Unix and Unix-like systems have never tied services to any GUI as Windows and services running on it seem to often do. There are a number of window systems and other GUI programs that run on *nix but network services never rely on any of them. If MS is serious about proper headless installations, that's what they'll emulate. MS seems to be gradually distancing themselves from earlier claims that NT is a "better Unix than Unix" and moving Windows more and more in the direction of *nix.
I'm not sure Google considers users of Chrome customers. Google's customers are those paying for their services, like ads. At least anyone so inclined and skilled could make a fork of Chromium with that feature.
Not all surveillance on US citizens is wrong. Law enforcement often need to surveil suspected criminals to investigate crimes but there have traditionally been significant limitations on how they can do it, especially without a warrant. AFAIK, there are no laws, policies or other limitations on how drones can and are being used beyond the FAA licensing. Government agencies using them need to be open about how the're using drones so that there can be public debates about how such uses should be regulated. If they can't tell us how they're using them and why, they shouldn't be allowed to use them at all.
Prudent people never assume any particular piece of data can be retrieved from any one place it's been stored and make frequent backups. Btrfs is still probably a little more likely to permanently lose data than Ext4, but no file system is perfect, especially since no hardware is perfect. Do yourself a favor and set up automatic backups of essential data and you'll be free to use whatever file system you want.
I tried btrfs when I recently installed ubuntu on a new netbook. It was taking 15 minutes to fsck the disk on startup. This file system seems a long way from being used by default.
The btrfsck command is quite new and immature. I've been using btrfs for many months without having it at all. Like all modern Linux journaling file systems, running fsck before mount is unnecessary since the kernel itself takes care of consistency, so what you're experiencing could simply be a misconfiguration. Simply change the last field in the "/etc/fstab" line describing your Btrfs file system from 1 or 2 to 0 to skip running fsck at boot if it's wasting a lot of time. However, the lack of useable btrfsck for when something goes wrong has long been the main reason Btrfs is only for experimenters.
I haven't used EXTn for my main file systems for many years as there have been superior options for a long time, including ReiserFS, JFS and XFS. Now, most of my file systems are XFS but I'm using Btrfs for some. Of course, Ext4 is good enough for most uses.
Yep, the lesson is: "If you are a good neighbor and share with others, you might go to jail." How much more evidence do you need that the system is broken than that the message the government sends is in direct opposition to what children are taught from early childhood?
Of course flying combat aircraft is inherently dangerous, especially fighters and these crashes in no way indicate the overall failure of the. However, the F-22 first flew 14 years ago and entered active service six years ago, so it shouldn't be bleeding edge any more. Perhaps these crashes are just another symptom of the extremely protracted development process that began over twenty years ago. Since so few F-22s could be afforded, it probably takes a a lot longer to find such bugs than it would with a much more common type like the F-16.
All software licenses, Free and proprietary alike, disclaim liability. If you're not sure which license to choose for Free or Open Source software, the GNU guide can be helpful. Even if you don't agree with their philosophical reasons for Copyleft, you can use the Apache License 2.0, which is the permissive license they recommend. If the Apache License 2.0 is good enough for the FSF, OSI, ASF, Google and so many others, it's probably good enough for you.
The GPL was written by RMS and the Free Software Foundationabout ten years before the term "Open Source" was coined. The Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition are nearly identical and generally, if something is Free Software, it is Open Source and vice-versa. However, the FSF and OSI have deep philosophical differences. The primary difference is that the FSF considers software freedom to be most important, while the OSI considers the pragmatic value of source code availability to be the most important. I'm convinced that both FSF and OSI have important roles to play, as do permissive and Copyleft licenses. However, I can't agree with the proponents of the term "Open Source" who claimed that it was less confusing than "Free Software," as posts like yours make it clear that two competing terms make things more confusing rather than less.
If the GPL was intended to be temporary, it was only until copyright was no longer relevant to software. If you need an example of the relevance of Copyleft in general and the GPL specifically, you need only look at Android. Google has made it clear that they prefer permissively-licensed software so that they can choose whether or not to release source whenever they want. They exercised that power with Android 3 (Gingerbread) by releasing no source at all with the exception of Linux, which is under the GPL v2. The fact that many companies "take open source seriously" is no reason to abandon Copyleft but rather the exact opposite.
