Yes, and then you wouldn't get published or tenure. That's not an option. If it were, don't you think someone would take them up on it, even to do spurious research? The fact that it's not happening should say something - and it's not regarding the ultimate answer of global warming.
Wait. So you're saying that there's been no credible research supporting a contrarian position to the man-made warming climatological thesis?
And you're claiming that such is proof that we can't trust the majority? That researchers all over the US are busy propagating the man-made warming myth due to a search for funding.. from the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress?
You can't add extra conditions to the GPL (which might lead you to state "no more onerous than") but, crucially, you also can't take the GPL's conditions away. You can't, for example, link GPL code to (less onerous) BSD code and release the result under BSD.
Just so. Perhaps I should have said "no more onerous to RMS' sense of ethics than"..;-)
What it says is that if you combine your code with other GPL code you have to release the result under the GPL.
It doesn't, actually. What the GPL says is that the GPL doesn't grant you the right to redistribute an intermingling of GPL code with your proprietary code, unless that commingled body is itself licensed under terms no more onerous than the GPL.
Have you commingled GPL'ed code with your own proprietary code? No problem, so long as you don't distribute.
Have you commingled code licensed under the GPL with proprietary code and distributed with greater restrictions? Again no problem, so long as the copyright holder(s) on the GPL'ed code are willing to grant you an alternative license for that usage. The GPL can't stop that sort of thing, it just doesn't grant affirmative permission for it.
I'd like to think that this sort of thing is an obvious extension of techniques like OLE, OpenDoc, and SOM, but patents don't tend to work like that, as I understand it.. you can patent something which is a extension of someone else's patented work so long as it doesn't strike the examiner as obvious.
Re:Account for people with misshapen bodies?
on
Chimera Twins Story
·
· Score: 1
I believe that sort of thing is usually due to problems in the hormonal growth regulation system.
Red Hat and the other distros are miles from where they were 2 years ago, let alone since 95. There's something still amiss? Well, you can bet that there are a whole heck of a lot of people working on improving those things as fast as possible.
If there's something that you have a particular issue with that no one seems to fix, make some noise about it.
If you just think that you shouldn't have to deal with any Linux problems ever, fine, enjoy your Mac, good luck bitching to Steve Jobs on his public discussion board when you find that he's the only one capable of fixing something you don't like with it.
Re:Parent point valid despite foul language
on
Worst Linux Annoyances?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Amiga could do this for floppies. The IBM PC floppy drives were never really capable of reacting when you inserted a floppy.. you had to actually run a program to go and look to see if a floppy was inserted.
On the Amiga, individal floppies were named, and whenever any program wanted something off of a specific floppy, you could put the floppy in any drive attached to the system, and the OS would notice it, read it's label, and any programs wantingg to read that disk could then proceed without further user intervention.
Made floppies a lot more manageable, back in the Amiga 1000 days when hard drives for the Amiga were rare indeed.
1. the inability to cleanly uninstall software that has been installed with the usual configure/make/make install incantation
It's easy to uninstall software installed with configure/make/make install, if you use a depot-style symlink farm manager, like Opt_Depot,
or any of the many other symlink depot packages that we have linked off of that page.
You just do configure --prefix=/opt/depot/packagename, and almost all autoconf-derived packages will install all their files under the specified base. Use opt_depot or whatever to create symlinks to your bin, man, lib, include directories, and you're set. Want to uninstall? Just rm -rf the package, run another script to clean up the dangling symlinks, done.
Now, that's not useful for your average Linux-using-grandmother, but if you're already talking about doing your own configure/make/make install, it's not that much extra work, and it makes it tons easier to uninstall.
The Linux community does not believe in IP laws, but that does not make them code thiefs. They belive in a licience that does not allow any one person or organization to own any code they write.
Speak for yourself, please. Just because I use and work on code licensed under GPL doesn't mean that I don't respect the intellectual property licensing predilections of others.
The whole point of the Free Software/Open Source movement, to my way of thinking, is to create a corpus of intellectual property that is and remains extremely free. As you say, it is not about ripping off other people's copyrights.
I've had the SA 8000 in Austin since late last year. It is great having the DVR functionality, but there have been a _lot_ of bugs, and a lot of missing features, at least with the Cable backend TW-Austin is using. Some franchises are using a cable back-end made by Pioneer, and their SA-8000 boxes are far more featureful.
