That's true, compiling needn't be difficult. But the OP's complaint about linux DVD support on the basis of the difficulty of using a particular program which needs to be compiled is a bit dumb. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't necessarily expect compiling to be hassle free.
I wouldn't recommend mplayer to anyone who wasn't 3l33t - any software you have to compile from scratch to get working is inevitably going to be a hastle.
But you don't have to update your kernel (DVD support has been in the kernel since 2.2.16) and you don't need to upgrade to XFree86 4.2 (although using version 4 may give you better performance). And just because you had difficulties with one particular driver, doesn't mean that 'DVD on linux isn't there yet'.
For me, getting DVD playback to work was as simple installing the xine-dvdnav package. You've given no evidence to support your claim that those for whom playing DVDs on linux works are in the minority.
I don't think Linux needs VGA text mode - you can compile without any VGA support at all, and assuming you had the appropriate framebuffer driver included, there shouldn't be any problem.
And if you're using open source hardware, are you likely to care about windows support?
PS: All that is just to disprove your argument. The reality is that under *curent* copyright law I can publish a book requiring that you pay me royalties on a per page read basis.
I very much doubt that (although there seem to be yet more copyright restrictions cropping up every day, so you may possibly be right). Copyright traditionaly only restricts you in distributing copies of a work. You can do anything you like with the work except give copies to other people - you can photocopy for your own use, incorporate parts of it into your own work (as long as you do not distribute that work), use it to wipe your arse, and the copyright holder has absolutely no say in it.
Which makes me think that this idea of paying a fee just to use the OS is unenforceable bullshit. If I have a legitimately owned CD with Solaris on it, I can run it on any machine I like, and Sun can go jump.
Is quite the contrary - most programmers think to _much_ before they code, thinking about possible future extensions before making code that solves the current problems. Check out extreme programming (with it's motto 'Do the simplest thing that could possibly work') for more arguments in this vein.
> then when the other app finishes, simply slide > the little bar for the font cache back up.
Cause, you know, that's so much easier than than the operating system adjusting memory use for you. Seriously - back in the day (i.e., when Windows 3.0 was the height of PC invention), RiscOS was a damn fine piece of software (although probably not as good as the Amiga). But the things that made it cool then are of little relevance now. I regret to say all the Archimedes die-hards I know have been using ArmLinux for years.
At least, for the string? What you've written is exactly equivalent to:
std::string foo;
I can see why you'ld want to do that for built in types which aren't initialised by default.
The problem is that std::string doesn't support null semantics, unlike char* - if you want it, there are classes that add null semantics to other classes (I think boost has one).
The moderators, that's who. Obviously, no-one will see this post as the parent's been modded down, but whoever thought it was 'flamebait' clearly doesn't know a well constructed troll when they see one. It's got the classic combination of provocative statements and ludicrous inaccuracies - About how difficult it is for 'Linux Assembaly Programmers' to find out low-level information, the hilarious line about neo-nazi memorabilia, the misspelled, misattributed quote.
Oh, and anyone who crafted a well-reasoned rebutal might like to check out this article.
And dont forget that the Movie Clockwork Orange was not played in Britain for almost 20 years in a theater! Kubrick was threatened with jail time if he allowed it by threatening to assosiate teen crime with him as the inciting party.
Do you have a source for this? I'd heard that Kubrick wanted the film to be withdrawn because of press campaigns trying to associate the film, and thereby him, with various violent crimes. But I don't think I've ever heard of any official pressure being put on him.
Marx is responding to the scaremongering, common at the time, that Communists wanted to force women into communal marriages. He is pointing out that the veneer of respectability at the time, i.e. bourgeois marriage, in fact hid prostitution, the organised rape of working-class women.
In contrast to this, Marx wanted to abolish the subjection of women, whether in or out of marriage. An 'openly legalised community of women' is, more or less, what we at least ideally have now: women are free to have sex, or not, as they choose, in or out of marriage. What's wrong with that?
Well, perhaps. But if Plato handled the question definitively, why have philosophers since Plato (starting with Plato's immediate pupils) spent so much time on it?
The question to ask yourself is - how do we draw a distinction between a true sentence (which is, obviously, socially constructed) and the non-linguistic fact which is supposed to make the statement true?
Respect is due. But still, we should be clear about this - threatening to ignore the DMCA, or indeeed threatening to kill the CEO of Time Warner _isn't_ illegal to a hell of a lot of posters on slashdot. Basically, if you're human rights laws let corporations get past them that quickly, they're not worth the paper they're written on, so civil disobedience is the answer.
--
Tim Fisken
The claim in the article is that it would remain profitable for Microsoft to increase the price of Windows to $1000, _if Microsoft have a monopoly_. He tries to confront opponents of MS with a dillemma - either MS isn't a monopoly (so we shouldn't break them up), or breaking up MS will lead to $1000 oses (so we shouldn't break MS up). But the profitability of charging $1000 for Windows is based on Windows having close to 100% market share. But, of course, the argument against microsoft is not that they have 100% of the OS market, merely that they are abusing their monopoly position. Therefore, it seems plausible that MS _is_ charging as much as it is profitable to charge for Windows (because of the small amount of OS competition) but is _still_ abusing it's monopoly. It's remarkable that a Professor at a supposedly reputable university would write something either as dumb or as biased as this - he makes an obvious confusion of 'Abuse of monopoly' with 'Close to 100% market share'.
