The photographer would indeed have owned the copyright the photograph itself if the couple had hired her to produce copies of photographs from the wedding. But I would assume that a couple would pay a photographer for the photographs themselves, not the copies, and therefor the copyright would belong to the -couple- and not the photographer, and the photographer would have to oblige to the couple's requests. It is not reasonable for a photographer to have the copyright over pictures they were hired to take, any more than it is reasonable for a programmer to have the copyright over the code he was hired to write...
Having read the article and some of the replies, I think I have a point to make about the subject.
It seems like some people have the notion that the "Internet killed the BBSs", that because of the fact that any random Joe can now log on, that the internet is less of the 'virtual community' that used to exist... Not true.
People form social groups with others that the notion of spending time with appeals to them. This is usually expressed in the form of shared interests. This happens in any society, virtual or real. I go to a school with higher acceptance criteria, among other things, because the people there are more to my liking. I share interests with more of them, they're more intelligent, and there's no real need to deal with the bullies ('Trolls' of the online communities)
The same thing happens online. People choose what communities they become part of. Personally, I play on a mud, which is a truly great virtual community. The people there are significantly more intelligent than those I meet on ICQ's Random Chat. I have shared interests with much more of them. Just like in real life.
The 'online community' didn't become of a 'lower class'... the geeks still hang around here. There's still smart people around. The communities are still here. You just have to look for them, just like you have to look for a good school.
Naturally, when a community grows larger, it splits into sub-communities. It happens in any social frame. So when a community you were a part of seems to inflate with people you don't find to your liking, always try and find the sub-community you like in there. It should be there most of the time.
Not exactly a gadget, but I couldn't resist pointing out the best invention of the millenium that seems to be overlooked: the Toilet Paper. Imagine your life without it:)
I've seen alot of talk recently about a Debian FreeBSD distro. Leaving the pros and cons aside for a moment, is this really happening, or is it just a bunch of useless talk?
There are two (that's 21.75 times less than 43 and a half) libc libraries for Linux, libc5 and libc6. All the Linux distributions are based on libc6 now, so for what it's worth, there's exactly *one* libc for Linux, and that is libc6.
Not exactly true, since old programs won't work, though I'll accept this for the sake of the argument.
If you download a binary linked against libc6, and you have a recent distribution, as well as the other libraries the program is linked against, *it will run*.
Not true. The last linux distro I've worked with is RH5.2, though I remember this very well: only one in around 20 programs/libs I've tried compiling actually succeded without flaw if I tried doing:
./configure make
And, in most cases, these were not linux-specific programs that succeded. Once of the main causes was incomatible libs that did the same task, or the libs the prog needed that weren't found. It's come to such redicules cases where i have libX and the program requires Xlib (where X can be anything), where the two libs did the same thing. It's even come to cases where compiling with -lX (again, X can be anything, nothing to do with X11) worked, but resulted in errors, because the program needed another library with the same name that does the same thing, but are incompatible. I can't give you prog/lib names now since I haven't used linux in some time, though this is one of the great things about fbsd - this sort of stuff almost never happens.
You say that there are many Linux distributions and it creates confusion. You completely omit the fact that there are three distinct distributions of 386/BSD, called NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. (Actually they're a little further splintered than Linux distributions since they are developed independently, on the source-code level.)
Correction: {Net|Open|Free}BSD are completley different operating systems. True, they are derived from the same source, but then again, SunOS was originally derived from BSD, does that make Solaris a BSD distro? Don't mix them to be the same OS, they are completley different systems, and although they have similarities, so do Windows and MacOS. They are developed seperatly, and never claim to be the same thing, unlike linux distros who DO claim to be the same OS as another distro.
You choose only to talk about FreeBSD and disregard the others, in which case you can also choose to only talk about e.g. Debian GNU/Linux and disregard the others.
