On a daily basis, without any "font size" problems
on
Mozilla Bug Week
·
· Score: 2
On both Linux at home and Windows at work. Of course if you could give a slightly better description of the 'problem' you are seeing people may be able to give you some suggestions....
These phone charges are outrageous.
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2
After all, I make and receive phone calls. It's about time these phone companies stopped charging and started asking for donations I feel.
That's why I sent him this email. Unfortunatly he must get so many requests from potential advertisers that he can't find time to reply to them all, as he didn't reply to mine.
Sure, in theory you can say that being coerced into anything is bad. In practice though I guess it comes down to what you are used to and what you feel is reasonable.
I'd find a couple of years of national service unreasonable. I don't find spending half an hour once or twice every few years turning up to vote (or making arrangement for a postal vote if inconvenient) unreasonable. I don't find jury duty unreasonable. Ultimatly they are all forms of taxation which is necessary, if not particularly pleasant to have to pay.
Then you've chosen a particularly pissweak mode of expression?
Citizenship comes with certain responsibilities (Obey the laws, vote, jury duty, defend the country if required) and priviledges (the right to vote, the right to stand for election, the right to apply for an Australian passport, the right to claim diplomatic protection from Australia when overseas, the right to be employed in the defence forces or other goverment jobs, the right to have a child born to you overseas registered as an Australian citizen). That's what citizenship _is_. (For reference I'm currently in the process of applying for Australian Citizenship).
In what way does requiring you to attend a polling booth inhibits you "freely express[ing] your will"?
What if I don't believe in voting and/or democracy?? In which case, compulsory "show up at the voting booth" violates my ability to express myself.
No it doesn't. You can turn up and not vote. You can turn up, stand outside and ask other people not to vote. If you particularly don't want to be there that day, you can register to complete a postal vote, bugger it up and express yourself from the comfort of your own arse on election day.
But it's groupware ambitions are clear. It's important not because of what it currently is (A pretty decent MUA AFAICT, vfolders are sweet), but for what it credibly promises to be in the future.
Isn't the whole idea of Linux to invent your own stuff
"Linux" isn't about inventing new stuff. It isn't about not inventing your own stuff. It's about doing whatever you want. It's about having choices. Different people want different things and will make different choices. No big deal.
As a sometimes web developer Apache and PHP on my Linux box are very handy. But it'd be nice to be able to check my pages in various flavours of IE without multiple PCs.
I thought MozillaQuestQuest was funny when it first came out. Then I read this "article" at MozillaQuest and it became clear that the parody just can't be as funny as the real thing. The title is just so ludicrous to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the Mozilla project it simply defies taking the piss out of it. And the right sidebar! I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Someone sign this guy up to write for Slashdot!
beyond the fact that I don't what to get in legal trouble.
Is it possible to bounce the "Code Red Vigilante" http requests via a web anonymizer service over SSL?
Any moral problems here a minor, ultimately if a machine you own is sending a potentially harmful http request to my machine, I don't see any problem sending a less harmful one back.
A Grand Experiment indeed
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The Open Sourcing of Netscape has been a grand experiment, certainly not without it's hiccups.
Your Question 1 is a very difficult one to answer as it demands some supposition as to what would have occurred had they not opened the source. Possibly the dumping of the "Mozilla Classic" codebase was forced somewhat by Open Sourcing. While this has had both negative and positive aspects, ultimatly I think it was a positive thing. We may have had a browser sooner otherwise, but I don't think it'd be a good idea in the long term
Question 2 is much easier to answer. Code. Forgetting the Browser product itself, Mozilla.org has made available Bugzilla and Bonsai. Components such as Network Security Services (which is being leveraged in Ximians Evolution I believe).
As a grand experiment even Mozillas 'mistakes' are valuable as they can be learnt from.
Congratulations on displaying a lack of clue
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 2
about the meaning of the words "Open Source".
I regularly use the source which is available to me in an Open manner to compile my own Mozilla. I regularly compile Galeon against that.
The majority of the core coders may be Netscape employees but that doesn't change the nature of the source. The "Hanger-ons" as you so politely put it should also not be discounted. Among them are some very good people (and some average people, like myself, who occasionally help out by creating test cases or other mundane tasks which may divert core developers from using their time more effectively) who make very real contributions to Mozilla.
No it isn't
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Netscape 6.1 = (Mozilla 0.9.2 + further tweaking + branding) Netscape 6.1 comes from the Mozilla 0.9.2 branch, not the 0.9.3 branch.