Those interested in reading user reports on this device should visit the Yahoo Explorer 8000 Group page. Misery loves company, as they say.
Gee, now that I was almost buying their license...
Just typical. You have to throw in a little snarky dig at SCO,don't you?
You can't have a single damn story here without getting all of this biased, unprofessional editorial content mixed in. No one would mistake this place for a real news organization, that's for sure.
Did you know that Microsoft has a patent on the password hash algorithm used for Windows NT password hashing? The very same algorithm used in Samba, don't you know.
Believe it, Microsoft does have a broad patent portfolio, and believe it that OSS does trespass on that portfolio in places.
As for the value - When Motif was around and strong, it was clear to Unix developers what widget set and style to use.
Yeah, Athena, because it was the only one affordable/approachable for a scratch-an-itch, non-commercial project. There were no free X projects of any significance around that had any kind of decent interface, except for those folks who invented their own widget sets, like the author of Xv, and the GIMP team.
UNIX GUI development on X Windows was a ghetto for a very long time because the cost threshold for developing usable software for it was higher than could be sustained by most UNIX-loving hackers, and because the industry (and OSF) tried to do revenue capture on every developer who might have helped make UNIX systems competitive on the desktop in any way.
If OSF had done 12 years ago what Trolltech is doing now with Qt, the world might have turned out a very different place.. and OSF would have wound up with more money in the bank, not less.
The only reason SCO isn't attacking BSD is that BSD isn't as popular. The Linux and OpenSource/FreeSoftware communities are bursting with energy, and have produced a product superior to anything SCO can possibly think of producing. SCO might be able to compete with BSD if BSD stays small and contained within a relatively narrow developer cabal. Linux is just too much, particularly with SCO licensees like IBM throwing down.
No doubt he does. If Microsoft says it costs a certain amount to be able to do something with a computer, who the hell is a small business to be trying to get it done cheaper?
I think it's pretty clear that it's just not possible to legally do anything Microsoft does for cheaper than what Microsoft wants to charge for it.
It'd be easy to denigrate Microsoft for all of the security announcements they've had, but it really does seem like positive fruit of their new focus on security in their products. The more of these things Microsoft catches and fixes, the happier I am.
Matt Dillon's early background as an Amiga programmer is really showing through here. He's basically proposing doing a piecewise conversion of BSD to an Amiga-style message-passing operating system.
He's basically doing the reverse of what so many folks (NeXT, HURD) have done or tried to do.. not taking a microkernal and putting a UNIX layer over it, but taking a UNIX and scooping out the inside to replace it with a message-passing microkernal.
This will definitely be a fun one to watch. Go, Matt, go.
Come on. Just because the radar has a 300 feet range doesn't mean that the system will freak as soon as it sees anything ahead of it. The system has to be configured to compare the speed of your vehicle with the speed of the vehicle ahead of you, and your closing rate, among other factors.
Systems like this are designed by people who do automotive engineering for a living, you know.
I watched TTT over the weekend again, and there was a lot of things I was disappointed in. The dead marshes scene, where gollum keeps talking about not following the lights.. that weren't there. Perhaps Peter Jackson was too busy with all the FOTR award hoopla to supervise putting the lights in?
But, no, the big thing I disliked about both FOTR and TTT was how de-emphasized Sauron was. In FOTR at least you get to hear him talk and have a sense that he's really menancing, when the Jacksons weren't giving his actions to Saruman to perform (such as bringing down the mountain). But in TTT, Sauron was a non-entity.. you'd think he was incapable of any direct action.. just a big floaty eye, unable even to do so much as turn and look in different directions.
Sauron is one of the biggest characters in the books, but the movies have really pushed him aside in favor of Saruman. Yay Christopher Lee and all that, but it's hard to really understand the point of all the hub-ub without understanding that Sauron is the real problem, and that he's really unnervingly dangerous and evil, a force of nature almost, beyond comprehension. Even his Nazgul seem sort of weak compared to those depicted in Bakshi's LOTR.
I really hope ROTK shows just how awe-inspiringly powerful and evil Sauron is, otherwise much of the drama of the books is just gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and then you wouldn't get published or tenure. That's not an option. If it were, don't you think someone would take them up on it, even to do spurious research? The fact that it's not happening should say something - and it's not regarding the ultimate answer of global warming.
Wait. So you're saying that there's been no credible research supporting a contrarian position to the man-made warming climatological thesis?