I'm talking about fbsd for two reasons: first of all, that was the system suggested, I haven't heared suggestions about the other BSD's. I've read part of the messages on the Debian list regarding this, and other options were raised, though fbsd was the original suggestion, so I referred to it. Besides, I'm not a user of the other BSD's, so I would only say this about fbsd.
Now, everything you said about the FreeBSD packaging system is also applicable to Debian's apt system. Including automatic dependency resolving (be it libc versions or any other libraries and software).
I was trying to say that fbsd has a great system, and that we don't need another. You could say that the debian tree would get us more linux programs working, but then again, most linux programs work on fbsd with linux emulation.
While we're at it, FreeBSD is an operating system, Debian GNU/Linux is an operating system; the FreeBSD kernel is a kernel, Linux is a kernel. Repeat this sentence ten times. What's the point again?
The point was fbsd is not the same without it's utilities, and not only it's userland. Linux is JUST a kernel, not a complete system, and depends on other distros to make use of it, weather it be the GNU system or Daemon Penguin. It is not a complete system, only a kernel, and building a distro around it is what it's intended for. On the other hand, the fbsd kernel is part of a complete system it's built to work with specifically - it's intended to work with the system that's developed alongside it, with it. Taking just the kernel, like the example I gave before, will be like taking Windows Solitaire, and building a Debian GNU/Windows around it. On the other hand, taking the linux kernel and using it would be like taking the source code to a standalone hex editor and using it as a module in an editing package.
Please try to see this from all viewpoints before proceeding.
I have recently switched to FreeBSD, since I beleive it is better than Linux. And I personally think that GNU/FreeBSD would be the worst thing possible for FBSD. Here's why:
FBSD is a whole lot better than Linux mainly because the distribution is centeralized. Just like only good code makes it into the Linux kernel, only good code makes it into the fbsd distribution - all of it. In fbsd, there are no 5 different libraries for a single task, and you can be sure there is a single good library all programs use. You can be sure all programs would run on your distro, since there is only one distro. In linux, you have to install 43 and half different libs for the same tasks just to be sure everything runs on it.
There is also one single distribution for fbsd, so you can be sure things work on it in any case - you can safley download binaries, unlike linux where you have binaries for redhat6-glibc2 redhat5-glibc2 redhat6-libc5 redhat5-libc5 slackware-libc5 slackware-glibc2 suse6-libc5 suse6-glibc2 and so on, you get the point. In addition to that, sources might not be compatible between distros, since they use different libs and in differend locations. Simply put, you must tweak the program to get it working, unless an archive is available for your distro especially.
When I switched from linux to fbsd, it was like entering heaven. Things are organized, code is better. No more tweaking. If I want a program, it's simply a matter of typing: cd/usr/ports// make && make install and presto, a network connection is established, the sources are downloaded, patches are applied, the code is built, and then installed. Also, all the neccessary dependancies are also downloaded and built. Or even simpler, just mount the packages cd and do a pkg_add All the binaries, libs, etc. will be installed, everything will be in place and registered for later uninstall, and without an error. This is all because of a centeralized distribution.
Now, if Debian (whom I do respect for their linux distro) were to make a Debian GNU/FreeBSD distro, things wouldn't work this way. First of all, glibc would probably be ported so fbsd would start having seperate binaries for glibc and fbsd libc. And probably seperate bins for debian and the official distro. In addition to that, debian would start using it's own sources for linux programs, which means ports loses a lot of it's value. And.deb packages would start appearing for fbsd and there wen't good old pkg_add for anything you need... In addition to that, I'm afraid debian would make a sort of linux distribution around the fbsd kernel (actually, I sould say GNU in this case). This means that even at the absolute minimum, the install would fill up your HD with every available piece of free software, no matter how bad it is. In BSD, you get a clean, structured system.
Now, a point that *must* be emphasize: freebsd is an *operating system*, not a kernel. Linux is a kernel, fbsd is an os. Read this sentance ten times: fbsd is an os, linux is a kernel. Making a freebsd debian distro would be like taking window's solitair and building a linux distro around it. fbsd would lose alot since people would start using it just for it's kernel, and not the beutiful system it is.
