Oh please, no one is asking MS to change their ways. They are discussing the issue however and Mundie's recent article about open source has many plot holes (as to be expected from a short article - it needs explaining).
Mundie is doing a poor job at explaining Microsoft's stance (and I hate to say it but Bruce Perens is doing rather well) and so he should. There doesn't seem to be any way of backing up his odd opinions.
So they got into something they didn't understand and suffered. Either that or they knew what they had agreed to and wanted to break the rules.
Yeah - marvelous argument you have there. No has to use the GPL - if you don't read the fine print you should expect to be surprised.
Quoting some parts of GPL goals while leaving others out... predictable. One goal is to allow the reuse of software. Another goal is to hold any code built upon GPL'd software open to ensure the benefits of open source in the future. Vague goals (as you describe) will always have interpretations that conflict - and this is supposed to be worth saying?
The GPL doesn't apply to any work building upon a GPL'd library. It's only for those that want to play within that software. You can even sell binary patches to the GPL code without opening it.
If you don't like it you have no right to other people's work. It's not communist as there is a choice. It's freedom to be able to distribute your code in a way that you see fit - not to have it called "communist" and your wishes disregarded.
The GPL isn't a monopoly and yet it plays by fair rules. No one's forcing you to play with the GPL. Read the licence and decide for yourself - but you'll need a response that doesn't pick and choose passages from the GPL and misnome that a convincing argument.
You're kidding right? The files you link to typify my dislike of KDE icons... especially greatkonq.png. What is that shit yellow orange crap doing all over the icons? Why does the clipboard have a line of light on it like it's a fat clipboard? Who has a clipboard that fat? (it must be 2 inches deep to catch that ammount of light). The scissors in your picture look wide and stupid. The printer icon has a bend in it (at the end, on the left). The home looks nothing like a home AND AGAIN there's a shiny area - the door - that's catching far too much light. Most doors go into the house. They don't protrude from house to beautifully catch the light as it passes by. The little addon pencil icons (to signify 'writeable'?) has a shadow going in a different direction than the icon. And what the fuck is with the shadow on the top-right of each bit of paper? A shadow that wide would have to be blocked by a larger object than a curled corner.
Many of KDEs' (and Gnomes') icons have objects pictured in them that go to the edge like it's a fucking canvas. Like it won't look stupid and remind me I'm using a computer and that the reason I can't see the end of the 'writeable' pencil is because that's the edge of the icon. An icon should stand on it's own because it's going to be shown beside others and it's not going to have a border. The icon for Matrix.mov is a perfect example of an icon artist drawing as if there's going to be a border.
And the zoom icon - a magnify glass. It's glass starts off as a light colour, then gets immediately darker, then lighter again - as if it's a sphere. It's not a sphere. It's a convex lense. That comparitive colour change would only happen if there was a much larger physical change in the object's depth.
And the overuse of the plain old paper 'file' icon used everywhere. Really? It's a file? Never would have guessed. Thanks for putting a pointless sheet of paper behind the picture of the movie film - I really needed that reminder I was dealing with a FILE - cheers.
This post is angry crap. Please don't dismiss it as trolling or flamebait (instead, I am a dickhead). But until KDE pays a bit more attention to this I won't use it. Gnome icons look good and I click enough of them each day.
It's not really related the the parallel and data transfer, per se, but often you'll see a tethered child hanging around the back of my system. I don't know why really. He's just there.
Yes, it involves adding something to the video image and degrading the quality. If it's anything like image watermarks this can be done effectively removed by resizing the image (it's usually pixel-based watermarking not ratios across the screen which might survive a resize).
No, most people wouldn't notice it. Most people didn't even notice the shlong in Fight Club (according to a dodgy Yahoo! survey) so I doubt if a slight degradation would be at all noticable in motion video.
Macrovision is defeated by a $1 box to remove rogue signals.
Official players will only play DVDs with appropriate watermarking.
erm...programmers seem to have bought into Microsoft's PR that Windows is built on one UI. Each office has it's own toolkit and there are better 3rd party toolkits used in MailWarrior/Hotdog. Windows is as fragmented as Linux. The reason more Linux GUI apps suck more than Windows GUI apps is that Linux programmers don't put in the same effort - there is no technical reason. They rightly assume that most users will be able to cope with whatever they're given.
Terraserver uses a plugin to display pictures. The plugin detects attempts to screencapture and displays a different image.
