look at the current portfolio with the exception of Austen
Enough flattery. If i can have the choice, I much rather buy the tradepaperback to get a "full" storyline without the stress of waiting for the next month. It's also a much better way to appreciate story, drawing and inking.
SO, do you feel that the grwing trend from fans of prefering trade paperbacks (and Marvel seems to be grabbing a hold on that market too) is beneficial for you? If not, why?
No you're not though, the program could be linking in a different library at run time to the one it was coded against.
With *some* libraries, you may be able to do that, technically (borderline cases). However, the running program is *still* including the code it needs. In certain cases, maybe it's the user who's breaking a license, and not just the distributor. You can't treat them all in the same way as long as you have copyright. Tough.
Now if Wine had been GPL instead of LGLP would have have ment that all windows programs under through Wine would then become GPL?
Only those made using the winlib, if it was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed. You would need to expect the coders to honour the library, of course.
What if you use piping? Can a program pipe through a GPL program without being absorbed by the GPL licence?
LOL a pipe is a means to connect the stdout of one program to the stdin of another. That's two different running programs. All those supposed doubpts are quite clearly explained in the GPL FAQ. If it invoves fork & exec you're on the clear. The output of a GPL'ed program is not covered by the GPL. Same thing for input , etc... etc...
Now, go read the faq, see how it all clears up. In doubpt, many mailing lists exist. Ask a simple question...
Larry, this post you did (if that's really you, because I don't recognize any digital signature in here) is a graveous disservice to us ALL.
Please, allow me to technically shatter point number two:
2) The meaning of derivative work will not be broadened to include software created by linking to library programs that were designed and intended to be used as library programs. When a company releases a scientific subroutine library, or a library of objects, for example, people who merely use the library, unmodified, perhaps without even looking at the source code, are not thereby creating derivative works of the library.
When you link to library, you can do it dynamically or statically. I suppose I really don't have to explain much about the static linking, since it's extremely obvious that the library code that is used is being distributed, so let's concentrate on dynamic linking.
When you link dynamically, you aren't distributing, as such, any linked code... however, dynamic linking is just a facilty to reduce memory size, and facilitate distribution: you are effectively including the code when you run the program. You just don't distribute it due to technical artifacts that make programming and distribution much simpler. It's a techincal feat, that changes nothing and is completely olrthogonal to copyright issues.
That said, when you use a function of a library, you are basing your work on that library (a third party's work); without it, the program won't run. So, unless you carry your own version of those certain functions you need, yes, you are making a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, HENCE: DERIVATIVE, as you, yourself, quoted.
Please, don't add to the confusion. You are a recognized person who has the power to form opinions. Casting such graveous comments only adds power to a confusion that would certainly be usefully exploited by big powers unfriendly to Free Software. Or "open source", or whatever you rather call it.
Hi, you can always checkout octave which is provides a convenient command line interface for solving linear and nonlinear problems numerically, and for performing other numerical experiments using a language that is mostly compatible with Matlab.
P.S. Don't call me "ignorant." As shown above, I am both more knowledgeable and more intelligent than you are.
No one can easily question your intelligence, but your humanity is quite at a doubpt with such a post.
Legislation is being prepared in the background that will force them to comply, as well, in Portugal. Freedom of Speech _does_not_ exist in Portugal either (even though the constitutios says it does), which makes laws like this very dangerous.
Well, there is a small number of empowered people who 'own' the masses by being the only ones who can dictate what happens to your computer and the things you do. I consider this a certain return to medieval times, yes.
Now, whoever thinks that independence and freedom are easy paths, then some history needs to be learned.
Microsoft and Apple are in a perfect situation to tell you you can't do this or that at their will. You have no rights over what you bought, not even the rights fair use gives you. Of course you can disobey the license, but then, you will be violating international copyright law. I rather keep those problems at a distance that can never be far enough.
The right to reverse engineer someone else's IP that they worked hard to create and should be able to earn an income from?
First, you are wrong to say that it is intelectual property, since that is precisely proving that you bought the propaganda and are now confusing copyright law, patent law, trademark law, etc... all mixed in a bag like they are the same thing when they are, in fact, ortogonal.
Reverse engineer _is_ covered in the law and is widely considered a benefitial thing. Only proprietary software vendors want to forbid that, so that no one can make products that will even interoperate with theirs, thus resulting in a monopoly that leaves you at their mercy.