It's been mentioned that this way in an open unix system you would be able to choose your kernel, libc, etc. But this is a plain wrong view! Have you seen a new linux distro with just libc5 or glibc2 on it? NO! You would need to have ALL the kernels, and ALL the libcs this way. This would also make things worst for the linux community... if libcs become interoperable, linux binaries are opt to show up with the fbsd libc, which means 3 libc's for linux, which means even more mess.
One last point I want to make is that the support gnu, debian, et al get from linus in the linux kernel might not repeat itself in fbsd if debian won't make sure the fbsd community wants this step - and my guess is we don't.
Please try to consider all sides to this before taking such drastic steps. Thanks.
This story appeared in the local newspapaer here (in hebrew), though people here at the newspaper decided to show another point of view on the subject, and posted a story called "It's the Internet: It has to be investigated" by Dror Foyer. I'll translate the story from hebrew to english:
"In the last three years numerous articles have been published about internet addicts, otherwise called 'Netholics'.
Apparently the real addiction here is the addiction of phsycologysts and sociologists to research in the new and fashionable area: the internet. Once in a while, a physcologist claims that it's unclear why a person who reads books 10 hours a day is a scholar, while a person who surfs the net 4 hours a day is an addict, though nobody listens. Why? Because it's the internet: it's hot, it's fashionable, it has to be investigated.
Once in a while serious cases do occur, like the american woman that two years ago locked her kids in the closet and wouldn't let them eat for three days because the kids bothered her while she was surfing, but most of the "addicts" don't bother anybody, except the advertisers on TV - which appears to be the worst sin. Lock them up in a cell, they don't want to watch Allie McBeal!"
The physcologist et al should try to put everything into perespective....
Slashdot Mirror
The photographer would indeed have owned the copyright the photograph itself if the couple had hired her to produce copies of photographs from the wedding. But I would assume that a couple would pay a photographer for the photographs themselves, not the copies, and therefor the copyright would belong to the -couple- and not the photographer, and the photographer would have to oblige to the couple's requests. It is not reasonable for a photographer to have the copyright over pictures they were hired to take, any more than it is reasonable for a programmer to have the copyright over the code he was hired to write...
Having read the article and some of the replies, I think I have a point to make about the subject.
It seems like some people have the notion that the "Internet killed the BBSs", that because of the fact that any random Joe can now log on, that the internet is less of the 'virtual community' that used to exist... Not true.
People form social groups with others that the notion of spending time with appeals to them. This is usually expressed in the form of shared interests. This happens in any society, virtual or real. I go to a school with higher acceptance criteria, among other things, because the people there are more to my liking. I share interests with more of them, they're more intelligent, and there's no real need to deal with the bullies ('Trolls' of the online communities)
The same thing happens online. People choose what communities they become part of. Personally, I play on a mud, which is a truly great virtual community. The people there are significantly more intelligent than those I meet on ICQ's Random Chat. I have shared interests with much more of them. Just like in real life.
The 'online community' didn't become of a 'lower class'... the geeks still hang around here. There's still smart people around. The communities are still here. You just have to look for them, just like you have to look for a good school.
Naturally, when a community grows larger, it splits into sub-communities. It happens in any social frame. So when a community you were a part of seems to inflate with people you don't find to your liking, always try and find the sub-community you like in there. It should be there most of the time.
Not exactly a gadget, but I couldn't resist pointing out the best invention of the millenium that seems to be overlooked: the Toilet Paper. Imagine your life without it :)
I've seen alot of talk recently about a Debian FreeBSD distro. Leaving the pros and cons aside for a moment, is this really happening, or is it just a bunch of useless talk?
There are two (that's 21.75 times less than 43 and a half) libc libraries for Linux, libc5 and libc6. All the Linux distributions are based on libc6 now, so for what it's worth, there's exactly *one* libc for Linux, and that is libc6.
