As a matter of interest, have you tried importing your project into Xcode? I presume that it's a right pain, otherwise perhaps you would have used the distributed compiling built in to the IDE?
[ I've only dabbled with Xcode (I'm a Windows developer by trade:( ) so I don't know if it's of much use for GNU-style builds. ]
Ah, imagine the fun someone could have with a network-attached WinCE microwave:// virus.c while(true) {
if(microwave.containsPet()) {
door.close();
microwave.start(Power::High, 30);
} else sleep(5); }
Remember that it has taken time for independent labels in the States to sign up. Just because they haven't done so yet doesn't mean that they won't; You can bet that the indies have a high proportion of iPod-toting staff who'd be keen on iTMS and the bosses won't want to pass up the opportunity to make even more money. Patience!
Since the organic in OLED means that it is made of carbon chain compounds, rather than it being brewed from fertiliser-free potatoes, why would that in itself make OLEDs more environmentally-friendy?
Yes, there is going to be a lot less of an OLED display to dispose of than a CRT, plus it won't include a hunk of (barium? lead?) glass as a screen. To be able to say "OLEDs are organic (hence the O)" we'd need to ask whether the organic compounds are persistent in the environment.
It's not that I give two hoots for the environment, you understand, but if you know that the organic compounds in OLEDs are biodegradable / environmentally inert then I'd be interested to hear about the chemistry of them.
You looked inside an (as yet unreleased) XServe G5? The G5 Power Macs use the 130nm-process G5 which generates lots of heat. The new G5 (970FX) is a 90nm part and generates a whole lot less. That's not to say that IBM isn't fibbing about the new part being lower-power, but until we've seen the inside of the new XServes we won't know. The current G5 desktop tells us nothing.
I suppose that, given that the Powerbook is in need of a re-vamp, that might get the G5 first. Cooling issues will be easier to nail for the iMac though, I guess.
Remember that the 970FX (new G5) draws less power than the G4. Once IBM are knocking them out in sufficient numbers for Apple to ship the Xserve G5 (which uses the 970FX) at last I don't see why it couldn't be shoe-horned into an iMac; Bye bye cooling problems.
OTOH, at least with a PDF you get a document which looks the same everywhere (formatting, fonts) and which doesn't require MS Word to read it. Acrobat reader is indeed a bag o'sh*te, but there are lightweight PDF viewers; In particular, I'm thinking of Preview in Mac OS X and presuming that there's a similarly quick app for every platform. Compressed HTML might well be a better format for shipping documents for PDAs where one isn't bothered about the exact font or formatting, though.
It's good if PG sees royalties from PG2. However, to crank out an analogy, there's a heck of a difference between me paying royalties for calling a product "SmallCorp Foo v1, Designed for Microsoft Windows" (which would be good for Microsoft) and me calling a product "Microsoft2 Foo v1", which would be 'passing off'.
I got the impression from the Project Gutenberg 2 web site that they were in no way connected to Project Gutenberg. So, PG is not "including PG2" unless PG2's claim is bogus. I'm left with the impression that PG2 is leeching the hard work done by PG in generating the raw text for the books, then squatting on a domain name which is clearly designed to imply a (business or reputation) relationship with PG. How is this not illegal, seeming to be a straight case of "passing off"?
Fyodor is just pointing out that SCO has breached the GPL and so has no license at all to distribute nmap (or indeed any other GPL app.) He isn't adding anything to the GPL itself, just a side-note.
i) SCO has added a complaint of copyright infringement. See Groklaw.
ii) The case is being heard by Judge Dale Kimball in *Federal* court, not Utah state court. So, the court is perfectly entitled to rule on copyrights.
iii) As for the process being long or short, who knows. However, it seems unlikely to be very long if SCO fails to bring any evidence to discovery, as has been the case so far.
So, your cut-and-paste review is inaccurate in a couple of instances, but let's see what happens.
Why? Because we all want DRM'd music? Because we all have super-sensitive hearing which can detect the differences in music encoded at 44kH and some higher frequency? Because we really need albums longer than 72 minutes? I don't understand why DVD Audio should ever take off.
Well, time is related to distance by the speed of light *in a vacuum*.
I guess that the ways photons can stop moving are if they are trapped in a quantum well or if the permittivity of the medium they're travelling in is increased substantially (remember that light travels slower in a medium,) which may effectively be the same thing. So, these photons aren't travelling in a vacuum. Hence, the local speed of light can change without time being affected.
