You are a typical slash-idiot. You think that just because Apple doesn't make a product that you want that Apple has somehow failed its customers. The Free Market works both ways. A producer creates a product for sale and consumers decide if they want it. Just because Apple isn't producing the product you want does not mean that they have failed the Free Market. A monoply fails the Free Market by forcing consumers to use their product. Apple is not in this position. And Mac OS X is NOT a product. Just because you can't run it on a non-Apple PC out of the box does not mean Apple has failed in any way. They don't sell OS X as a product. They sell Macs. And they sell upgrades to their Macs. OS X is just another upgrade, much like iLife and iWorks.
Ironically, the only company that could afford to give every single potential consumer what they want is a monopoly.
It really annoys me when people claim that Opera or Mozilla introduced tabbed browsing. I know/. will love to hear it, but AOL was the first that I've seen. Their GNN browser in the early 90's had tabbed browsing. It was even able to load multiple tabs at once on Windows 3.1, an OS w/o threads. I remember having a dozen or more tabs open at once, several of them loading simultaneously, on a machine with 4MB of ram.
If BK was a symptom of his myopia, it was that he couldn't imagine shits like you making his working life miserable. He dropped BK because assholes couldn't leave him alone long enough to get anything done. LMKL became a flame-fest between Larry and developers who couldn't handle being wrong.
He tried BK because he liked the idea. He stayed on it because he could alter his then-current work flow to match how it worked. He left it because whiny shits couldn't shutup. And somehow it's all his fault.
The sad thing is, he could have used a proprietary tool for revision control from day one and the issue would never have come up. For some strange reason, everyone else seems to believe they have a right to Linus's personal development tree, which was the ONLY tree ever in BK that people complained about.
You are a fucking moron that deserves death. YOU set back distributed revision control by not asking every developer in the world what they wanted and going off to write the perfect tool.
Linus wrote a tool that worked the way he wanted it to. Isn't that what you idiots claim open source is about? Scratching the itch? I guess it's only good when normal people do it. When someone famous does it, he's being bad by not playing with someone else. I suppose you are too much of a hypocrite to feel the same about GNOME.
How many of you idiots that mention the BK incident are even aware of why he stopped using it? He stopped because assholes like you complained ad nauseum on LKML. There were *NEVER* any legal or technical issues with BK. He stopped because he couldn't take the whining anymore. So many selfish, SHORT SIGHTED assholes spammed the list with so much useless whining that he had to stop using BK just to get work done. His stopping was yet another pragmatic decision that you all seem to hate him for. It seems that no matter what he does he is wrong, only because he did something you couldn't even though he's not a Stallman zealot.
Pragmatism has nothing to do with short-term vs. long-term. You only put that in there because you think Linus is an idiot for not seeing things your way. Thus you think that in the long term you will be proven right and that Linus will find himself to have been wrong. That's as stupid as most of the comments in this thread. It's kind of funny how in a discussion on "freedom" almost noone will admit that Linus is free to have his own opinions and that they aren't wrong in an absolute sense just because you are all selfish assholes.
I have never released *any* code under an OS license. Have you? I doubt it.
You have the freedom to make your Tivo do whatever you'd like. Don't confuse the Tivo-imposed difficulty in doing so with the lack of a right to do it. Just because Tivo goes out of their way to make it hard does not mean you have no right to try. Why should Linus care whether that you aren't smart enough to work out a way to avoid the restrictions? You still have the source for the kernel that Linus wrote and that Tivo modified. That's all he's ever cared about. Why should he care about anything else just because you do?
I suppose Linus's freedom not to care isn't as important as your freedom to be an asshole.
"Nobody bemoans the lack of male nurses or secretaries."
That is not true at all for nursing. Nursing schools (and their eventual customers) would love to see more males take up nursing. Males tend to be stronger than females, and nursing often requires moving heavy people and equipment around. Also, many people (males) are uncomfortable with female nurses poking around their private areas and would much rather have a male nurse. For some patients it's a religious issue. All in all, there is a large demand for nurses and for male nurses in particular.
I agree. Using M$ as anything other a reference to a BASIC string variable demonstrates that the poster is retarded, idiotic, sub-human and should be put out of our misery.
Windows 2003 *is* the server version of XP. There is no "Windows XP Server Edition". Really, if you don't really know anything at all about Windows, don't raise absurd and stupid questions just to bash it. There is no admin worth the name on this planet that would accept a patch that would silently (install and) enable a major software component such as IIS. To even suggest this as a "logical" question shows you are truly an asshole that lives to put MS down.
The purpose of the GPL, from inception to the present, has always been to tie the developer's hands in favor of freeing the receiver's. That the "receiver" of most GPL code is in turn a developer who uses the code with his own is *entirely* incidental to the purpose of the license.