You clearly don't have much of a clue about: .NET
Microsoft Passport
DMCA
I'd suggest doing some reading. There's plenty of freely available information about all of these topics.
Marketing dollars and a virtual monopoly provide pretty much all the validation they need. There's no point in waiting for it to succeed before implementing it, you'll just give them a bigger head start. Better to start early and have something credible to show earlier.
Chuck, could you expand on your previous assertion, please?
Your point (3) is clearly bogus. The option still exists to use whatever technologies are appropriate for whatever you want to do. Java will still exist, so will a million other choices. Not only that, but people who want to use a.NET style platform will now have the choice of Microsofts Proprietary version and a Free version. How can that be bad?
Some people seem to think that Mono somehow legitimises Microsofts.NET strategy. Microsofts.NET strategy doesn't need legitimising. It's coming, millions of dollars in advertising and Microsofts (virtual) monopoly tell us that.NET is coming. I don't see why a Free Software company shouldn't ride that wave and hopefully make some money along the way.
Now, why on earth did de Icaza bring in Gnome and KDE into this discussion?
He didn't so much bring them into the discussion as attempt to rule them out of it. The anti-gnome trolls (I won't call them KDE trolls, as any relationship to the KDE project probably begins and ends in their own diminutive minds, likewise there aren't any GNOME trolls, just anti-KDE trolls) were jumping on bandwagons as soon as Ximian made their announcement because of Ximians closeness to GNOME. Miguel was simply trying to cut out some of the pointless noise by trying to get people to think outside GNOME and KDE.
Secondly, it means we are forced into Microsoft's vision of the future
No it doesn't. It
means we have another choice.
Thirdly, it does nothing to stop Microsoft from bait-and-switching.
In itself that is true. And if Mono fails to be a credible alternative to Microsofts implementation then it's lost. But that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. To state that an Open Source (or Free) implementation of.NET can't succeed comes scarily close to stating that an Open development model is not superior.
Fourth, Ximian don't seem to ever stop and wonder whether they should actually be following Microsoft at all
I think quite the opposite is true. I'm sure the folks at Ximian have spent a lot more time considering exactly this and with a far more open mind than the average person with an opinion on this matter.
The GPL doesn't explicitly deny changing the license, therefore "the GPL allows..." is a perfectly correct thing to say, even if it's not 100% clear to you.
The GPL has no bearing on the copyright holders at all. It is in no position to allow or deny them the right to change the licence. What you wrote is therefore misleading and incorrect. My concern is not that you be 100% clear to me, I think I have a fairly good understanding of licensing issues for a layman and can therefore understand what you are trying to say. My concern is that people who have not invested the time to look into these issues and get a good understanding themselves may see a post such as yours and come to incorrect conclusions.
Licencing issues are of fundamental importance to the workings of Open Source/Free Software and as such I think it is important that people be presented with correct information and that incorrect or misleading information is corrected where possible. If I have seemed pedantic with you it is because I am being pedantic. Something as important to the community as licencing deserves pedantry, not vague statements.
Why don't you go eat a Vegemite sandwich, you daft Aussie?
I'm neither Australian, nor daft. Having said that, your post has stirred the desire for Vegemite, perhaps I'll buy some tomorrow if I still feel this way.
No it isn't, you said "The GPL allows" which would suggest to someone who doesn't know better that there is a clause in the GPL that allows authors to change their licencing. This is not the case, they have that right simply because they are the copyright holder(s).
Quit being so bloody contrarian.
Quit giving shitty licencing advice.
Enough people misunderstand the GPL already without yet more misinformation being spread by people such as yourself. If you are going to give licence advice you should be sure that what you say reflects exactly what the licence says, not just the general "vibe" of the licence.
The GPL allows developers to change the license of their code if they are in 100% agreement with each other about the changes
Authors (ie copyright holders) changing licencing is not "allowed" by the GPL. The GPL has no say in the matter, as copyright holders they (collectively) are not bound by the GPL, they already have full rights to do whatever they like with the code.
When they officially release they will have to provide the Linux kernel developers with any changes they made to the GPL'd Linux kernel code
They do not have to give "the Linux kernel developers" (whatever that means) anything. The only people they have to distribute source to are the people they have distributed binaries to.
