I'd keep with $10. Cutting down by a couple bucks would come STRAIGHT out of the artist's part of the compensation, and we all know it.:)
The PCM idea is unrealistic, though. A sufficiently good MP3, or preferably (though unlikely for now:/ ) an Ogg would be better - basically no quality loss, but huge bandwidth savings. If 100% reproducability is required, perhaps they could use Shorten? It's lossless, so it would be ideal - you'd have the best possible bandwidth usage for absolutely no quality degradation.
Yet AGAIN this misses the original point: is Open Source secure or not? If you do a full source release, how does the *license* affect the security of that *particular* product?
If the argument is that security could be enhanced through the use of proprietary, closed extensions to the program, courtesy of a BSD-like license, then that modified product would go back under the "closed" catagory, and not under the open source catagory it started in. So again we're brought back to the original question: Is Open Source less secure than proprietary stuff? That's debatable, but the license still doesn't matter - released source is released source. For the terms of security, all OSS liceneses are equal for a given product release.
"Don't like the 'viral' nature of the GPL? Try this: WRITE YOUR OWN CODE"
If a business doesn't want to give away their code, they shouldn't weave in GPL source to begin with. If they do so, it's their OWN damn fault, not the GPL's.
Secondly, I still fail to see how this has anything to do with security. Open source is open source - whether released BSD/MIT style or GPL, it's STILL "open to hackers", which I thought was the point of the whole "risk" of Open Source security in the first place.
While I don't agree with the position, I can understand the argument that ANY Open Source program is risky security-wise because all those "evil hackers" have access to the source, etc.
This trol^H^H^H^Harticle is special because it seems to think that Open Source is ok for security, but the GPL specifically is not. How exactly the GPL is any better for SECURITY than the BSD license, etc, is the question. (Hint: there is no fucking difference.;)
Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?
It's a matter of proportion. When compared to the "best in field" from any OTHER profession, excluding perhaps pro sports, compare the top salaries of execs to the top salaries of engineers, journalists, policemen, teachers, etc. Now just TRY to tell me that the work of your average CEO is proportional to what they're paid, when considering the value of work to compensation ratio of these other professions.
The other reason is this: a lot of CEOs out there AREN'T any good and they STILL make shocking amounts of money. This is even more shocking when you again compare their work vs. pay against the work vs. pay of the people that work for these execs.
I know this was meant to be "funny" but the last few releases of RH ship with basically everything off by default except for an ssh-server. And if ya can't trust OpenSSH, what CAN you trust?:)
Mozilla is still unreliable and doesn't render some sites properly (they were designed for IE; live with it)
This is a small minority. Are those few pages really worth keeping on the Windows upgrade treadmill?
GIMP is no substitute for Photoshop
Not for professionals, but for many people it's more than enough. So buy a few workstations with Photoshop, and let the GIMP do its thing on the rest of the machines: being "good enough" instead of a full replacement.
StarOffice is still nowhere close to Microsoft Office.
In terms of what? Have you really used the latest StarOffice/OpenOffice.org packages? Yes, MS Office does have larger feature set, but how many of those features that StarOffice doesn't have really get used?
Wait, so by skipping commercials and not paying for subscriptions to TV services, TV might start going away? HOW CAN I LOSE?
Yeah, I love the Simpsons and South Park, but aside from this...
Fuck television.
I honestly think we'd be better off without TV. By this, I mean TV's content, not its medium. Other than mild health risks and the need too be carefully recycled instead of thrown away when they die, I have no problems with CRTs. However, if that spring-loaded tube (no pun intended) full of raw sewage mixed with mind numbing mental barbituates that passes for "content" on the networks goes away, how much have we really lost? Yeah, I'll miss a few shows, but I've gotten to the point where I truly believe the world would be a far better place without the fscking idiot box roaring all day in everyone's home. I really don't mind most web ads, and if the ads on 'net radio are enough to keep it going, RIGHT ON! It's worth it. Even the most glossy, corporate-influencesd *cough*USA Today*cough* newspapers and magazines, ad-laden as they may be, far surpass the mind paralyzing tripe on TV.