Perhaps you should actually read up on the case before you post. Of course you wouldn't be a the slash-hole you strive to be, but that's a small price to pay.
The company in question *does* manufacture and sell multi-processor hardware of the type specified in their patents.
As far as I can tell, your problem is that you are an absolute moron and idiot, and thus you cannot understand why people like Apple's products. Fair enough, but do you really want to demonstrate your sheer idiocy in public this? Too stupid not to, I guess.
This is not true at all. What is required is that corporations fullfill their corporate charter. The problem is that Americans place profit above all else, so those forming corporations do the same in their charters.
I've never understood that phrase in relation to some party that isn't liked or is doing bad stuff. Why in the world would you want to have sex with them?
The GP didn't say such a clause wouldn't work. He's pointing out that the GPL (and FSF) encourages the addition of restrictions as long as those restrictions meet their philosophical goals. In other words, they aren't interested in open code. If all they were interested in is open code, GPLv2 would have been fine and v3 not needed at all.
Anyone that write MS as M$ in an attempt at being cute or derogatory needs to have their life removed. The human race simply should not have to deal with such stupidity.
"If Linux was really to be relicensed, then there would be a period of time where the intent to relicense would be broadly published, and contributors who wished to object would have the chance to have their contributed code evaluated for modification/removal, and then the kernel would be relicensed. It might take as long as 6 months to a year, but it would, could, and probably will happen."
Cool! I'm going to print an ad in a prominant Redmond newspaper, notifying MS that I'm relicensing Windows under the GPL. Soon Windows will be free for everyone!
"To touch a nerv, if I distributed a voucher for a free handgun to a minor in the US, shouldn't I get busted under the gun laws as if I had actually given him the gun?"
Of course not. Only the one honoring the voucher and giving the gun to a minor is guilty of such. There is no requirement to honor a contract of any sort that violates the law.
"They are not the police. They cannot crack encrypted P2P packets without breaking the law."
Why do you think this is true? This is 100% false. P2P packets are not copyrighted, thus cracking the encryption is not a DMCA violation. I know of no other law that would make such an act illegal. Besides, you miss the completely obvious. The media companies will simply join the P2P network and see the decrypted content the same as anyone else. They will know who is sharing what.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a typical slash-idiot. You think that just because Apple doesn't make a product that you want that Apple has somehow failed its customers. The Free Market works both ways. A producer creates a product for sale and consumers decide if they want it. Just because Apple isn't producing the product you want does not mean that they have failed the Free Market. A monoply fails the Free Market by forcing consumers to use their product. Apple is not in this position. And Mac OS X is NOT a product. Just because you can't run it on a non-Apple PC out of the box does not mean Apple has failed in any way. They don't sell OS X as a product. They sell Macs. And they sell upgrades to their Macs. OS X is just another upgrade, much like iLife and iWorks.
Ironically, the only company that could afford to give every single potential consumer what they want is a monopoly.
It really annoys me when people claim that Opera or Mozilla introduced tabbed browsing. I know /. will love to hear it, but AOL was the first that I've seen. Their GNN browser in the early 90's had tabbed browsing. It was even able to load multiple tabs at once on Windows 3.1, an OS w/o threads. I remember having a dozen or more tabs open at once, several of them loading simultaneously, on a machine with 4MB of ram.
If BK was a symptom of his myopia, it was that he couldn't imagine shits like you making his working life miserable. He dropped BK because assholes couldn't leave him alone long enough to get anything done. LMKL became a flame-fest between Larry and developers who couldn't handle being wrong.
He tried BK because he liked the idea. He stayed on it because he could alter his then-current work flow to match how it worked. He left it because whiny shits couldn't shutup. And somehow it's all his fault.
The sad thing is, he could have used a proprietary tool for revision control from day one and the issue would never have come up. For some strange reason, everyone else seems to believe they have a right to Linus's personal development tree, which was the ONLY tree ever in BK that people complained about.
You are a fucking moron that deserves death. YOU set back distributed revision control by not asking every developer in the world what they wanted and going off to write the perfect tool.
Linus wrote a tool that worked the way he wanted it to. Isn't that what you idiots claim open source is about? Scratching the itch? I guess it's only good when normal people do it. When someone famous does it, he's being bad by not playing with someone else. I suppose you are too much of a hypocrite to feel the same about GNOME.
How many of you idiots that mention the BK incident are even aware of why he stopped using it? He stopped because assholes like you complained ad nauseum on LKML. There were *NEVER* any legal or technical issues with BK. He stopped because he couldn't take the whining anymore. So many selfish, SHORT SIGHTED assholes spammed the list with so much useless whining that he had to stop using BK just to get work done. His stopping was yet another pragmatic decision that you all seem to hate him for. It seems that no matter what he does he is wrong, only because he did something you couldn't even though he's not a Stallman zealot.