The sole reason an EULA can't limit the rights granted by the GPL is that the GPL forbids it. If they do impose such an EULA they are either in breach of licence (the GPL) or (if they claim not to have agreed to the GPL) in breach of copyright (for distributing the software without licence to do so).
That's the nice thing about standards, and it appears (so far, at least) that Microsoft is playing fair this time.
We've recently seen Microsoft licencing being used to prohibit development with their tools in conjunction with Free (and some other Open Source) software. Could they use similar licencing to prevent deployment of.NET apps developed with their tools on a Free platform like Mono? I guess only public sentiment (and maybe antitrust laws?) could stop them.
I've spent the weekend upgrading my PC to the latest and greatest stuff (Xfree, kernel, nvidia drivers) and thought I'd give Nautilus a go, having not tried it since it's initial release.
In short, I'm impressed. It seems thoroughly usable and I think it'll have a permanent place on my desktop now. Now to have a go at compiling it with Mozilla support....
A development webserver at work kept getting requests for advertising domains. Some twonk had apparently configured their hosts file so that various advertising domains pointed at my host so they didn't get adverts. This was somewhat annoying as it was a development server and the error_log was supposed to help me debug things, not be filled with 404 errors.
Of course, a little virtual host and mod_rewrite magic later they weren't generating 404s, they were getting rather unflattering images sent back. The problem fixed itself soon after that.
Buy tokens with credit card. Play with tokens. Lose. Dispute charges on credit card bill.
Strangely enough I'm not talking out of my arse.
As the world currently stands you can gamble on your credit card and if you lose you can simply dispute the charges and you're fine. As far as the credit card companies are concerned, no signature, no deal, the merchant (casino) is screwed. The credit card companies have basically behaved how you'd expect, no real innovation, no real proactive movements to securing things from start to finish (ie decent PKI smart cards at a reasonable price). The merchants wear it directly, but the legitimate consumers are wearing it to cover the high fraud rate.
Fortunately capitalism is beginning to scare them. The merchants are pissed off at the enormous chargeback ratio and are looking elsewhere. These days everyone wants to acquire transactions. Mobile phone companies want you to buy cans of coke with your phone etc. etc. etc.
The credit card companies have done as little as possible. Personally I'd like to see them screwed, but I'm pretty sure they'll manage to ride in on the hard work a lot of other people have put in and save their unimaginative arses.
Slashdot Mirror
On both Linux at home and Windows at work. Of course if you could give a slightly better description of the 'problem' you are seeing people may be able to give you some suggestions....
After all, I make and receive phone calls.
It's about time these phone companies stopped charging and started asking for donations I feel.
That's why I sent him this email.
Unfortunatly he must get so many requests from potential advertisers that he can't find time to reply to them all, as he didn't reply to mine.
Sure, in theory you can say that being coerced into anything is bad. In practice though I guess it comes down to what you are used to and what you feel is reasonable.
I'd find a couple of years of national service unreasonable. I don't find spending half an hour once or twice every few years turning up to vote (or making arrangement for a postal vote if inconvenient) unreasonable. I don't find jury duty unreasonable. Ultimatly they are all forms of taxation which is necessary, if not particularly pleasant to have to pay.
Citizenship comes with certain responsibilities (Obey the laws, vote, jury duty, defend the country if required) and priviledges (the right to vote, the right to stand for election, the right to apply for an Australian passport, the right to claim diplomatic protection from Australia when overseas, the right to be employed in the defence forces or other goverment jobs, the right to have a child born to you overseas registered as an Australian citizen). That's what citizenship _is_. (For reference I'm currently in the process of applying for Australian Citizenship).
But it's groupware ambitions are clear. It's important not because of what it currently is (A pretty decent MUA AFAICT, vfolders are sweet), but for what it credibly promises to be in the future.
As a sometimes web developer Apache and PHP on my Linux box are very handy. But it'd be nice to be able to check my pages in various flavours of IE without multiple PCs.
I thought MozillaQuestQuest was funny when it first came out. Then I read this "article" at MozillaQuest and it became clear that the parody just can't be as funny as the real thing. The title is just so ludicrous to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the Mozilla project it simply defies taking the piss out of it. And the right sidebar! I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Someone sign this guy up to write for Slashdot!
beyond the fact that I don't what to get in legal trouble.
Is it possible to bounce the "Code Red Vigilante" http requests via a web anonymizer service over SSL?
Any moral problems here a minor, ultimately if a machine you own is sending a potentially harmful http request to my machine, I don't see any problem sending a less harmful one back.
