However, at boot time, I cannot get the messages, but that's really useful when doing your setup, after that, ssh to the box is all I need. I can also plug temporarily a VGA monitor or even a serial console to my Zaurus if really needed. I never ever had to do that to date.
Assuming the machine boots to the point you can log in with ssh you can always use screendump to see what is on the console.
Saying that you will let go of a band because they make a decision that's bad in your eyes, despite not changing style, personalities, or talent is the most childish thing I've ever heard of.
You seem to think he's electing to no longer support the band simply because they've "sold out"
Now, I know people like this. People who whenever a little known band becomes popular assume they've "sold out" and stop liking them. However, I don't think that's what the grandparent poster is referring to.
The grandparent poster is saying he disagrees with the bands view and thinks it's a mistake. Which is a valid opinion. Now he also, let's say (since I do not personally know the grandparent poster), has his own personal belief that he will not support any RIAA bands. Therefore, now that this band is on an RIAA label he cannot support them, whether he likes them or not. Doing so would be a violation of his strong belief. Violating that belief would in fact be a case of him "selling out" his own beliefs.
I don't see how that's childish at all. I respect the fact that he will stick to his belief even though he still likes the band.
It's unfortunate that there's is a conflict for sure, but it's about his principles, not whether the band themselves has "sold out"
I concur entirely. I wrote a website that rendered well in IE, and even passed the W3C validator. When complaints arose over poor rendering in Moz, I had to go out of my way to haxor the code so that it would render in Moz. When it rendered fine in Moz, IE rendering was haxored apart.
Validating the syntax is only part of it though. IE can take valid syntax and render it completely against the spec.
For example, create a box with a div tag, give it a width of 80%, now nest another div within that div, give it a width of 100%. As per the spec the second div should end up filling the 80% parent div. However, IE will have the second div spill over and fill 100% of the screen width, which according to the recommendation is wrong. There are many examples and work arounds for things like this that IE does.
There are no additional restrictions to the GPL code.
I believe there are. But I'm not sure people are noticing it.
You can pay to obtain the binary, which is fine. You then want access to the source, which is required under the GPL. They request you sign up for a subscription to get the source, but in order to get the subscription you need to agree to their terms of service. Terms of Service? There's your additional restriction right there.
It appears to me, that the only way to get the source is to agree to their TOS which is in clear violation of the GPL. Now if the subscription was an additional service other than simple access to the source code, that would be fine, as long as there is still a way to get the source code without agreeing to the terms of service.
In the RedHat up2date example, I still have a means of accessing the source code even if I elect not to use the up2date service or agree to their TOS
If I choose not to accept their TOS that does not absolve them of their responsibility to provide the source code to me at my request.
But I respect your right to trash a film you haven't seen and a website that other people rave about....So you're on your way to being a mainstream film or music reviewer already!;-)
And likewise we'll respect your right to completely ignore valid criticism simply because it doesn't fit in with your mindset.;)
Seriously though, the previous poster makes some excellent points. The site is migraine inducing and nearly impossible to navigate. I can see how you and other filmmakers/visual artists can see art value in merging aspects of the film into the design, but as far as usability goes it's pretty terrible. But that seems to be par for the course for movie web sites these days.
Most film makers don't seem to grasp that they're dealing with two separate mediums and try to make the web like TV.
All flash is certainly a bad idea, but even if that was somehow implemented without flash the site still suffers from serious issues. Unless I was dying to see the film, I wouldn't stick around on that site for more than 30 seconds to a minute tops before leaving out of frustration.
Simply because it's not realistic for you doesn't mean the option should be taken away from those who it is realistic for. Also, with a) you're still relying on the assumption that the commercial package has all the features you will ever need.
This as we know is false, so paying $50 is not a panacea as I made clear in my last post.
So here's the problem with most these "That's why commercial software remains more popular" zealots:
You assume that no commercial software ever lacks a feature customers want. Now, let's say for arguments sake that a piece of software I purchased is lacking a feature I want. What are my options?
I can take it back to the store and get my money back (maybe. These days most stores won't take returns of opened software). On top of that I lose the basic functionality which I may still want.