So like I said, if commercial television starts dying, who exactly loses here? Soap opera addicts? "Friends" junkies? People that can't get enough of that top-notch Fox "News"? Good riddance to bad rubbish. The sooner corporate TV dies, the better.
Actually, Linux.com editors seem to say even more nice things about the closed source, commercial Opera than they do any open source browser. I don't think I've read a browser review yet on Linux.com that didn't mention it, so if you're implying bias, go look again.
I'm not sure which Seagates *you're* using, but the spin noise on my Barracuda IV 80gig is almost unnoticable. The seeks are audible, but they're really not too bad. Maybe you got one out of a "bad" batch?
Michael, can you stop posturing for just a moment to realize what the poster was really saying?
First, he never said "sharing is bad," so you can shove your straw man straight up your ass.
Second, yes, "theft" is clearly a sub-optimal term for what they're doing, but I don't think it requires too much imagination to see what he's getting at, so stop pretending like he doesn't have a point.
I'm tired of greedy capitalists as much as anyone else, but is it SO WRONG to want to compensate artists for their work? The american system of copyrights is TOTALLY b0rked but that doesn't make some of the alternatives (kazaa, film88, etc) morally acceptable either.
Agreed. the BSA suck hard, but they're simply the manifestation of what's WRONG with commercial software and American attitudes towards copyright, but that doesn't put them on the same level as Nazis or suicide bombers killing schoolkids.
Only the very worst porn, such as child porn, beastiality, snuff films, which are already rightfully illegal, can possibly compare to a book that claims God "him"self could ever endorse something like this:
1 Samuel, 15:3
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
This is supposedly God telling people to kill babies. Say what you will about the slaughter of the men (read: the armies and gov't) of Amalek, but what purpose does killing the BABIES serve? I challenge anyone to find something more perverse than the wholesale destruction of living children.
from where I sit it seems that all Stallman ever does is condemn and complain
But he doesn't *just* bitch. He puts his code where his mouth is.
All he is doing is marginalizing himself by looking like a chronic crybaby.
I'll give you this one. I wish there was an easier way to give the GNU project credit, because calling it GNU/Linux is stupid, and discounts the other MAJOR packages and projects that also are considered essential to Linux distributions. To be fair, by RMS's standard, it should be GNU/Apache/Samba/XFree/OpenOffice/Mozilla/GNOME/KD E/Linux. I have a LOT of respect for RMS, but I definitely think he could pick his battles a little more carefully.
It does not permit the government to hand me a set of ideals and force me to comply.
No, that's exactly what government does, by its nature - the concept of government itself is an ideal! ALL sets of rules (including anarchy, the single rule that there are no other rules, which translates to the 'law of the jungle') espouse an ideal of some sort. The question is which ideal or set of ideals a particular set of rules endorses, but it is impossible not to follow an ideal of some kind, no matter what you do, especially on a governmental basis.
Re:Not interested ... not true more like
on
United Linux is Here
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Heh... this'll teach me to listen to story submitters...
I'm skimming the whitepaper now, and actually page 12 lists both "KDE 3 minimal system" and "GNOME 2 minimal system" as "Essential Functionality", which reads to me as "Required to be UL certified"
This also means my parent post is a troll, as it's uninformed.:/ whoops.
This just sounds like LSB with really good internationalization support. I might be glossing over some important things here, and if I am, please, someone tell me, but that sounds like that's all there is to it. Oh, yeah, and they enforce the use of KDE 3, which means I'm not interested, thanks. I guess I can see why they're picking just one desktop; it would seem to make sense, but I just can't stand KDE.;) (could Kontrol-center get just a FEW MORE USELESS PREFS?!!?)
I'm really glad they're pushing for LSB compliance, but RH has promised they will be releasing a LSB 1.1 compliant distro this year. Since 7.3 isn't it, that means it'll have to be what will undoubtably be called RH 8.0 and will probably be released this Fall/early Winter, at least based on their past release patterns.