Pragmatism has nothing to do with short-term vs. long-term. You only put that in there because you think Linus is an idiot for not seeing things your way. Thus you think that in the long term you will be proven right and that Linus will find himself to have been wrong. That's as stupid as most of the comments in this thread. It's kind of funny how in a discussion on "freedom" almost noone will admit that Linus is free to have his own opinions and that they aren't wrong in an absolute sense just because you are all selfish assholes.
I have never released *any* code under an OS license. Have you? I doubt it.
You have the freedom to make your Tivo do whatever you'd like. Don't confuse the Tivo-imposed difficulty in doing so with the lack of a right to do it. Just because Tivo goes out of their way to make it hard does not mean you have no right to try. Why should Linus care whether that you aren't smart enough to work out a way to avoid the restrictions? You still have the source for the kernel that Linus wrote and that Tivo modified. That's all he's ever cared about. Why should he care about anything else just because you do?
I suppose Linus's freedom not to care isn't as important as your freedom to be an asshole.
"Nobody bemoans the lack of male nurses or secretaries."
That is not true at all for nursing. Nursing schools (and their eventual customers) would love to see more males take up nursing. Males tend to be stronger than females, and nursing often requires moving heavy people and equipment around. Also, many people (males) are uncomfortable with female nurses poking around their private areas and would much rather have a male nurse. For some patients it's a religious issue. All in all, there is a large demand for nurses and for male nurses in particular.
I agree. Using M$ as anything other a reference to a BASIC string variable demonstrates that the poster is retarded, idiotic, sub-human and should be put out of our misery.
Windows 2003 *is* the server version of XP. There is no "Windows XP Server Edition". Really, if you don't really know anything at all about Windows, don't raise absurd and stupid questions just to bash it. There is no admin worth the name on this planet that would accept a patch that would silently (install and) enable a major software component such as IIS. To even suggest this as a "logical" question shows you are truly an asshole that lives to put MS down.
The purpose of the GPL, from inception to the present, has always been to tie the developer's hands in favor of freeing the receiver's. That the "receiver" of most GPL code is in turn a developer who uses the code with his own is *entirely* incidental to the purpose of the license.
I realize you can find every sort of fetish out on the 'net, but that is just so, so wrong.
And like a bullet, its only purpose is to harm.
Only if you wish to reproduce. Besides, it's fun, so who cares if it's necessary?
Perhaps you should actually read up on the case before you post. Of course you wouldn't be a the slash-hole you strive to be, but that's a small price to pay.
The company in question *does* manufacture and sell multi-processor hardware of the type specified in their patents.
As far as I can tell, your problem is that you are an absolute moron and idiot, and thus you cannot understand why people like Apple's products. Fair enough, but do you really want to demonstrate your sheer idiocy in public this? Too stupid not to, I guess.
This is not true at all. What is required is that corporations fullfill their corporate charter. The problem is that Americans place profit above all else, so those forming corporations do the same in their charters.
Unless Saudi Arabia stops being an Islamic state, Iraq under Saddam was better than Saudi Arabia will ever be.
I've never understood that phrase in relation to some party that isn't liked or is doing bad stuff. Why in the world would you want to have sex with them?
The GP didn't say such a clause wouldn't work. He's pointing out that the GPL (and FSF) encourages the addition of restrictions as long as those restrictions meet their philosophical goals. In other words, they aren't interested in open code. If all they were interested in is open code, GPLv2 would have been fine and v3 not needed at all.
Do you really think /. is known for thoughtful and insightful commentary? If so, I suggest you stop reading /. and get out into the real world.
Anyone that write MS as M$ in an attempt at being cute or derogatory needs to have their life removed. The human race simply should not have to deal with such stupidity.
"If Linux was really to be relicensed, then there would be a period of time where the intent to relicense would be broadly published, and contributors who wished to object would have the chance to have their contributed code evaluated for modification/removal, and then the kernel would be relicensed. It might take as long as 6 months to a year, but it would, could, and probably will happen."
Cool! I'm going to print an ad in a prominant Redmond newspaper, notifying MS that I'm relicensing Windows under the GPL. Soon Windows will be free for everyone!
You are an idiot.
"To touch a nerv, if I distributed a voucher for a free handgun to a minor in the US, shouldn't I get busted under the gun laws as if I had actually given him the gun?"
Of course not. Only the one honoring the voucher and giving the gun to a minor is guilty of such. There is no requirement to honor a contract of any sort that violates the law.
If you think otherwise, you are to be pitied.
"They are not the police. They cannot crack encrypted P2P packets without breaking the law."
Why do you think this is true? This is 100% false. P2P packets are not copyrighted, thus cracking the encryption is not a DMCA violation. I know of no other law that would make such an act illegal. Besides, you miss the completely obvious. The media companies will simply join the P2P network and see the decrypted content the same as anyone else. They will know who is sharing what.