I can request the feature be added with no assurance that it will (same as in open source). If my request is popular it may get added (same as in open source) if it isn't then I'm out of luck. Even if it is eventually added odds are I'm going to have to pay again to get that feature.
I can make do without said feature.
In the open source world, typically you didn't have to pay for it, so getting your money back isn't needed and as a bonus you still get to use the software, the second option is just as likely in open source as the closed source software world, and in addition you get the option of hiring someone to do it for you or adding it yourself. Personally, I like having that option open to me.
There is something inherently wrong in that - there must be a better way to protect works that have been created for the benefit of others out there than having to pay to protect whats rightfully yours and whats given out in goodwill.
One way to alleviate the burden would be to assign your copyright to the FSF. That way it would be their responsibility not yours. They even have their own lawyers.
I believe you're looking for apt-cache search image viewer. Of course there are also ways to do this through a gui, not to mention packages.debian.org...
Do IE and Mozilla treat the box model in the same way? (Example : try setting a fixed width box with a border, then adding some padding to it - it will currently look different under each browser)
If it does, then cool, but I'd be surprised.
No. IE's box model is horribly broken. Here's an example.
Create a container (say a div with a border) and give it a width of 80%. So far so good. Now put something inside that div and give it a width of 100%. Here lies the problem. Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera and others that conform to standards will properly have the second element fill the 80% container. IE on the other hand will automaticall fill 100% of the screen (thus pouring out of the container).
That's a real pain to deal with when you don't want to use fixed widths all the time...
"What if Microsoft decided to give copies of Windows to Vietnam, and the Vietnamese government forced all vendors to ship with Windows.
Would this be a fair practice?"
If they included the source code they would then be competing with GNU/Linux, *BSD and other open source oses and could be chosen as an option. Heck, they could still charge their normal price, but include the source and would then be eligible for consideration.
As has been stated previously, making open source a requirement does not mean forcing GNU/Linux on them
Try reading NTBugtraq. Here's a quote from a post on October 1, 2003
"Yesterday NTBugtraq was informed of an active attack against users of Internet Explorer. I'd like to thank Steve Shockley for informing me.
The attack comprised of a banner, hosted by FortuneCity.com, which in turn used JavaScript to redirect the self-closing "pop-under" banner to a site hosted by EV1.NET (Everyone's Internet.) An EV1.NET site then delivered executable code which in turn invoked the HTA vulnerability.
The HTA vulnerability is a known and as yet unpatched vulnerability in IE.
Interestingly, vulnerability was described thoroughly by Thor Larholm on Monday at the 5th annual NTBugtraq Retreat, prior to notification of the active attack. He explains it much better than I, but my short version is..."
This vulnerability has since been patched, but only as a reactionary measure to the exploit even though the vulnerability was known for quite some time (even listed on the old pivx site I believe)
RIAA President Cary Sherman in a teleconference today characterized the people who were sued as "major offenders" who distributed about 1,000 copyrighted music files on average.
She later clarified that statement by saying, "In some cases it was only one song, but on a really, really, fast connection"
The problem with that, of course, is that GPL'd software isn't really free (as in speech). It's just a different set of requirements governing distribution and modification, and it relies just as much on copyright law for protection as any closed source, commercial product.
If some code were completely free, then anyone could take it, compile it, change it, give away the results in any form they wanted, incorporate into a paid-for product with or without the source, or otherwise do as they wished.
And of course "the land of the free" really means that everyone is raping and pillaging and doing whatever the hell they damn well please, since after all that's what free really means, doesn't it?
In order to have true freedom you have to have a way maximize and protect the freedoms for all. The GPL is there to do that. That's why it's the very definition of Free Software. It keeps everyone on equal ground so that no one can impede the freedom of others.
I do not know what a "blue dog house" means, what a "red lifesaver" means, or what a "K overlayed upon a sproket" means. I can probably make an educated guess given some previous experience with KDE, but that is hardly accessible. Am I missing something?
Yup. In KDE's quicklauncher if you move your mouse over the icon it will pop up a tool tip describing what it is. For example, on my machine if I mouse over the "wrench menu" I get "Easy access to the Control Center Modules" which is pretty descriptive and wouldn't look too pretty written underneath. I'd also point out that the windows quick launcher doesn't have text under their icons either.