From the article, it isn't clear to me what criteria they used to include projects in their survey. It would be interesting to know the numbers based on impact of the project -- a zillion little drivers released under BSD could skew the results.
That's the reason this "survey" is utterly useless. There's no objective way to measure what they claim to measuring. If they're counting number of projects, that's unfair to large projects. There's no way they can be considering all code every released under a Free or Open Source license, so how do they choose which ones deserve to be counted?
When companies realized that if they ship GPL v3 code in any way, shape, or form, a customer could demand any trade secrets from them, the legal bean counters went nuts.
An example would be a machine that skins oranges. Any GPL v3 code used in the machine would force the maker to hand over to customers on request the CAD blueprints for the mechanisms, the timing involved, down to the color of the engineer farts when the thing is put together.
I personally have seen companies who had to re-engineer a whole embedded controller from Linux to Windows CE just so they did not bump into GPL v3 issues.
This is completely bullshit. No version of the GPL says anything about trade secrets. GPL v3 does add language about patents, which are logically and legally distinct. The other reason the above is obviously false is that Linux has always been under GPL v2 and there's little chance it will be relicensed under v3 any time soon.
Because if you truly want to promote freedom and free code, you also have to let people to profit from it. Freedom isn't picking who gets to enjoy that "freedom" based on some rules.
I don't need to list the many companies and individuals making a profit from Copyleft software, but I will point out that the FSF itself was the first to make money from selling copies of its own Free, Copyleft software.
There is always a trade-off of freedoms in any policy, including license choice. Permissive licenses give more freedom to the initial recipient of the code at the cost of freedom for the entire community of users and potential users. Copyleft restricts some freedoms of an initial recipient only so that everyone else gets the same freedoms. Each approach has its place and will remain important.
After a multi-car pileup involving two school buses, the NTSB is urging states to ban all cellphones and personal electronic devices in cars, even hands-free phones.
This particular accident is not the reason why the NTSB is proposing this. The NTSB is proposing this because there is a huge amount of incontrovertible evidence that when people talk on their cell phones while driving (regardless of whether the phone is hands-free), the become distracted and drive badly.
What about evidence that talking to passengers in the car is distracting? I've experienced that myself and actively avoid being distracted now. Drivers must be responsible enough to judge when any conversation is too distracting and get off the road if necessary.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
The NTSB isn't targeting gadges. The NTSB is targeting bad drivers. You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver, and you should be targeted.
If you talk to passengers, are you automatically a bad driver too? I can't wait for the day when there are listening devices inside everyone's car so police can find out if the driver was talking to anyone regardless of whether she was in the car or not.
If cell phones are allowed on the road, I'd like it to be legal to allow a 1000ft cell jammer in my car.
Cell phones have always been allowed on the road. If talking to someone on a phone while driving is dangerous, talking to passengers is too; can you jam those conversations? I have personally been distracted by talking to passengers and now consciously avoid allowing conversations to distract me from the road ahead of me. Driving on public roads is a privilege that requires competence and responsibility. Reactionary banning of devices which can be abused will not improve safety overall.
But non-detail-bearing outbound messages? Seriously, so what? That has no effect on the actual trial or the defendant's ability to enjoy the due process of law leading to a more-or-less fair verdict.
Do you really think the juror made a post without reading anything else on Twitter or elsewhere? Should judges be required to know enough to distinguish between posting only vs. reading the web site du jour?
As underhanded as this is, I doubt it fits any legal or logical definition of monopolistic practices. Business-wise, it's just cunning strategy and probably not illegal. Besides, given the amount of good the government's suit against Microsoft did, should we really hope for that?
This is the natural result of marketing and modeling trends. OTOH, perhaps a similar approach could result in more truthful advertising. If the clothing could be virtually fitted to a potential customer's body, the resulting image would be far more useful to the customer than images of a model, whether human or computer. Of course manufacturers would never go for it.
Java and DotNet code is usually interpreted and/or JIT compiled and the term "interpreted language" is nearly meaningless. However, the article is almost useless as it says nothing about how the code samples were selected.
Slashdot Mirror
Unix and Unix-like systems have never tied services to any GUI as Windows and services running on it seem to often do. There are a number of window systems and other GUI programs that run on *nix but network services never rely on any of them. If MS is serious about proper headless installations, that's what they'll emulate. MS seems to be gradually distancing themselves from earlier claims that NT is a "better Unix than Unix" and moving Windows more and more in the direction of *nix.