You are also confusing ideas with expressions of ideas. You can't own an idea, for instance, since _anyone_ can have the same idea (since all ideas are developed incrementally above older ideas) even without knowledge that someone else had the same idea. They lost both their time (and possibly money), but one will have to give up because of the other one? That's ridiculous. But if you copy the expression of an idea and then change it, you then are falling under copyright law. If you allow software patents, you will automatically forbid anyone of creating Free Software that could compete with the proprietary software, thus lacking the completeness you complain... no wonder... they can't compete, it's not a free market but a monopolistic market!
I'm just trying to explain why I harbor no sympathy for freeloaders, which I think makes up the bulk of the open source and free software using communities.
So I can safely assume you are in favour of the not invented here syndrome, and that everyone should loose their time re-inventing the wheell so that they can't loose their time making better and more complex software... ok, that's what you want.
I didn't buy a computer to help out in some "movement". I bought one to help me complete a given task in a shorter amount of time thus increasing my personal productivity.
I'm not intending to force you into joining a movement. Just noticing that you have no right whatsoever to complain. YOU are the freeloader when you use Free Software and yet complain, as if you paid anything, as if you helped develop anything. You can shoot yourself now since you harbor no sympathy for yourself.
I'm not exactly a Linux user, well, I am, indirectly, since that is the current kernel of the GNU system. Since I choose not being a subject to the kings above me, who could dicatate over my freedoms, I'll wait as long as its needed.
Did we pay them _anything_ in order to be able to demand _anything_?
Probably not. So, we don't have to put up with almost ready applications. We can help them get there, always without compromising our freedom. Besides, I'd ask how long will Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS users have to put up without their rights?
Well, the worst thing you can say about GIMP is not supporting CYMK and a probably a couple more other patented stuff.
Plugins, it will not load Photoshop's, AFAICS even if run on Windows, but that is hardly something you will really miss, since it has a huge amount of plugins by itself, and if you're not happy with how one works, or need something extra, it's *relatively* easy to change and extend (or maybe you could convince a more experienced GIMP user/developer to help you extend it).
GUI, it's not Photoshop (and who said Photoshop's gui was simple?) but it has already won some prizes, and, its the origin of GTK+ (GIMP ToolKit), which is used in one of the two most used Free Software desktop environments.
Feature set, if you consider Photoshop as a 100% feature set app, GIMP may not be 100% to your eys, but if you consider PaintShopPro as 100%, then GIMP is eons ahead.
The lack of CYMK, makes GIMP not ready for the world of print, but in the fully digital world, there's absolutely no need for Photoshop. It may have a different UI, or you may not like the interface, the extensibility and the Freedom (no, you are not free to share a Photoshop copy with your friends or family, for instance).
But do join the GIMP mailing lists, and you'll see that in the digital world, you can (and probably will) live very happy without Photoshop.
also in linux you don't get photoshop, or perhaps other commercial tools that most web developers are familiar with.
:)
If not directed to print media, The GIMP surpasses Photoshop in quality (not to mention that it by FAR surpasses Photoshop in Freedom). And if you're a web developer that uses a GUI to do web pages, well, you just plain suck as pro man
Status of Tux2?
Does this issue have to be addressed, definetly, but I think he knows he's not the one to do it. It's better suited for Redhat or maybe HP, not developers.
I fear you think too small and that moderating you as insightfull or even interesting is excessive. However, you do have a point, it's better suited for RedHat (who pays the income of some kernel developers like Alan 'just-as-important-if-not-more-than-Linus' Cox) and others, who _are_ able to pay for developers to dedicate full time into Free Software.
Think broader... Anyone who can gather a 'troop' of faithfull fans has a moral obligation to incentivate the fans into cooperating into the creation of a better world. Look at some other famous people like late Princess Di.. I don't give half a cent for monarchy but she used her fame to promote public awareness of a lot of important issues. Why shouldn't Linus? Alan is trying to (as far as he can... remember the DMCA protest he did some kernel version back?).
Think broader...
ps: I do sure hope APPL doesn't sue me, no!
Those are good news that you gave, I thought that this project was almost dead!
To the article poster and to all who can't distinguish, here is a rule that you should learn:
Proprietary Software != Commercial Software
It's proprietary software (regardless of being commercial or not -- realplayer is proprietary but free of charge) that will not work. This is due to the usual bad support that proprietary software vendors inflict upon the consumers.
With Free Software (regardless of being commercial or not -- Mandrake cd's can be bought), you can recompile (if someone's not done that for you already) in order to have it work on this new environment, regardless of the wish for profit of the vendor. If you don't have the expertise, you can ask someone else to do it for you (either gratis or for some amount of money).
So remember kids:
There is Proprietary Software which is not commercial
There is Free Software that is commercial
Proprietary has nothing to do with Commercial
What is so imperative about supporting proprietary software? Specially from a third party?