Bush is surely no Christian. Christ preached tolerance and forgiveness, whereas Bush declares war before he even has an enemy. "You are either with us or against us" he says. Then he bombs the crap out of Afghanistan. Then he bombs the crap out of Iraq. Then he starts making menacing noises at Syria. If this is Christianity...
You missed the episode about the crusades, didn't you?
.."Mozilla Web Browser," and "OpenOffice Applications." Do NOT just call the web icon "Mozilla," because these people have no idea what Mozilla even is.
Most people don't seem to know what a web browser is either, so I guess they're still out of luck...
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Non-democracies include oligarchies (power with a few), ploutocracies (power with the rich), gerontocracies (power with the old) and tyrannies (power with a tyran).
hrmm strangely the US matches all of the above as well...
Transgaming is not involved with the crossover plugins at all. Transgaming produces winex for gaming. Codeweavers creates the crossover-plugin and crossover-office plugins. True both are based on wine, they're still two different companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the machine boots to the point you can log in with ssh you can always use screendump to see what is on the console.
Saying that you will let go of a band because they make a decision that's bad in your eyes, despite not changing style, personalities, or talent is the most childish thing I've ever heard of.
You seem to think he's electing to no longer support the band simply because they've "sold out"
Now, I know people like this. People who whenever a little known band becomes popular assume they've "sold out" and stop liking them. However, I don't think that's what the grandparent poster is referring to.
The grandparent poster is saying he disagrees with the bands view and thinks it's a mistake. Which is a valid opinion. Now he also, let's say (since I do not personally know the grandparent poster), has his own personal belief that he will not support any RIAA bands. Therefore, now that this band is on an RIAA label he cannot support them, whether he likes them or not. Doing so would be a violation of his strong belief. Violating that belief would in fact be a case of him "selling out" his own beliefs.
I don't see how that's childish at all. I respect the fact that he will stick to his belief even though he still likes the band.
It's unfortunate that there's is a conflict for sure, but it's about his principles, not whether the band themselves has "sold out"
Validating the syntax is only part of it though. IE can take valid syntax and render it completely against the spec.
For example, create a box with a div tag, give it a width of 80%, now nest another div within that div, give it a width of 100%. As per the spec the second div should end up filling the 80% parent div. However, IE will have the second div spill over and fill 100% of the screen width, which according to the recommendation is wrong. There are many examples and work arounds for things like this that IE does.
I think he might be referring to the issues discussed in this wired article. No idea if it is actually fixed in SP2 or not
I believe there are. But I'm not sure people are noticing it.
You can pay to obtain the binary, which is fine. You then want access to the source, which is required under the GPL. They request you sign up for a subscription to get the source, but in order to get the subscription you need to agree to their terms of service. Terms of Service? There's your additional restriction right there.
It appears to me, that the only way to get the source is to agree to their TOS which is in clear violation of the GPL. Now if the subscription was an additional service other than simple access to the source code, that would be fine, as long as there is still a way to get the source code without agreeing to the terms of service.
In the RedHat up2date example, I still have a means of accessing the source code even if I elect not to use the up2date service or agree to their TOS
If I choose not to accept their TOS that does not absolve them of their responsibility to provide the source code to me at my request.
And likewise we'll respect your right to completely ignore valid criticism simply because it doesn't fit in with your mindset. ;)
Seriously though, the previous poster makes some excellent points. The site is migraine inducing and nearly impossible to navigate. I can see how you and other filmmakers/visual artists can see art value in merging aspects of the film into the design, but as far as usability goes it's pretty terrible. But that seems to be par for the course for movie web sites these days.
Most film makers don't seem to grasp that they're dealing with two separate mediums and try to make the web like TV.
All flash is certainly a bad idea, but even if that was somehow implemented without flash the site still suffers from serious issues. Unless I was dying to see the film, I wouldn't stick around on that site for more than 30 seconds to a minute tops before leaving out of frustration.
The Hardware will be free and the software will be... oh shit...
This as we know is false, so paying $50 is not a panacea as I made clear in my last post.
