The original wiki tries to explain your question, but I still believe it would be better just to comply with the license:
From the FAQ
Q. Simply providing the source, as the licence requires, would avoid litigation. Isn't that easier than re-writing busybox?
A. It is true that providing the source would avoid litigation. In most cases, this *is* easier than re-writing busybox. However, in some cases - especially when dealing with a naive or defunct supplier, it can be difficult or impossible to find the 'correct' source for busybox. It would be better not to get into a situation where the lack of correct source from a 3rd party supplier resulted in extreme remedies being required. This project aims to make a useful alternative to busybox which completely eliminates any possibility of infringement, wrongdoing, and risk of litigation for this particular piece of software.
Q. Isn't this a lot of work to avoid a relatively small effort (publishing the source to busybox)?
A. It will be some work, but it will likely only have to be done once, and the burden and/or cost of the work can be distributed throughout the industry. The cost to a single company to support this project is very small in comparison to the legal liability and costs should some problem occur with busybox compliance.
Q. Is this being done to prevent the SFC from asking for the source to the Linux kernel?
A. No, although it would have that effect. As part of their request to remedy a busybox GPL violation, the SFC does ask for source code unrelated to busybox. Personally, I believe this is improper. However, my main reason for proposing this project is to avoid having the SFC gain review authority over unrelated products produced by a company. The larger the set of Linux-based products that are produced by a company, the greater exposure there is for a possible mistake, and the greater potential costs that would incur in the event of litigation and/or settlement.
Q. Wouldn't it be morally better to help companies fulfill their GPL obligations, than tohave them avoid GPL software?
A. There are multiple people who provide consulting services to help people fulfill their GPL obligations. This is a good thing and it should be encouraged. Helping companies avoid infringing the license of software they use is good. Also good is providing software for companies that helps them avoid legal entanglements at all. Arguments beyond this get into BSD vs. GPL license wars, which I don't think are productive to engage in here.
VIM handles tabs:tabe and window splitting:sp
screen is another useful tool for remote administration.
And I think mounting the filesystem remotely (sshfs, nfs) may be better than starting an X session on a server.
Refactoring is supported by unit testing, which you should do anyway.
Do it constantly, even in the details like method names, and your code will have better quality and will be easier to understand.
Modern IDEs will resolve the tedious parts, you just have to think of the change, and the tool will do it.
The book Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code is an essential resource.
Maybe you can try jmonkeyengine. It's a engine for java and open gl, has a complete environment based on netbeans, physics engine and also works with android.
Agreed. I think it's a very sane design desition.
Comparing numbers to logic values makes ugly and confusing code, following that dark path you end up with things like:
"" == false
"0" == false
BUT
"" != "0"
Violating the transitive property of the equivalence relation. Now you see the problem?
Try it in the address bar
javascript:alert("\"0\" == false is " + ("0" == false) + "\n\"\" == false is " + ("" == false) + "\n\"0\" == \"\" is " + ("0" == ""))
At least for entry level. I recently bought a LianLi EX-50 enclosure, it allocates up to five disks and supports all the common RAID modes. And is cheaper than these NAS servers.
The difference is that it connects to the eSata port (newer version supports USB3), as I have a little server (just an old desktop pc) I simply had set up the nfs service.
The article isn't about search. He barely mentions it, and for good reason. Search is one of the few Google services that already is easy to access programmatically, even all you're doing is sending an HTTP GET that mocks the Google search page.
Even if it looks as a simple Http request and you can parse the Html (and call that an API), Google will return a captcha in 30 seconds. They have a very tight control over people trying to crawl they search page.
They don't allow it.
In my former job we Scrapped the Google search page, and we could circumvent all the blockades eventually, but that's not the way APIs work.
In my coutry we have a constitutional right called Habeas data. I don't think there's something like this in the US constitution, unfortunately.
It states (copied from wikipedia):
“Any person shall file this action to obtain information on the data about himself and their purpose, registered in public records or data bases, or in private ones intended to supply information; and in case of false data or discrimination, this action may be filed to request the suppression, rectification, confidentiality or updating of said data. The secret nature of the sources of journalistic information shall not be impaired.”
To help geek up this analogy: enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex but avoiding partners with STDs.
For a typical user, a better analogy would be: Enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex while wearing a condom made of inch-thick rubber.
Well, it depends if you are the one wearing the condom or the other one.
opera has it's own ad blocker, the thing is that you'll have to configure it for each page, but it's very quick.
just right click on the page and "block contents"...
It's obvious that obvious is subjective, so it may be obvious to somebody skilled in the art and not obvious to others also skilled. How can we prove this? Obviously we can't.
Slashdot Mirror
From the FAQ
Q. Simply providing the source, as the licence requires, would avoid litigation. Isn't that easier than re-writing busybox?