If this is a troll, I apologise for my naivete. Anyway, here are your answers:
1) The article suggests that open source methods are useful even in a closed environment. You're right; If the code isn't available then it isn't open source.
2) 'License alignment' can be a problem. The premise is that you only get to play the open source game if you play by the rules; If you want to use the products of others' hard work, you have to make your own code available. Projects which rely on closed binaries can't use code licensed under the (restrictive) GPL at all, but may be able to use code with less restrictive licenses (like the Lesser GPL.)
3) Plenty of companies make money from open source code, they just don't make it from keeping code secret. Usually the money is to be made by adding convenience (shrink-wrapped software with a nice installation routine, say) or services (such as support.) Of course, they don't have the same development costs as companies which are closed, as they can build on the work of others rather than starting from scratch.
4) Most programmers (AFAIK) work for companies where the end product isn't software. They are in-house programmers developing internal systems, or the company uses software to sell hardware, or the company uses software to sell support. Companies which go open-source will surely have a business plan which will take into account the loss of revenue in software sales. The money is to be made elsewhere.
Alas, not true. Any prism-based 802.11b hardware maybe, but there's not a lot of that around any more as far as I can tell. Lots of manufacturers are switching to Broadcom and ADMTek chipsets which appear to have no usable drivers.
OTOH, if I'm wrong please let me know. I want a wireless card for my desktop machine. Amazon.co.uk doesn't sell any that are supported, nor can I find any in London.
I suppose that Apple has done the hard work of softening up the music companies a little. I suppose that all the music services will go to the same user rights eventually. At least Apple was first to market.
I don't suppose that Dell is talking about supplying music outside of the USA?
I'm sure they would be only too happy to publish the source of KHTML. It wouldn't mean that they'd have to publish the source to iTunes though, if that's what you're getting at.
Slashdot Mirror
As a matter of interest, have you tried importing your project into Xcode? I presume that it's a right pain, otherwise perhaps you would have used the distributed compiling built in to the IDE?
:( ) so I don't know if it's of much use for GNU-style builds. ]
[ I've only dabbled with Xcode (I'm a Windows developer by trade
Ah, imagine the fun someone could have with a network-attached WinCE microwave: // virus.c
while(true) {
if(microwave.containsPet()) {
door.close();
microwave.start(Power::High, 30);
} else sleep(5);
}
Remember that it has taken time for independent labels in the States to sign up. Just because they haven't done so yet doesn't mean that they won't; You can bet that the indies have a high proportion of iPod-toting staff who'd be keen on iTMS and the bosses won't want to pass up the opportunity to make even more money. Patience!
A combination of Win2k, Solaris, Linux (various distributions) and VMS.
Since the organic in OLED means that it is made of carbon chain compounds, rather than it being brewed from fertiliser-free potatoes, why would that in itself make OLEDs more environmentally-friendy?
Yes, there is going to be a lot less of an OLED display to dispose of than a CRT, plus it won't include a hunk of (barium? lead?) glass as a screen. To be able to say "OLEDs are organic (hence the O)" we'd need to ask whether the organic compounds are persistent in the environment.
It's not that I give two hoots for the environment, you understand, but if you know that the organic compounds in OLEDs are biodegradable / environmentally inert then I'd be interested to hear about the chemistry of them.
They just legally drive away... and return it the next day with wider wheels and a new sound system!
As Bill and Ted said, "We are notworthy! We are notworthy!"
As I understand it, VAT(17.5%) would be payable when importing to the UK and there is no import duty on computer hardware.
I don't get the impression that this guy is looking to declare his import, though.
You looked inside an (as yet unreleased) XServe G5? The G5 Power Macs use the 130nm-process G5 which generates lots of heat. The new G5 (970FX) is a 90nm part and generates a whole lot less. That's not to say that IBM isn't fibbing about the new part being lower-power, but until we've seen the inside of the new XServes we won't know. The current G5 desktop tells us nothing.
I suppose that, given that the Powerbook is in need of a re-vamp, that might get the G5 first. Cooling issues will be easier to nail for the iMac though, I guess.
Remember that the 970FX (new G5) draws less power than the G4. Once IBM are knocking them out in sufficient numbers for Apple to ship the Xserve G5 (which uses the 970FX) at last I don't see why it couldn't be shoe-horned into an iMac; Bye bye cooling problems.