Blocking the misuse of your images is impossible because making the perfect security is impossible -- this doesn't mean we should stop trying. You'll never stop an expert but stopping casual misuse is 99% of the war.
When clients want some protection from image misuse (I define misuse as anything but viewing - anything the owner doesn't want) I don't like to use plugins because of that'll scare most users off (and who are they kidding - their content isn't that good). So I put a large transparent gif/png in a table to fill out the background image which is the actual image. This is pretty dumb but it's working.
Default X fonts "suck", but with Staroffice GPLd there are fonts on par with default windows (most distros don't yet include them). Mandrake includes windows software so that during the install process you can rape TTF fonts from windows.
You're saying we should judge someones actions without considering their past? This is supposed to be a better way of evaluating the situation?
I'm quite happy with taking into account someone's past to judge their current actions. Microsoft previous actions are the context.
They do have to go straight for a while before I will give them the common respect I give someone I don't know anything about.
Microsoft have proven themselves to be bastards, time and time again. Ignoring their past isn't sane. I'm going to go sing in the rain with my dame.
It's not a matter of MPEG-4 being a better format than MPEG-1. MPEG-4 is lossy and throws away much more data than MPEG-1. MPEG-1 is better suited for quality TV recording than MPEG-4.
Although, for streaming, MPEG-4 would be a much better format. I don't know of any well known open source MPEG-4 players (MS's WMF has a very similar format).
Actually Perl and Python are excellent examples of languages designed the open source way. Rather than specing a language and waiting three years for a compiler to turn up (a la C/C++) they debate the feature and develop the feature into the compiler at the same time. I prefer this piecemeal way of doing it. Although one could argue that major architectural decisions can't be made by little steps it's the same problem for any software (open source or not). You must get developers to agree on a direction either way
You really haven't a clue about the legality when you're talking about 'rights' do you? Radio stations have the legal right to broadcast any songs without consent by default. This has been upheld in law.
It's true that many people wouldn't know the difference between a P166 and an Athlon 1000 when it comes to web browsing or email or word processing. But that's a rather short focus.
But you don't have speed for what's required now, you have it for the future. Build it and they will come. Software developers, that is.
Use Moores Law to see at what point the gains slow from buying a expensive system, and whether you would be better saving the money for a future upgrade.
Centralised configuration has been done before. It doesn't work as programs corrupt one thing and the failure trickles through the entire system (at the very least one broken bit of registry affects others).
Now having all the configuration data in one place is not necessary. Software can just access the configuration files spread throughout the system.
But this is labourious and far too much work due to the inconsistencies in plain text configuration files. They have a million different syntaxes, and any configuration program needs to learn each one. They need prior knowledge about the piece of software they're configuring.
An XML DTD will eventually replace them, and then unified configuration might be possible. An adequate XML DTD could be self-describing and the configuration application wouldn't have know what it's configuring.
Nice idea, kid. I can see you're an ideas man. Ho-ho.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! Shortland.st has been updated... don't let the domain go to waste, my friend.
Is this still true with recent kernels from the (snigger) stable branch?
Mundie is doing a poor job at explaining Microsoft's stance (and I hate to say it but Bruce Perens is doing rather well) and so he should. There doesn't seem to be any way of backing up his odd opinions.
Yeah - marvelous argument you have there. No has to use the GPL - if you don't read the fine print you should expect to be surprised.
Quoting some parts of GPL goals while leaving others out... predictable. One goal is to allow the reuse of software. Another goal is to hold any code built upon GPL'd software open to ensure the benefits of open source in the future. Vague goals (as you describe) will always have interpretations that conflict - and this is supposed to be worth saying?
The GPL doesn't apply to any work building upon a GPL'd library. It's only for those that want to play within that software. You can even sell binary patches to the GPL code without opening it.
If you don't like it you have no right to other people's work. It's not communist as there is a choice. It's freedom to be able to distribute your code in a way that you see fit - not to have it called "communist" and your wishes disregarded.
The GPL isn't a monopoly and yet it plays by fair rules. No one's forcing you to play with the GPL. Read the licence and decide for yourself - but you'll need a response that doesn't pick and choose passages from the GPL and misnome that a convincing argument.
Well the site is official MSHTML 6.0 so that's a start for the war crimes tribunal.
Many of KDEs' (and Gnomes') icons have objects pictured in them that go to the edge like it's a fucking canvas. Like it won't look stupid and remind me I'm using a computer and that the reason I can't see the end of the 'writeable' pencil is because that's the edge of the icon. An icon should stand on it's own because it's going to be shown beside others and it's not going to have a border. The icon for Matrix.mov is a perfect example of an icon artist drawing as if there's going to be a border.