And you're claiming that such is proof that we can't trust the majority? That researchers all over the US are busy propagating the man-made warming myth due to a search for funding.. from the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress?
What?
You can't add extra conditions to the GPL (which might lead you to state "no more onerous than") but, crucially, you also can't take the GPL's conditions away. You can't, for example, link GPL code to (less onerous) BSD code and release the result under BSD.
Just so. Perhaps I should have said "no more onerous to RMS' sense of ethics than".. ;-)
What it says is that if you combine your code with other GPL code you have to release the result under the GPL.
It doesn't, actually. What the GPL says is that the GPL doesn't grant you the right to redistribute an intermingling of GPL code with your proprietary code, unless that commingled body is itself licensed under terms no more onerous than the GPL.
Have you commingled GPL'ed code with your own proprietary code? No problem, so long as you don't distribute.
Have you commingled code licensed under the GPL with proprietary code and distributed with greater restrictions? Again no problem, so long as the copyright holder(s) on the GPL'ed code are willing to grant you an alternative license for that usage. The GPL can't stop that sort of thing, it just doesn't grant affirmative permission for it.
It wasn't filed in 1998.
I'd like to think that this sort of thing is an obvious extension of techniques like OLE, OpenDoc, and SOM, but patents don't tend to work like that, as I understand it.. you can patent something which is a extension of someone else's patented work so long as it doesn't strike the examiner as obvious.
I believe that sort of thing is usually due to problems in the hormonal growth regulation system.
Wow, who supplied the bug stuck up your ass?
Red Hat and the other distros are miles from where they were 2 years ago, let alone since 95. There's something still amiss? Well, you can bet that there are a whole heck of a lot of people working on improving those things as fast as possible.
If there's something that you have a particular issue with that no one seems to fix, make some noise about it.
If you just think that you shouldn't have to deal with any Linux problems ever, fine, enjoy your Mac, good luck bitching to Steve Jobs on his public discussion board when you find that he's the only one capable of fixing something you don't like with it.
Amiga could do this for floppies. The IBM PC floppy drives were never really capable of reacting when you inserted a floppy.. you had to actually run a program to go and look to see if a floppy was inserted.
On the Amiga, individal floppies were named, and whenever any program wanted something off of a specific floppy, you could put the floppy in any drive attached to the system, and the OS would notice it, read it's label, and any programs wantingg to read that disk could then proceed without further user intervention.
Made floppies a lot more manageable, back in the Amiga 1000 days when hard drives for the Amiga were rare indeed.
1. the inability to cleanly uninstall software that has been installed with the usual configure/make/make install incantation
It's easy to uninstall software installed with configure/make/make install, if you use a depot-style symlink farm manager, like Opt_Depot, or any of the many other symlink depot packages that we have linked off of that page.
You just do configure --prefix=/opt/depot/packagename, and almost all autoconf-derived packages will install all their files under the specified base. Use opt_depot or whatever to create symlinks to your bin, man, lib, include directories, and you're set. Want to uninstall? Just rm -rf the package, run another script to clean up the dangling symlinks, done.
Now, that's not useful for your average Linux-using-grandmother, but if you're already talking about doing your own configure/make/make install, it's not that much extra work, and it makes it tons easier to uninstall.
The Linux community does not believe in IP laws, but that does not make them code thiefs. They belive in a licience that does not allow any one person or organization to own any code they write.
Speak for yourself, please. Just because I use and work on code licensed under GPL doesn't mean that I don't respect the intellectual property licensing predilections of others.
The whole point of the Free Software/Open Source movement, to my way of thinking, is to create a corpus of intellectual property that is and remains extremely free. As you say, it is not about ripping off other people's copyrights.
Just great, now McBride's going to bring suit against Slashdot for conspiracy.
Thanks a lot, yo.
I just put down $40 at Fry's for the basic Red Hat 9 box, and $60 for a year of Red Hat Network membership.. seems like a real bargain, now.
Go Red Hat, go!
I've had the SA 8000 in Austin since late last year. It is great having the DVR functionality, but there have been a _lot_ of bugs, and a lot of missing features, at least with the Cable backend TW-Austin is using. Some franchises are using a cable back-end made by Pioneer, and their SA-8000 boxes are far more featureful.
Those interested in reading user reports on this device should visit the Yahoo Explorer 8000 Group page. Misery loves company, as they say.
I thought it was pretty good parody, myself.