A. It is true that providing the source would avoid litigation. In most cases, this *is* easier than re-writing busybox. However, in some cases - especially when dealing with a naive or defunct supplier, it can be difficult or impossible to find the 'correct' source for busybox. It would be better not to get into a situation where the lack of correct source from a 3rd party supplier resulted in extreme remedies being required. This project aims to make a useful alternative to busybox which completely eliminates any possibility of infringement, wrongdoing, and risk of litigation for this particular piece of software.
Q. Isn't this a lot of work to avoid a relatively small effort (publishing the source to busybox)?
A. It will be some work, but it will likely only have to be done once, and the burden and/or cost of the work can be distributed throughout the industry. The cost to a single company to support this project is very small in comparison to the legal liability and costs should some problem occur with busybox compliance.
Q. Is this being done to prevent the SFC from asking for the source to the Linux kernel?
A. No, although it would have that effect. As part of their request to remedy a busybox GPL violation, the SFC does ask for source code unrelated to busybox. Personally, I believe this is improper. However, my main reason for proposing this project is to avoid having the SFC gain review authority over unrelated products produced by a company. The larger the set of Linux-based products that are produced by a company, the greater exposure there is for a possible mistake, and the greater potential costs that would incur in the event of litigation and/or settlement.
Q. Wouldn't it be morally better to help companies fulfill their GPL obligations, than tohave them avoid GPL software?
A. There are multiple people who provide consulting services to help people fulfill their GPL obligations. This is a good thing and it should be encouraged. Helping companies avoid infringing the license of software they use is good. Also good is providing software for companies that helps them avoid legal entanglements at all. Arguments beyond this get into BSD vs. GPL license wars, which I don't think are productive to engage in here.
I'm not into GIS but I once attended a presentation about this system.
Maybe it can help, meybe not.
http://www.gvsig.org/
You should try this new eclipse plugin from IBM.
VIM handles tabs :tabe and window splitting :sp
screen is another useful tool for remote administration.
And I think mounting the filesystem remotely (sshfs, nfs) may be better than starting an X session on a server.
This guy should be fired. Look at his productivity metrics results, Negative!
Refactoring is supported by unit testing, which you should do anyway.
Do it constantly, even in the details like method names, and your code will have better quality and will be easier to understand.
Modern IDEs will resolve the tedious parts, you just have to think of the change, and the tool will do it.
The book Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code is an essential resource.
Maybe you can try jmonkeyengine. It's a engine for java and open gl, has a complete environment based on netbeans, physics engine and also works with android.
Just make sure it can run away from dinosaurs.
T-Rex don't just eat goats.
So, is Oracle gonna sue this time?
"Stupid people like good salesmen not people that work in unknown office spaces, regardless of their contributions."
- signs Department of Redundancy Department
Agreed. I think it's a very sane design desition.
Comparing numbers to logic values makes ugly and confusing code, following that dark path you end up with things like:
"" == false
"0" == false
BUT
"" != "0"
Violating the transitive property of the equivalence relation. Now you see the problem?
Try it in the address bar
javascript:alert("\"0\" == false is " + ("0" == false) + "\n\"\" == false is " + ("" == false) + "\n\"0\" == \"\" is " + ("0" == ""))
So .NET must be recompiled for an arch change? That's very lame for a Java's copycat.
At least for entry level. I recently bought a LianLi EX-50 enclosure, it allocates up to five disks and supports all the common RAID modes. And is cheaper than these NAS servers.
The difference is that it connects to the eSata port (newer version supports USB3), as I have a little server (just an old desktop pc) I simply had set up the nfs service.
The article isn't about search. He barely mentions it, and for good reason. Search is one of the few Google services that already is easy to access programmatically, even all you're doing is sending an HTTP GET that mocks the Google search page.
Even if it looks as a simple Http request and you can parse the Html (and call that an API), Google will return a captcha in 30 seconds. They have a very tight control over people trying to crawl they search page.
They don't allow it.
In my former job we Scrapped the Google search page, and we could circumvent all the blockades eventually, but that's not the way APIs work.
It states (copied from wikipedia):
“Any person shall file this action to obtain information on the data about himself and their purpose, registered in public records or data bases, or in private ones intended to supply information; and in case of false data or discrimination, this action may be filed to request the suppression, rectification, confidentiality or updating of said data. The secret nature of the sources of journalistic information shall not be impaired.”
To help geek up this analogy: enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex but avoiding partners with STDs.
For a typical user, a better analogy would be: Enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex while wearing a condom made of inch-thick rubber.
Well, it depends if you are the one wearing the condom or the other one.
I'm using Opera and CNET's styles do not work.
Funny they make an article about a browser they don't support.
They've done it!
They made you feel indispensable. You're not, no one is.
Do you trust your government about communication privacy and not the Brazilian one?
don't smell this
submerge the platters in ferric chloride.
you find it in electronic components stores
opera has it's own ad blocker, the thing is that you'll have to configure it for each page, but it's very quick. just right click on the page and "block contents"...
opera?
git's man does the job well, and git it's not a trivial software
It's obvious that obvious is subjective, so it may be obvious to somebody skilled in the art and not obvious to others also skilled. How can we prove this? Obviously we can't.