I'm not sure Google considers users of Chrome customers. Google's customers are those paying for their services, like ads. At least anyone so inclined and skilled could make a fork of Chromium with that feature.
Not all surveillance on US citizens is wrong. Law enforcement often need to surveil suspected criminals to investigate crimes but there have traditionally been significant limitations on how they can do it, especially without a warrant. AFAIK, there are no laws, policies or other limitations on how drones can and are being used beyond the FAA licensing. Government agencies using them need to be open about how the're using drones so that there can be public debates about how such uses should be regulated. If they can't tell us how they're using them and why, they shouldn't be allowed to use them at all.
Prudent people never assume any particular piece of data can be retrieved from any one place it's been stored and make frequent backups. Btrfs is still probably a little more likely to permanently lose data than Ext4, but no file system is perfect, especially since no hardware is perfect. Do yourself a favor and set up automatic backups of essential data and you'll be free to use whatever file system you want.
I tried btrfs when I recently installed ubuntu on a new netbook. It was taking 15 minutes to fsck the disk on startup. This file system seems a long way from being used by default.
The btrfsck command is quite new and immature. I've been using btrfs for many months without having it at all. Like all modern Linux journaling file systems, running fsck before mount is unnecessary since the kernel itself takes care of consistency, so what you're experiencing could simply be a misconfiguration. Simply change the last field in the "/etc/fstab" line describing your Btrfs file system from 1 or 2 to 0 to skip running fsck at boot if it's wasting a lot of time. However, the lack of useable btrfsck for when something goes wrong has long been the main reason Btrfs is only for experimenters.
I haven't used EXTn for my main file systems for many years as there have been superior options for a long time, including ReiserFS, JFS and XFS. Now, most of my file systems are XFS but I'm using Btrfs for some. Of course, Ext4 is good enough for most uses.
Most copyright infringement is not criminal and I'm having a hard time imagining how this was since the "perpetrator" made no money from it.
Yep, the lesson is: "If you are a good neighbor and share with others, you might go to jail." How much more evidence do you need that the system is broken than that the message the government sends is in direct opposition to what children are taught from early childhood?
Unfortunately, IRL, the F-22 boasts a 0-2 kill ratio: it has killed infinitely more of its pilots than enemy.
Of course flying combat aircraft is inherently dangerous, especially fighters and these crashes in no way indicate the overall failure of the. However, the F-22 first flew 14 years ago and entered active service six years ago, so it shouldn't be bleeding edge any more. Perhaps these crashes are just another symptom of the extremely protracted development process that began over twenty years ago. Since so few F-22s could be afforded, it probably takes a a lot longer to find such bugs than it would with a much more common type like the F-16.
I'm sure MAC addresses aren't the same. It's surprising if Windows doesn't use them for identification.
All software licenses, Free and proprietary alike, disclaim liability. If you're not sure which license to choose for Free or Open Source software, the GNU guide can be helpful. Even if you don't agree with their philosophical reasons for Copyleft, you can use the Apache License 2.0, which is the permissive license they recommend. If the Apache License 2.0 is good enough for the FSF, OSI, ASF, Google and so many others, it's probably good enough for you.
The GPL was written by RMS and the Free Software Foundation about ten years before the term "Open Source" was coined. The Free Software Definition and Open Source Definition are nearly identical and generally, if something is Free Software, it is Open Source and vice-versa. However, the FSF and OSI have deep philosophical differences. The primary difference is that the FSF considers software freedom to be most important, while the OSI considers the pragmatic value of source code availability to be the most important. I'm convinced that both FSF and OSI have important roles to play, as do permissive and Copyleft licenses. However, I can't agree with the proponents of the term "Open Source" who claimed that it was less confusing than "Free Software," as posts like yours make it clear that two competing terms make things more confusing rather than less.
If the GPL was intended to be temporary, it was only until copyright was no longer relevant to software. If you need an example of the relevance of Copyleft in general and the GPL specifically, you need only look at Android. Google has made it clear that they prefer permissively-licensed software so that they can choose whether or not to release source whenever they want. They exercised that power with Android 3 (Gingerbread) by releasing no source at all with the exception of Linux, which is under the GPL v2. The fact that many companies "take open source seriously" is no reason to abandon Copyleft but rather the exact opposite.