Gee, now that I was almost buying their license ...
Just typical. You have to throw in a little snarky dig at SCO,don't you?
You can't have a single damn story here without getting all of this biased, unprofessional editorial content mixed in. No one would mistake this place for a real news organization, that's for sure.
Pssst... ixnay on the waking the beast, eh?
Did you know that Microsoft has a patent on the password hash algorithm used for Windows NT password hashing? The very same algorithm used in Samba, don't you know.
Believe it, Microsoft does have a broad patent portfolio, and believe it that OSS does trespass on that portfolio in places.
As for the value - When Motif was around and strong, it was clear to Unix developers what widget set and style to use.
Yeah, Athena, because it was the only one affordable/approachable for a scratch-an-itch, non-commercial project. There were no free X projects of any significance around that had any kind of decent interface, except for those folks who invented their own widget sets, like the author of Xv, and the GIMP team.
UNIX GUI development on X Windows was a ghetto for a very long time because the cost threshold for developing usable software for it was higher than could be sustained by most UNIX-loving hackers, and because the industry (and OSF) tried to do revenue capture on every developer who might have helped make UNIX systems competitive on the desktop in any way.
If OSF had done 12 years ago what Trolltech is doing now with Qt, the world might have turned out a very different place.. and OSF would have wound up with more money in the bank, not less.
The only reason SCO isn't attacking BSD is that BSD isn't as popular. The Linux and OpenSource/FreeSoftware communities are bursting with energy, and have produced a product superior to anything SCO can possibly think of producing. SCO might be able to compete with BSD if BSD stays small and contained within a relatively narrow developer cabal. Linux is just too much, particularly with SCO licensees like IBM throwing down.
No doubt he does. If Microsoft says it costs a certain amount to be able to do something with a computer, who the hell is a small business to be trying to get it done cheaper?
I think it's pretty clear that it's just not possible to legally do anything Microsoft does for cheaper than what Microsoft wants to charge for it.
In the real world, at least.
Aw, that's cute.
How do you think your proposed BSD model compares to something like RCU?>/p>
It'd be easy to denigrate Microsoft for all of the security announcements they've had, but it really does seem like positive fruit of their new focus on security in their products. The more of these things Microsoft catches and fixes, the happier I am.
Matt Dillon's early background as an Amiga programmer is really showing through here. He's basically proposing doing a piecewise conversion of BSD to an Amiga-style message-passing operating system.
He's basically doing the reverse of what so many folks (NeXT, HURD) have done or tried to do.. not taking a microkernal and putting a UNIX layer over it, but taking a UNIX and scooping out the inside to replace it with a message-passing microkernal.
This will definitely be a fun one to watch. Go, Matt, go.
Come on. Just because the radar has a 300 feet range doesn't mean that the system will freak as soon as it sees anything ahead of it. The system has to be configured to compare the speed of your vehicle with the speed of the vehicle ahead of you, and your closing rate, among other factors.
Systems like this are designed by people who do automotive engineering for a living, you know.
Yeah, but that's crap. In the books, the lights were more like will-o-the-wisp's, that flickered and moved and beckoned and enticed.
Not little static gas jets strewn here and there.
I watched TTT over the weekend again, and there was a lot of things I was disappointed in. The dead marshes scene, where gollum keeps talking about not following the lights.. that weren't there. Perhaps Peter Jackson was too busy with all the FOTR award hoopla to supervise putting the lights in?
But, no, the big thing I disliked about both FOTR and TTT was how de-emphasized Sauron was. In FOTR at least you get to hear him talk and have a sense that he's really menancing, when the Jacksons weren't giving his actions to Saruman to perform (such as bringing down the mountain). But in TTT, Sauron was a non-entity.. you'd think he was incapable of any direct action.. just a big floaty eye, unable even to do so much as turn and look in different directions.
Sauron is one of the biggest characters in the books, but the movies have really pushed him aside in favor of Saruman. Yay Christopher Lee and all that, but it's hard to really understand the point of all the hub-ub without understanding that Sauron is the real problem, and that he's really unnervingly dangerous and evil, a force of nature almost, beyond comprehension. Even his Nazgul seem sort of weak compared to those depicted in Bakshi's LOTR.
I really hope ROTK shows just how awe-inspiringly powerful and evil Sauron is, otherwise much of the drama of the books is just gone.
Whew, I'm happy to have _that_ off my chest.