You assume that no commercial software ever lacks a feature customers want. Now, let's say for arguments sake that a piece of software I purchased is lacking a feature I want. What are my options?
In the open source world, typically you didn't have to pay for it, so getting your money back isn't needed and as a bonus you still get to use the software, the second option is just as likely in open source as the closed source software world, and in addition you get the option of hiring someone to do it for you or adding it yourself. Personally, I like having that option open to me.
One way to alleviate the burden would be to assign your copyright to the FSF. That way it would be their responsibility not yours. They even have their own lawyers.
I believe you're looking for apt-cache search image viewer. Of course there are also ways to do this through a gui, not to mention packages.debian.org...
No. IE's box model is horribly broken. Here's an example.
Create a container (say a div with a border) and give it a width of 80%. So far so good. Now put something inside that div and give it a width of 100%. Here lies the problem. Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera and others that conform to standards will properly have the second element fill the 80% container. IE on the other hand will automaticall fill 100% of the screen (thus pouring out of the container).
That's a real pain to deal with when you don't want to use fixed widths all the time...
or just turn off register_globals which shouldn't be on anyway...
"What if Microsoft decided to give copies of Windows to Vietnam, and the Vietnamese government forced all vendors to ship with Windows.
Would this be a fair practice?"
If they included the source code they would then be competing with GNU/Linux, *BSD and other open source oses and could be chosen as an option. Heck, they could still charge their normal price, but include the source and would then be eligible for consideration.
As has been stated previously, making open source a requirement does not mean forcing GNU/Linux on them
Try reading NTBugtraq. Here's a quote from a post on October 1, 2003
"Yesterday NTBugtraq was informed of an active attack against users of
Internet Explorer. I'd like to thank Steve Shockley for informing me.
The attack comprised of a banner, hosted by FortuneCity.com, which in
turn used JavaScript to redirect the self-closing "pop-under" banner to
a site hosted by EV1.NET (Everyone's Internet.) An EV1.NET site then
delivered executable code which in turn invoked the HTA vulnerability.
The HTA vulnerability is a known and as yet unpatched vulnerability in
IE.
Interestingly, vulnerability was described thoroughly by Thor Larholm on
Monday at the 5th annual NTBugtraq Retreat, prior to notification of the
active attack. He explains it much better than I, but my short version
is..."
This vulnerability has since been patched, but only as a reactionary measure to the exploit even though the vulnerability was known for quite some time (even listed on the old pivx site I believe)
She later clarified that statement by saying, "In some cases it was only one song, but on a really, really, fast connection"
yeah, but is the cryptoloop module included or is that still a separate patch?
If some code were completely free, then anyone could take it, compile it, change it, give away the results in any form they wanted, incorporate into a paid-for product with or without the source, or otherwise do as they wished.
And of course "the land of the free" really means that everyone is raping and pillaging and doing whatever the hell they damn well please, since after all that's what free really means, doesn't it?
In order to have true freedom you have to have a way maximize and protect the freedoms for all. The GPL is there to do that. That's why it's the very definition of Free Software. It keeps everyone on equal ground so that no one can impede the freedom of others.
Am I missing something?
Yup. In KDE's quicklauncher if you move your mouse over the icon it will pop up a tool tip describing what it is. For example, on my machine if I mouse over the "wrench menu" I get "Easy access to the Control Center Modules" which is pretty descriptive and wouldn't look too pretty written underneath. I'd also point out that the windows quick launcher doesn't have text under their icons either.
You missed the episode about the crusades, didn't you?
" That and everything began with K. Yeah, real Kute. Kwhen Keverything Kbegins Kwith K Kit's Konfusing."
Because everything beginning with "My" is so much better...
Most people don't seem to know what a web browser is either, so I guess they're still out of luck...
hrmm strangely the US matches all of the above as well...
Speaking of things that are wrong...
Transgaming is not involved with the crossover plugins at all. Transgaming produces winex for gaming. Codeweavers creates the crossover-plugin and crossover-office plugins. True both are based on wine, they're still two different companies.
Another one of the benefits of being a slashdot subscriber! You get to see future posts and find out about the end of the world before it happens!