"Shared" Source isn't actually "shared" in the full sense -- you're just allowed to pay a lot to *look* at it. I doubt it even actually builds. Having that kind of access to the source is interesting acedemically, but misses the entire point of the open source and free software movements it's trying to mimic.
Um, no. The ACLU will defend your religious civil liberties as well. The cases where they seem anti-religion are those which involve separation of church and state -- an important distinction which protects against exactly the sort of things the Afghan government has been imposing on its citizens. Keeping Christianity out of schools and local government may seem unfair to you, but in the long run it preserves the option of following the faith you choose. What if, at the founding of the country, Thomas Jefferson's edited Bible had been declared the only acceptable version, and those who had different Christian beliefs forced
to discard them?
You don't have to "progress". Even the basic building blocks are complicated and versitile enough to be an artistic medium for adults, and the more complicated Technic and Mindstorms stuff is better than any Erector Set I've seen.
New listings show up daily. There's enough calling and faxing and so on already with a house purchase that it's *really* nice for there to be a good web interface that you can look over without having any human/low-tech interaction.
many of the ads are actually spam - they're false listings, or (now and then) real listings
provided by a realtor through whom you must go to view the property.
Of course, this isn't unique to the internet -- you'll find exactly the same behavior in the classified ads in the newspaper.
My wife and I just used them (http://ziprealty.com) to purchase a condo in Boston. We were very happy with the whole process -- we had a lot more control over what we were doing than we would have with a conventional broker (since we got to go over the actual MLS information), and when we wanted to go out to see actual places, the agent was very nice and helpful. Totally recommended.
It's been this way for years: cheap, bug-free, or available. If you're lucky, pick two. Software project management guru types will tell you that the time for a release date isn't 100% bug free -- it's 90% bug free. That last 10% takes so long to find and fix that by the time your product is to market, it won't be relevant. Sure, they could delay games for even longer (B&W took three years already!), or they could charge $500, and you could have a bug free product at release.
As it is, wait six months or so after the initial ship date, and there'll be patches bringing the game up to perfection. And, those of us who want to play with the neat stuff right away can, with the understanding that it's probably not actually final.
Or, wait a year, and buy it for half the release price. Or wait two and buy it for $10.
(Obopensource aside: things work slightly differently if you're releasing all along, but the basic principles apply. This is why Mozilla isn't at 1.0 yet, but Netscape 6.0 came out forever ago.)
OpenBSD can't use GPL code, because you can't do what you want with it, and that is against Theo's belief.
Apache can't use GPL code, because that would require GPLing the whole thing.
The problem with Ballmer's statement (and with yours) is that he doesn't explain what he means by "use", and he seems to strongly imply that he means what a normal computer user means -- for example, when I "use" gcc, I type a command line and execute a program that compiles some code. When I "use" Linux, I browse the web and play games and code and so on. Of course, the OpenBSD and Apache people can (and do) "use" GPL'd code in this sense all the time. They can even go a step further and hack and and modify and "use" the code in a programmer's sense, as long as they don't make proprietary modifications.
Most people here know better -- you obviously understand the implications of the GPL vs. less restrictive licenses / public domain, and that's a legitimate point -- but it goes right over the head of the vast majority of people to whom Ballmer is speaking. To them, the message is: "If you use open source software, everything you do will be forced to be open source. Linux will destroy your intellectual property!"
Ballmer's not an idiot -- of course he knows all this. It isn't a "mistake" he's making by accident -- it's a calculated move.
If you accept the incorrect usage of "open source" to mean "GPL'd code" then this statement makes perfect sense.
I'm afraid it still doesn't. Or rather, it makes sense but just isn't true. Anybody -- Microsoft, OpenBSD, whoever -- can use and modify GPL'd code to their heart's content, and it won't "infect" their other code at all. Ballmer claims that if a company uses any open source [GPL'd] code, that company has to make all of their IP available. That's simply not the case.
That said, I agree that it's good that all goverment products are in the public domain. That's a great way to do this -- it just isn't a reason for the goverment (or any company) to not use open source / Free software.
Corporations aren't people -- the "out of control" bit is that we've given them the same rights, without the attendant responsiblity and obligation. Individual rights != corporate rights, as much as the hard-line capitalists would like us to believe they are.