If the java community really cared, they'd be pressing sun to make java GPL, instead of whining about the evolution of Free Software... Now... THAT would rock...
...that allow XFree86 drivers to be built and work potentially as well (or better) as their proprietary couterparts (or even better, if they work on Free Software drivers), I'll gladly buy this card. If not, oh well, my Matrox Millenium G200 still has pretty good 2D, and 3D is just about a tad slower than geforce's Free drivers (not the proprietary ones), so its a win-win situation... they sell one more card, and I finally can enjoy good and decent 3D :)
Cheers
Many don't digitally sign their sources with a secure key, and thus there is absolutely no way to verify that those sources are the ones the developer intended to release.
Many think that a simple md5sum alongside the sources is enough. IT IS NOT. Any attacker who replaces the sources can as easily replace the md5sum, which can be generated by anyone.
A digital signature (I suggest using gpg) can only be generated by YOU if you keep it in a secure place, and use it to sign the sources. The public side of this key should be widely distributed and preferably signed (that is recognized) by third parties... the most trustworthy these third parties can be, the better.
After the huge attack on the network where such sites as Apache were hosted, other Apache projects which did not sign their packages suddenly started signing them. They got scared. You should be too.
A lot of people instinctively trust their dns resolutions (oops) and also think that if they go to http://www.mozilla.org they will get their favorite browser for sure. They are also wrong. dns can be spoofed under certain conditions, so they could be going to crackersR.us instead, and downloading a neat trojaned source, for instance.
The more a project grows in fame, the more it will become a likely target for these kinds of attacks, so the more need to a degree of responsability that should not be needed, but it unfourtunately is since the danger is ubiquitous.
Be carefull, be very carefull.
Also avoid using user root period.
Actually, if you had dared to read the documents, the AdTI paper (at least the first incarnation -- I just read the comments on the changes a few days ago, but I didn't read the new incarnation) reeks of bad phrasing, factual mistakes, etc.
It even happens to say (matching word by word) what Microsoft spokespersons have already said... so even though the tone of the rebuttal was not the best one (to learn, read the rebuttal of Microsofts letter to Dr. Edgar Villanueva) it was good enough for the shamefull piece of crap that the AdTI paper was (in both incarnations).
They maintain projects like this one, yet they sold their hard disk drives division to another (Hitachi?).
Could this be yet another sign that HDD is not here for long?
"Talks a lot about RMS's tacticts for getting his acronym included with the kernel's name."
This is not true.
Richard Stallman wants to include the 'GNU/' prefix to the system's name, not to the kernel's name, which is duefully named Linux.
So, when you talk about the system, you're most probably talking about GNU, the Free system the FSF has as a goal, and when you talk about the kernel, you're talking about the HURD or Linux.
The HURD, being a direct GNU project, will enable the GNU system (no strings attached), however it is not yet ready.
So what most usually call Linux (which is a kernel) is the combination of the GNU system (minus a kernel) with the kernel Linux. Therefore, GNU/Linux.
Many incorrectly believe that the whole system's been developed by Linus Torvalds and his faithfull foot soldiers (yes, even XFree86, KDE, GNOME [which is a GNU project], etc...) and calling the whole system only Linux, not only doesn't give any credit to all developers, but also perpetuates this historical error.
More details at:
http://www.fsf.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
http://www.fsf.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
The GNU GPL is very strongly fit into copyright law. If you do not want to respect the GNU GPL, you loose the rights to use and/or distribute the code.
The FSF, by publicly alerting the Lindows project, surely has done so after fruitless discussion with the project managers, and so they have the need to publicly call for respect of the GNU GPL.
Lindows is specially based off Debian GNU/Linux, which uses almost exclusively Free Software. It has building processes that include source packages.
That way, if the source packages for the betas are not there, then they are distributin software under copyright law violation by not respecting the source.
This is the second beta. The FSF surely has been trying to talk privately with the Lindows project so bad publicity could be avoided towards the project.
They choose not to respect the GNU GPL terms of distribution. They choose to either ignore or disregard attempts to privately solve this problem (NOTE: this is speculation).
The FSF must've seen no other choice than making a public alert, as the inventors of the GNU GPL.
There are other Free Software licenses, but The FSF has responsabilities with the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL.
This is not eating your young. Imagine it was Microsoft snithcing to the BSA that Lindows was not respecting the software licences? They would probaly then close the project down.
Hugs, Cyclops
ps: silly question? definitely not.
Yes, finally they have a business model!
I'm running to the stores to buy some proprietary junk that costs more than a copy of RedHat.
Although this may have been intended as a joke, I am an user within #2 - #570,000 and I reject this statement.