You misunderstand. The potential royalties which were mentioned were for the use of the "Project Gutenberg" name, not the books.
OTOH, at least with a PDF you get a document which looks the same everywhere (formatting, fonts) and which doesn't require MS Word to read it. Acrobat reader is indeed a bag o'sh*te, but there are lightweight PDF viewers; In particular, I'm thinking of Preview in Mac OS X and presuming that there's a similarly quick app for every platform. Compressed HTML might well be a better format for shipping documents for PDAs where one isn't bothered about the exact font or formatting, though.
It's good if PG sees royalties from PG2. However, to crank out an analogy, there's a heck of a difference between me paying royalties for calling a product "SmallCorp Foo v1, Designed for Microsoft Windows" (which would be good for Microsoft) and me calling a product "Microsoft2 Foo v1", which would be 'passing off'.
I got the impression from the Project Gutenberg 2 web site that they were in no way connected to Project Gutenberg. So, PG is not "including PG2" unless PG2's claim is bogus. I'm left with the impression that PG2 is leeching the hard work done by PG in generating the raw text for the books, then squatting on a domain name which is clearly designed to imply a (business or reputation) relationship with PG. How is this not illegal, seeming to be a straight case of "passing off"?
Fyodor is just pointing out that SCO has breached the GPL and so has no license at all to distribute nmap (or indeed any other GPL app.) He isn't adding anything to the GPL itself, just a side-note.
Thanks for the information. However,
i) SCO has added a complaint of copyright infringement. See Groklaw.
ii) The case is being heard by Judge Dale Kimball in *Federal* court, not Utah state court. So, the court is perfectly entitled to rule on copyrights.
iii) As for the process being long or short, who knows. However, it seems unlikely to be very long if SCO fails to bring any evidence to discovery, as has been the case so far.
So, your cut-and-paste review is inaccurate in a couple of instances, but let's see what happens.
Why? Because we all want DRM'd music? Because we all have super-sensitive hearing which can detect the differences in music encoded at 44kH and some higher frequency? Because we really need albums longer than 72 minutes? I don't understand why DVD Audio should ever take off.
... is today's Dilbert online (9th Feb)
Well, time is related to distance by the speed of light *in a vacuum*.
I guess that the ways photons can stop moving are if they are trapped in a quantum well or if the permittivity of the medium they're travelling in is increased substantially (remember that light travels slower in a medium,) which may effectively be the same thing. So, these photons aren't travelling in a vacuum. Hence, the local speed of light can change without time being affected.
You should try buying fuel over here in the UK. $10/Gallon doesn't sound too bad where I am.
If this is a troll, I apologise for my naivete. Anyway, here are your answers:
1) The article suggests that open source methods are useful even in a closed environment. You're right; If the code isn't available then it isn't open source.
2) 'License alignment' can be a problem. The premise is that you only get to play the open source game if you play by the rules; If you want to use the products of others' hard work, you have to make your own code available. Projects which rely on closed binaries can't use code licensed under the (restrictive) GPL at all, but may be able to use code with less restrictive licenses (like the Lesser GPL.)
3) Plenty of companies make money from open source code, they just don't make it from keeping code secret. Usually the money is to be made by adding convenience (shrink-wrapped software with a nice installation routine, say) or services (such as support.) Of course, they don't have the same development costs as companies which are closed, as they can build on the work of others rather than starting from scratch.
4) Most programmers (AFAIK) work for companies where the end product isn't software. They are in-house programmers developing internal systems, or the company uses software to sell hardware, or the company uses software to sell support. Companies which go open-source will surely have a business plan which will take into account the loss of revenue in software sales. The money is to be made elsewhere.
Alas, not true. Any prism-based 802.11b hardware maybe, but there's not a lot of that around any more as far as I can tell. Lots of manufacturers are switching to Broadcom and ADMTek chipsets which appear to have no usable drivers.
OTOH, if I'm wrong please let me know. I want a wireless card for my desktop machine. Amazon.co.uk doesn't sell any that are supported, nor can I find any in London.
I suppose that Apple has done the hard work of softening up the music companies a little. I suppose that all the music services will go to the same user rights eventually. At least Apple was first to market.
I don't suppose that Dell is talking about supplying music outside of the USA?
The satellite launch capability developed by Britain and then dropped. (The Black Knight series of rockets.)
I'm sure they would be only too happy to publish the source of KHTML. It wouldn't mean that they'd have to publish the source to iTunes though, if that's what you're getting at.