Not exactly true, since old programs won't work, though I'll accept this for the sake of the argument.
If you download a binary linked against libc6, and you have a recent distribution, as well as the other libraries the program is linked against, *it will run*.
Not true. The last linux distro I've worked with is RH5.2, though I remember this very well: only one in around 20 programs/libs I've tried compiling actually succeded without flaw if I tried doing:
./configure
make
And, in most cases, these were not linux-specific programs that succeded. Once of the main causes was incomatible libs that did the same task, or the libs the prog needed that weren't found. It's come to such redicules cases where i have libX and the program requires Xlib (where X can be anything), where the two libs did the same thing. It's even come to cases where compiling with -lX (again, X can be anything, nothing to do with X11) worked, but resulted in errors, because the program needed another library with the same name that does the same thing, but are incompatible. I can't give you prog/lib names now since I haven't used linux in some time, though this is one of the great things about fbsd - this sort of stuff almost never happens.
You say that there are many Linux distributions and it creates confusion. You completely omit the fact that there are three distinct distributions of 386/BSD, called NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. (Actually they're a little further splintered than Linux distributions since they are developed independently, on the source-code level.)
Correction: {Net|Open|Free}BSD are completley different operating systems. True, they are derived from the same source, but then again, SunOS was originally derived from BSD, does that make Solaris a BSD distro? Don't mix them to be the same OS, they are completley different systems, and although they have similarities, so do Windows and MacOS. They are developed seperatly, and never claim to be the same thing, unlike linux distros who DO claim to be the same OS as another distro.
You choose only to talk about FreeBSD and disregard the others, in which case you can also choose to only talk about e.g. Debian GNU/Linux and disregard the others.
I'm talking about fbsd for two reasons: first of all, that was the system suggested, I haven't heared suggestions about the other BSD's. I've read part of the messages on the Debian list regarding this, and other options were raised, though fbsd was the original suggestion, so I referred to it. Besides, I'm not a user of the other BSD's, so I would only say this about fbsd.
Now, everything you said about the FreeBSD packaging system is also applicable to Debian's apt system. Including automatic dependency resolving (be it libc versions or any other libraries and software).
I was trying to say that fbsd has a great system, and that we don't need another. You could say that the debian tree would get us more linux programs working, but then again, most linux programs work on fbsd with linux emulation.
While we're at it, FreeBSD is an operating system, Debian GNU/Linux is an operating system; the FreeBSD kernel is a kernel, Linux is a kernel. Repeat this sentence ten times. What's the point again?
The point was fbsd is not the same without it's utilities, and not only it's userland. Linux is JUST a kernel, not a complete system, and depends on other distros to make use of it, weather it be the GNU system or Daemon Penguin. It is not a complete system, only a kernel, and building a distro around it is what it's intended for. On the other hand, the fbsd kernel is part of a complete system it's built to work with specifically - it's intended to work with the system that's developed alongside it, with it. Taking just the kernel, like the example I gave before, will be like taking Windows Solitaire, and building a Debian GNU/Windows around it. On the other hand, taking the linux kernel and using it would be like taking the source code to a standalone hex editor and using it as a module in an editing package.
Please try to see this from all viewpoints before proceeding.
--
Oren Sarig
sarig@bezeqint.net
I have recently switched to FreeBSD, since I beleive it is better than Linux. And I personally think that GNU/FreeBSD would be the worst thing possible for FBSD. Here's why:
/usr/ports//
.deb packages would start appearing for fbsd and there wen't good old pkg_add for anything you need... In addition to that, I'm afraid debian would make a sort of linux distribution around the fbsd kernel (actually, I sould say GNU in this case). This means that even at the absolute minimum, the install would fill up your HD with every available piece of free software, no matter how bad it is. In BSD, you get a clean, structured system.