Can you read? I didn't say "fuck the colorblind". I said "all options need to have a color-free fallback for the colorblind". They *shouldn't* have to get a different product.
The only advantage of COLOR is the ability to watch videos...
Not at all! Color is important for the trivial normal day-to-day PDA tasks like calendars and todo lists. Why? The screens are so low resolution that it's necessary to have another way to code information, and color is ideal. Take a look at the calendar app on PalmOS. Without color, the month view is completely useless for anything other than "yup, the 28th is a monday". Any days with scheduled items get a little black dot -- which means almost of them, in my case. There's really not room for more meaningful icons -- take a look at the Datebk3 replacement app to see how cluttered, ugly, and nonfunctional that can get. With color, different events can be blue or green or whatever. Same with the todo list -- sure, one can waste a column with a number for priority -- but why not just color code them? More instant impact, and no extra screen space required.
(Obviously, all options need to have a color-free fallback for the colorblind, but that's no reason to waste this ability for everyone else.)
If Netscape had actually put some effort and planning into Mozilla, then you wouldn't have to ask 'What about Netscape'. They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser FIRST, then all the extras like mail, news and AOL/NSCP Instant Messenger.
I've heard this bit of wisdom bandied about quite a bit -- only problem with it is: it's not true. The Mozilla project is based around the core Gecko engine, which has been a good solid product for some time. They're also working on the extras, because without them, they really are dead. If you want just a good solid browser, check out K-meleon or Skipstone.
IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).
Um. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Mozilla (and therefore Netscape 6+) is easily embedded.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't be surprised if you have to agree to not participate in any such thing if you want to see MS source code.
"Shared" Source isn't actually "shared" in the full sense -- you're just allowed to pay a lot to *look* at it. I doubt it even actually builds. Having that kind of access to the source is interesting acedemically, but misses the entire point of the open source and free software movements it's trying to mimic.
Don't even need to know if it's a data call -- just keep track of the numbers they're calling....
clumsy-o.af
tree-and-le.af
archers-of-lo.af
Um, no. The ACLU will defend your religious civil liberties as well. The cases where they seem anti-religion are those which involve separation of church and state -- an important distinction which protects against exactly the sort of things the Afghan government has been imposing on its citizens. Keeping Christianity out of schools and local government may seem unfair to you, but in the long run it preserves the option of following the faith you choose. What if, at the founding of the country, Thomas Jefferson's edited Bible
had been declared the only acceptable version, and those who had different Christian beliefs forced
to discard them?
You don't have to "progress". Even the basic building blocks are complicated and versitile enough to be an artistic medium for adults, and the more complicated Technic and Mindstorms stuff is better than any Erector Set I've seen.
Who says Lego (Technic or otherwise) doesn't encourage invention? Check out some of the sites on LUGnet's Cool LEGO Site of the Week.
There's no UI for it yet, but you can edit your prefs file. See the release notes for details...
n ", "noAccess");
user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.ope
If you read the article, you'd know which it was.
But in any case, Linus doesn't think that real men use printf() (or printk(), as the case may be). Real men grok the code.
Hopefully this wouldn't effect the lean mean searching that I've come to love from the unquestioned king of search engines.
Actually, I hope that it continues to effect that sort of searching, and that an IPO doesn't affect it negatively....
if you read the page linked to above, it says it's only been fixed for one brand of wireless cards.
Where did you get it for that price? I can only find it for around $200....
New listings show up daily. There's enough calling and faxing and so on already with a house purchase that it's *really* nice for there to be a good web interface that you can look over without having any human/low-tech interaction.
many of the ads are actually spam - they're false listings, or (now and then) real listings provided by a realtor through whom you must go to view the property.
Of course, this isn't unique to the internet -- you'll find exactly the same behavior in the classified ads in the newspaper.
My wife and I just used them (http://ziprealty.com) to purchase a condo in Boston. We were very happy with the whole process -- we had a lot more control over what we were doing than we would have with a conventional broker (since we got to go over the actual MLS information), and when we wanted to go out to see actual places, the agent was very nice and helpful. Totally recommended.
And the 1% rebate doesn't hurt!