Hmm... But what about those companies that sprung up a while ago who would copy your vynl records onto CD for you? Of course, you had to send them your record for them to copy from - but I don't really see why that would make a difference. Say they had already copied the same record for someone else, but still had the CD.
Would it be illegal for them to duplicate that CD rather than make a new CD from your own vynl?
MP3.com provided the service of translating CD's to mp3s for you. The fact that they use one particular physical CD rather than another (i.e. the one they bought rather than the one you bought) is surely irrelavent.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, compiling needn't be difficult. But the OP's complaint about linux DVD support on the basis of the difficulty of using a particular program which needs to be compiled is a bit dumb. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't necessarily expect compiling to be hassle free.
I wouldn't recommend mplayer to anyone who wasn't 3l33t - any software you have to compile from scratch to get working is inevitably going to be a hastle.
But you don't have to update your kernel (DVD support has been in the kernel since 2.2.16) and you don't need to upgrade to XFree86 4.2 (although using version 4 may give you better performance). And just because you had difficulties with one particular driver, doesn't mean that 'DVD on linux isn't there yet'.
For me, getting DVD playback to work was as simple installing the xine-dvdnav package. You've given no evidence to support your claim that those for whom playing DVDs on linux works are in the minority.
I don't think Linux needs VGA text mode - you can compile without any VGA support at all, and assuming you had the appropriate framebuffer driver included, there shouldn't be any problem.
And if you're using open source hardware, are you likely to care about windows support?
Which makes me think that this idea of paying a fee just to use the OS is unenforceable bullshit. If I have a legitimately owned CD with Solaris on it, I can run it on any machine I like, and Sun can go jump.
Is quite the contrary - most programmers think to _much_ before they code, thinking about possible future extensions before making code that solves the current problems. Check out extreme programming (with it's motto 'Do the simplest thing that could possibly work') for more arguments in this vein.
> then when the other app finishes, simply slide
> the little bar for the font cache back up.
Cause, you know, that's so much easier than than the operating system adjusting memory use for you. Seriously - back in the day (i.e., when Windows 3.0 was the height of PC invention), RiscOS was a damn fine piece of software (although probably not as good as the Amiga). But the things that made it cool then are of little relevance now. I regret to say all the Archimedes die-hards I know have been using ArmLinux for years.
At least, for the string? What you've written is exactly equivalent to:
std::string foo;
I can see why you'ld want to do that for built in types which aren't initialised by default.
The problem is that std::string doesn't support null semantics, unlike char* - if you want it, there are classes that add null semantics to other classes (I think boost has one).
Oh, and anyone who crafted a well-reasoned rebutal might like to check out this article.
Do you have a source for this? I'd heard that Kubrick wanted the film to be withdrawn because of press campaigns trying to associate the film, and thereby him, with various violent crimes. But I don't think I've ever heard of any official pressure being put on him.
Marx is responding to the scaremongering, common at the time, that Communists wanted to force women into communal marriages. He is pointing out that the veneer of respectability at the time, i.e. bourgeois marriage, in fact hid prostitution, the organised rape of working-class women.
In contrast to this, Marx wanted to abolish the subjection of women, whether in or out of marriage. An 'openly legalised community of women' is, more or less, what we at least ideally have now: women are free to have sex, or not, as they choose, in or out of marriage. What's wrong with that?
Well, perhaps. But if Plato handled the question definitively, why have philosophers since Plato (starting with Plato's immediate pupils) spent so much time on it? The question to ask yourself is - how do we draw a distinction between a true sentence (which is, obviously, socially constructed) and the non-linguistic fact which is supposed to make the statement true?
Respect is due. But still, we should be clear about this - threatening to ignore the DMCA, or indeeed threatening to kill the CEO of Time Warner _isn't_ illegal to a hell of a lot of posters on slashdot. Basically, if you're human rights laws let corporations get past them that quickly, they're not worth the paper they're written on, so civil disobedience is the answer. -- Tim Fisken
The claim in the article is that it would remain profitable for Microsoft to increase the price of Windows to $1000, _if Microsoft have a monopoly_. He tries to confront opponents of MS with a dillemma - either MS isn't a monopoly (so we shouldn't break them up), or breaking up MS will lead to $1000 oses (so we shouldn't break MS up). But the profitability of charging $1000 for Windows is based on Windows having close to 100% market share. But, of course, the argument against microsoft is not that they have 100% of the OS market, merely that they are abusing their monopoly position. Therefore, it seems plausible that MS _is_ charging as much as it is profitable to charge for Windows (because of the small amount of OS competition) but is _still_ abusing it's monopoly. It's remarkable that a Professor at a supposedly reputable university would write something either as dumb or as biased as this - he makes an obvious confusion of 'Abuse of monopoly' with 'Close to 100% market share'.
Hmm... But what about those companies that sprung up a while ago who would copy your vynl records onto CD for you? Of course, you had to send them your record for them to copy from - but I don't really see why that would make a difference. Say they had already copied the same record for someone else, but still had the CD. Would it be illegal for them to duplicate that CD rather than make a new CD from your own vynl?
MP3.com provided the service of translating CD's to mp3s for you. The fact that they use one particular physical CD rather than another (i.e. the one they bought rather than the one you bought) is surely irrelavent.