FBSD is a whole lot better than Linux mainly because the distribution is centeralized. Just like only good code makes it into the Linux kernel, only good code makes it into the fbsd distribution - all of it. In fbsd, there are no 5 different libraries for a single task, and you can be sure there is a single good library all programs use. You can be sure all programs would run on your distro, since there is only one distro. In linux, you have to install 43 and half different libs for the same tasks just to be sure everything runs on it.
There is also one single distribution for fbsd, so you can be sure things work on it in any case - you can safley download binaries, unlike linux where you have binaries for redhat6-glibc2 redhat5-glibc2 redhat6-libc5 redhat5-libc5 slackware-libc5 slackware-glibc2 suse6-libc5 suse6-glibc2 and so on, you get the point. In addition to that, sources might not be compatible between distros, since they use different libs and in differend locations. Simply put, you must tweak the program to get it working, unless an archive is available for your distro especially.
When I switched from linux to fbsd, it was like entering heaven. Things are organized, code is better. No more tweaking. If I want a program, it's simply a matter of typing:
cd
make && make install
and presto, a network connection is established, the sources are downloaded, patches are applied, the code is built, and then installed. Also, all the neccessary dependancies are also downloaded and built. Or even simpler, just mount the packages cd and do a
pkg_add
All the binaries, libs, etc. will be installed, everything will be in place and registered for later uninstall, and without an error. This is all because of a centeralized distribution.
Now, if Debian (whom I do respect for their linux distro) were to make a Debian GNU/FreeBSD distro, things wouldn't work this way. First of all, glibc would probably be ported so fbsd would start having seperate binaries for glibc and fbsd libc. And probably seperate bins for debian and the official distro. In addition to that, debian would start using it's own sources for linux programs, which means ports loses a lot of it's value. And
Now, a point that *must* be emphasize: freebsd is an *operating system*, not a kernel. Linux is a kernel, fbsd is an os. Read this sentance ten times: fbsd is an os, linux is a kernel. Making a freebsd debian distro would be like taking window's solitair and building a linux distro around it. fbsd would lose alot since people would start using it just for it's kernel, and not the beutiful system it is.
It's been mentioned that this way in an open unix system you would be able to choose your kernel, libc, etc. But this is a plain wrong view! Have you seen a new linux distro with just libc5 or glibc2 on it? NO! You would need to have ALL the kernels, and ALL the libcs this way. This would also make things worst for the linux community... if libcs become interoperable, linux binaries are opt to show up with the fbsd libc, which means 3 libc's for linux, which means even more mess.
One last point I want to make is that the support gnu, debian, et al get from linus in the linux kernel might not repeat itself in fbsd if debian won't make sure the fbsd community wants this step - and my guess is we don't.
Please try to consider all sides to this before taking such drastic steps. Thanks.
--
Oren Sarig
sarig@bezeqint.net
This story appeared in the local newspapaer here (in hebrew), though people here at the newspaper decided to show another point of view on the subject, and posted a story called "It's the Internet: It has to be investigated" by Dror Foyer. I'll translate the story from hebrew to english:
"In the last three years numerous articles have been published about internet addicts, otherwise called 'Netholics'.
Apparently the real addiction here is the addiction of phsycologysts and sociologists to research in the new and fashionable area: the internet. Once in a while, a physcologist claims that it's unclear why a person who reads books 10 hours a day is a scholar, while a person who surfs the net 4 hours a day is an addict, though nobody listens. Why? Because it's the internet: it's hot, it's fashionable, it has to be investigated.
Once in a while serious cases do occur, like the american woman that two years ago locked her kids in the closet and wouldn't let them eat for three days because the kids bothered her while she was surfing, but most of the "addicts" don't bother anybody, except the advertisers on TV - which appears to be the worst sin. Lock them up in a cell, they don't want to watch Allie McBeal!"
The physcologist et al should try to put everything into perespective....
--
Oren Sarig
sarig@isdn.net.il