And the zoom icon - a magnify glass. It's glass starts off as a light colour, then gets immediately darker, then lighter again - as if it's a sphere. It's not a sphere. It's a convex lense. That comparitive colour change would only happen if there was a much larger physical change in the object's depth.
And the overuse of the plain old paper 'file' icon used everywhere. Really? It's a file? Never would have guessed. Thanks for putting a pointless sheet of paper behind the picture of the movie film - I really needed that reminder I was dealing with a FILE - cheers.
This post is angry crap. Please don't dismiss it as trolling or flamebait (instead, I am a dickhead). But until KDE pays a bit more attention to this I won't use it. Gnome icons look good and I click enough of them each day.
It's not really related the the parallel and data transfer, per se, but often you'll see a tethered child hanging around the back of my system. I don't know why really. He's just there.
I have read that it's because - unlike flatscreens - there's no defined order of RGB so you can't lighten the red of a pixel and know it's the left.
No, most people wouldn't notice it. Most people didn't even notice the shlong in Fight Club (according to a dodgy Yahoo! survey) so I doubt if a slight degradation would be at all noticable in motion video.
Macrovision is defeated by a $1 box to remove rogue signals.
Official players will only play DVDs with appropriate watermarking.
erm ...programmers seem to have bought into Microsoft's PR that Windows is built on one UI. Each office has it's own toolkit and there are better 3rd party toolkits used in MailWarrior/Hotdog. Windows is as fragmented as Linux. The reason more Linux GUI apps suck more than Windows GUI apps is that Linux programmers don't put in the same effort - there is no technical reason. They rightly assume that most users will be able to cope with whatever they're given.
Blocking the misuse of your images is impossible because making the perfect security is impossible -- this doesn't mean we should stop trying. You'll never stop an expert but stopping casual misuse is 99% of the war.
When clients want some protection from image misuse (I define misuse as anything but viewing - anything the owner doesn't want) I don't like to use plugins because of that'll scare most users off (and who are they kidding - their content isn't that good). So I put a large transparent gif/png in a table to fill out the background image which is the actual image. This is pretty dumb but it's working.
Default X fonts "suck", but with Staroffice GPLd there are fonts on par with default windows (most distros don't yet include them). Mandrake includes windows software so that during the install process you can rape TTF fonts from windows.
I'm quite happy with taking into account someone's past to judge their current actions. Microsoft previous actions are the context. They do have to go straight for a while before I will give them the common respect I give someone I don't know anything about.
Microsoft have proven themselves to be bastards, time and time again. Ignoring their past isn't sane. I'm going to go sing in the rain with my dame.
Although, for streaming, MPEG-4 would be a much better format. I don't know of any well known open source MPEG-4 players (MS's WMF has a very similar format).
Ogg is the name for the suite of formats. Vorbis is just one-the audio component. Ogg Vorbis doesn't have anything to do with video.
You are correct.
Actually Perl and Python are excellent examples of languages designed the open source way. Rather than specing a language and waiting three years for a compiler to turn up (a la C/C++) they debate the feature and develop the feature into the compiler at the same time. I prefer this piecemeal way of doing it. Although one could argue that major architectural decisions can't be made by little steps it's the same problem for any software (open source or not). You must get developers to agree on a direction either way
You really haven't a clue about the legality when you're talking about 'rights' do you? Radio stations have the legal right to broadcast any songs without consent by default. This has been upheld in law.
The law doesn't work like that. You're suggesting an innocent list and that songs are guilty by default.
This has made my day.
But you don't have speed for what's required now, you have it for the future. Build it and they will come. Software developers, that is.
Use Moores Law to see at what point the gains slow from buying a expensive system, and whether you would be better saving the money for a future upgrade.
I think you're forgetting one thing. Chuck Norris.
Now having all the configuration data in one place is not necessary. Software can just access the configuration files spread throughout the system.
But this is labourious and far too much work due to the inconsistencies in plain text configuration files. They have a million different syntaxes, and any configuration program needs to learn each one. They need prior knowledge about the piece of software they're configuring.
An XML DTD will eventually replace them, and then unified configuration might be possible. An adequate XML DTD could be self-describing and the configuration application wouldn't have know what it's configuring.
Nice idea, kid. I can see you're an ideas man. Ho-ho.
How did your mother socialise you while at home-school?