The Open Sourcing of Netscape has been a grand experiment, certainly not without it's hiccups.
Your Question 1 is a very difficult one to answer as it demands some supposition as to what would have occurred had they not opened the source. Possibly the dumping of the "Mozilla Classic" codebase was forced somewhat by Open Sourcing. While this has had both negative and positive aspects, ultimatly I think it was a positive thing. We may have had a browser sooner otherwise, but I don't think it'd be a good idea in the long term
Question 2 is much easier to answer. Code. Forgetting the Browser product itself, Mozilla.org has made available Bugzilla and Bonsai. Components such as Network Security Services (which is being leveraged in Ximians Evolution I believe).
As a grand experiment even Mozillas 'mistakes' are valuable as they can be learnt from.
about the meaning of the words "Open Source". I regularly use the source which is available to me in an Open manner to compile my own Mozilla. I regularly compile Galeon against that.
The majority of the core coders may be Netscape employees but that doesn't change the nature of the source. The "Hanger-ons" as you so politely put it should also not be discounted. Among them are some very good people (and some average people, like myself, who occasionally help out by creating test cases or other mundane tasks which may divert core developers from using their time more effectively) who make very real contributions to Mozilla.
Netscape 6.1 = (Mozilla 0.9.2 + further tweaking + branding)
Netscape 6.1 comes from the Mozilla 0.9.2 branch, not the 0.9.3 branch.
You clearly don't have much of a clue about:
.NET
Microsoft Passport
DMCA
I'd suggest doing some reading. There's plenty of freely available information about all of these topics.
Marketing dollars and a virtual monopoly provide pretty much all the validation they need. There's no point in waiting for it to succeed before implementing it, you'll just give them a bigger head start. Better to start early and have something credible to show earlier.
Some people seem to think that Mono somehow legitimises Microsofts
Licencing issues are of fundamental importance to the workings of Open Source/Free Software and as such I think it is important that people be presented with correct information and that incorrect or misleading information is corrected where possible. If I have seemed pedantic with you it is because I am being pedantic. Something as important to the community as licencing deserves pedantry, not vague statements. I'm neither Australian, nor daft. Having said that, your post has stirred the desire for Vegemite, perhaps I'll buy some tomorrow if I still feel this way.
Enough people misunderstand the GPL already without yet more misinformation being spread by people such as yourself. If you are going to give licence advice you should be sure that what you say reflects exactly what the licence says, not just the general "vibe" of the licence.
The sole reason an EULA can't limit the rights granted by the GPL is that the GPL forbids it. If they do impose such an EULA they are either in breach of licence (the GPL) or (if they claim not to have agreed to the GPL) in breach of copyright (for distributing the software without licence to do so).
I've spent the weekend upgrading my PC to the latest and greatest stuff (Xfree, kernel, nvidia drivers) and thought I'd give Nautilus a go, having not tried it since it's initial release.
In short, I'm impressed. It seems thoroughly usable and I think it'll have a permanent place on my desktop now. Now to have a go at compiling it with Mozilla support....
A development webserver at work kept getting requests for advertising domains. Some twonk had apparently configured their hosts file so that various advertising domains pointed at my host so they didn't get adverts. This was somewhat annoying as it was a development server and the error_log was supposed to help me debug things, not be filled with 404 errors.
Of course, a little virtual host and mod_rewrite magic later they weren't generating 404s, they were getting rather unflattering images sent back. The problem fixed itself soon after that.
As the world currently stands you can gamble on your credit card and if you lose you can simply dispute the charges and you're fine. As far as the credit card companies are concerned, no signature, no deal, the merchant (casino) is screwed. The credit card companies have basically behaved how you'd expect, no real innovation, no real proactive movements to securing things from start to finish (ie decent PKI smart cards at a reasonable price). The merchants wear it directly, but the legitimate consumers are wearing it to cover the high fraud rate.
Fortunately capitalism is beginning to scare them. The merchants are pissed off at the enormous chargeback ratio and are looking elsewhere. These days everyone wants to acquire transactions. Mobile phone companies want you to buy cans of coke with your phone etc. etc. etc.
The credit card companies have done as little as possible. Personally I'd like to see them screwed, but I'm pretty sure they'll manage to ride in on the hard work a lot of other people have put in and save their unimaginative arses.
Then the overseas site doesn't need to be able to enforce debt collection.
Buy tokens. Play with tokens. Big Deal.