It's been this way for years: cheap, bug-free, or available. If you're lucky, pick two. Software project management guru types will tell you that the time for a release date isn't 100% bug free -- it's 90% bug free. That last 10% takes so long to find and fix that by the time your product is to market, it won't be relevant. Sure, they could delay games for even longer (B&W took three years already!), or they could charge $500, and you could have a bug free product at release.
As it is, wait six months or so after the initial ship date, and there'll be patches bringing the game up to perfection. And, those of us who want to play with the neat stuff right away can, with the understanding that it's probably not actually final.
Or, wait a year, and buy it for half the release price. Or wait two and buy it for $10.
(Obopensource aside: things work slightly differently if you're releasing all along, but the basic principles apply. This is why Mozilla isn't at 1.0 yet, but Netscape 6.0 came out forever ago.)
OpenBSD can't use GPL code, because you can't do what you want with it, and that is against Theo's belief.
Apache can't use GPL code, because that would require GPLing the whole thing.
The problem with Ballmer's statement (and with yours) is that he doesn't explain what he means by "use", and he seems to strongly imply that he means what a normal computer user means -- for example, when I "use" gcc, I type a command line and execute a program that compiles some code. When I "use" Linux, I browse the web and play games and code and so on. Of course, the OpenBSD and Apache people can (and do) "use" GPL'd code in this sense all the time. They can even go a step further and hack and and modify and "use" the code in a programmer's sense, as long as they don't make proprietary modifications.
Most people here know better -- you obviously understand the implications of the GPL vs. less restrictive licenses / public domain, and that's a legitimate point -- but it goes right over the head of the vast majority of people to whom Ballmer is speaking. To them, the message is: "If you use open source software, everything you do will be forced to be open source. Linux will destroy your intellectual property!"
Ballmer's not an idiot -- of course he knows all this. It isn't a "mistake" he's making by accident -- it's a calculated move.
If you accept the incorrect usage of "open source" to mean "GPL'd code" then this statement makes perfect sense.
I'm afraid it still doesn't. Or rather, it makes sense but just isn't true. Anybody -- Microsoft, OpenBSD, whoever -- can use and modify GPL'd code to their heart's content, and it won't "infect" their other code at all. Ballmer claims that if a company uses any open source [GPL'd] code, that company has to make all of their IP available. That's simply not the case.
That said, I agree that it's good that all goverment products are in the public domain. That's a great way to do this -- it just isn't a reason for the goverment (or any company) to not use open source / Free software.
Corporations aren't people -- the "out of control" bit is that we've given them the same rights, without the attendant responsiblity and obligation. Individual rights != corporate rights, as much as the hard-line capitalists would like us to believe they are.
Can you read? I didn't say "fuck the colorblind". I said "all options need to have a color-free fallback for the colorblind". They *shouldn't* have to get a different product.
Not at all! Color is important for the trivial normal day-to-day PDA tasks like calendars and todo lists. Why? The screens are so low resolution that it's necessary to have another way to code information, and color is ideal. Take a look at the calendar app on PalmOS. Without color, the month view is completely useless for anything other than "yup, the 28th is a monday". Any days with scheduled items get a little black dot -- which means almost of them, in my case. There's really not room for more meaningful icons -- take a look at the Datebk3 replacement app to see how cluttered, ugly, and nonfunctional that can get. With color, different events can be blue or green or whatever. Same with the todo list -- sure, one can waste a column with a number for priority -- but why not just color code them? More instant impact, and no extra screen space required.
(Obviously, all options need to have a color-free fallback for the colorblind, but that's no reason to waste this ability for everyone else.)
If Netscape had actually put some effort and planning into Mozilla, then you wouldn't have to ask 'What about Netscape'. They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser FIRST, then all the extras like mail, news and AOL/NSCP Instant Messenger.
I've heard this bit of wisdom bandied about quite a bit -- only problem with it is: it's not true. The Mozilla project is based around the core Gecko engine, which has been a good solid product for some time. They're also working on the extras, because without them, they really are dead. If you want just a good solid browser, check out K-meleon or Skipstone.
IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).
Um. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Mozilla (and therefore Netscape 6+) is easily embedded.
Not for MS Windows, but for all x86 unixes: http://www.project-udi.org/.
(See also commentary from LWN).
And honestly, the qmail directory structure is *weird*, and certainly not FHS-compliant. (And all of those .dot files for aliases? Sheesh.)