From the article, it isn't clear to me what criteria they used to include projects in their survey. It would be interesting to know the numbers based on impact of the project -- a zillion little drivers released under BSD could skew the results.
That's the reason this "survey" is utterly useless. There's no objective way to measure what they claim to measuring. If they're counting number of projects, that's unfair to large projects. There's no way they can be considering all code every released under a Free or Open Source license, so how do they choose which ones deserve to be counted?
When companies realized that if they ship GPL v3 code in any way, shape, or form, a customer could demand any trade secrets from them, the legal bean counters went nuts.
An example would be a machine that skins oranges. Any GPL v3 code used in the machine would force the maker to hand over to customers on request the CAD blueprints for the mechanisms, the timing involved, down to the color of the engineer farts when the thing is put together.
I personally have seen companies who had to re-engineer a whole embedded controller from Linux to Windows CE just so they did not bump into GPL v3 issues.
This is completely bullshit. No version of the GPL says anything about trade secrets. GPL v3 does add language about patents, which are logically and legally distinct. The other reason the above is obviously false is that Linux has always been under GPL v2 and there's little chance it will be relicensed under v3 any time soon.
Because if you truly want to promote freedom and free code, you also have to let people to profit from it. Freedom isn't picking who gets to enjoy that "freedom" based on some rules.
I don't need to list the many companies and individuals making a profit from Copyleft software, but I will point out that the FSF itself was the first to make money from selling copies of its own Free, Copyleft software.
There is always a trade-off of freedoms in any policy, including license choice. Permissive licenses give more freedom to the initial recipient of the code at the cost of freedom for the entire community of users and potential users. Copyleft restricts some freedoms of an initial recipient only so that everyone else gets the same freedoms. Each approach has its place and will remain important.
After a multi-car pileup involving two school buses, the NTSB is urging states to ban all cellphones and personal electronic devices in cars, even hands-free phones.
This particular accident is not the reason why the NTSB is proposing this. The NTSB is proposing this because there is a huge amount of incontrovertible evidence that when people talk on their cell phones while driving (regardless of whether the phone is hands-free), the become distracted and drive badly.
What about evidence that talking to passengers in the car is distracting? I've experienced that myself and actively avoid being distracted now. Drivers must be responsible enough to judge when any conversation is too distracting and get off the road if necessary.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
The NTSB isn't targeting gadges. The NTSB is targeting bad drivers. You can put your cell phone in your car while driving, and nobody will target it. But if you talk on your cell phone while driving, you are a bad driver, and you should be targeted.
If you talk to passengers, are you automatically a bad driver too? I can't wait for the day when there are listening devices inside everyone's car so police can find out if the driver was talking to anyone regardless of whether she was in the car or not.
If cell phones are allowed on the road, I'd like it to be legal to allow a 1000ft cell jammer in my car.
Cell phones have always been allowed on the road. If talking to someone on a phone while driving is dangerous, talking to passengers is too; can you jam those conversations? I have personally been distracted by talking to passengers and now consciously avoid allowing conversations to distract me from the road ahead of me. Driving on public roads is a privilege that requires competence and responsibility. Reactionary banning of devices which can be abused will not improve safety overall.
If WebOS is released under an Open Source license, it will also be Free Software and almost certainly free of cost.
But non-detail-bearing outbound messages? Seriously, so what? That has no effect on the actual trial or the defendant's ability to enjoy the due process of law leading to a more-or-less fair verdict.
Do you really think the juror made a post without reading anything else on Twitter or elsewhere? Should judges be required to know enough to distinguish between posting only vs. reading the web site du jour?
As underhanded as this is, I doubt it fits any legal or logical definition of monopolistic practices. Business-wise, it's just cunning strategy and probably not illegal. Besides, given the amount of good the government's suit against Microsoft did, should we really hope for that?
I also really hoped it was fad of talking like Philip J. Fry, but that seems especially unlikely for women.
That's exactly the idea I had, but that's now how marketing works, so it will never happen.
This is the natural result of marketing and modeling trends. OTOH, perhaps a similar approach could result in more truthful advertising. If the clothing could be virtually fitted to a potential customer's body, the resulting image would be far more useful to the customer than images of a model, whether human or computer. Of course manufacturers would never go for it.
Java and DotNet code is usually interpreted and/or JIT compiled and the term "interpreted language" is nearly meaningless. However, the article is almost useless as it says nothing about how the code samples were selected.