As an aside, the GNOME/KDE thing is about to get very interesting... GNOME 2 is like a couple weeks from release, and it's going to be the default desktop for Solaris, HP-UX, and (of course) Red Hat. All of these are major "enterprise" players. (I wouldn't be *too* surprised to see AIX follow suit.... any IBM people care to comment? Heh... CAN you?:) On the other side of things, there's United Linux, Mandrake, Lycoris. and Lindows... that pits some serious muscle against some serious muscle. While I'm rooting for GNOME, I'm excited no matter what the outcome, because it can only mean a better desktop for all users!
Hmmm... so Flash is a bad evil tool of the devil (as spouted here at Slashdot) but when the EFF uses it, no problem? Come on.
It's not as sensational *cough*karmawhore*cough* as you're making it sound. The FS/OSS community tends not to like Flash not because it's "a bad evil tool" but because it's TERRIBLY OVERUSED. 90% of Flash stuff SHOULD NOT be in Flash. The last 10% is what it should be used for: animation! The EFF are in this 10% with this cartoon, and thus it is not hypocritical.
then don't spread FUD about metacity, idiot. It's taking up all that room because you don't have the GNOME 2 libraries installed, which Metacity requires.:P
Slashdot Mirror
I'd keep with $10. Cutting down by a couple bucks would come STRAIGHT out of the artist's part of the compensation, and we all know it. :)
:/ ) an Ogg would be better - basically no quality loss, but huge bandwidth savings. If 100% reproducability is required, perhaps they could use Shorten? It's lossless, so it would be ideal - you'd have the best possible bandwidth usage for absolutely no quality degradation.
The PCM idea is unrealistic, though. A sufficiently good MP3, or preferably (though unlikely for now
Then they can use LGPLd stuff instead. ;)
but seriously...
Yet AGAIN this misses the original point: is Open Source secure or not? If you do a full source release, how does the *license* affect the security of that *particular* product?
If the argument is that security could be enhanced through the use of proprietary, closed extensions to the program, courtesy of a BSD-like license, then that modified product would go back under the "closed" catagory, and not under the open source catagory it started in. So again we're brought back to the original question: Is Open Source less secure than proprietary stuff? That's debatable, but the license still doesn't matter - released source is released source. For the terms of security, all OSS liceneses are equal for a given product release.
Wish I had kept my old sig...
"Don't like the 'viral' nature of the GPL? Try this: WRITE YOUR OWN CODE"
If a business doesn't want to give away their code, they shouldn't weave in GPL source to begin with. If they do so, it's their OWN damn fault, not the GPL's.
Secondly, I still fail to see how this has anything to do with security. Open source is open source - whether released BSD/MIT style or GPL, it's STILL "open to hackers", which I thought was the point of the whole "risk" of Open Source security in the first place.
While I don't agree with the position, I can understand the argument that ANY Open Source program is risky security-wise because all those "evil hackers" have access to the source, etc.
;)
This trol^H^H^H^Harticle is special because it seems to think that Open Source is ok for security, but the GPL specifically is not. How exactly the GPL is any better for SECURITY than the BSD license, etc, is the question. (Hint: there is no fucking difference.
Wow, these guys have figured out the PERFECT career:
they get paid to troll!
Man, I gotta hook myself up with a gig like this...
Amen to that.
Therefore, good CEOs are worth a lot of money.
Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?
It's a matter of proportion. When compared to the "best in field" from any OTHER profession, excluding perhaps pro sports, compare the top salaries of execs to the top salaries of engineers, journalists, policemen, teachers, etc. Now just TRY to tell me that the work of your average CEO is proportional to what they're paid, when considering the value of work to compensation ratio of these other professions.
The other reason is this: a lot of CEOs out there AREN'T any good and they STILL make shocking amounts of money. This is even more shocking when you again compare their work vs. pay against the work vs. pay of the people that work for these execs.
I know this was meant to be "funny" but the last few releases of RH ship with basically everything off by default except for an ssh-server. And if ya can't trust OpenSSH, what CAN you trust? :)
Mozilla is still unreliable and doesn't render some sites properly (they were designed for IE; live with it)
This is a small minority. Are those few pages really worth keeping on the Windows upgrade treadmill?
GIMP is no substitute for Photoshop
Not for professionals, but for many people it's more than enough. So buy a few workstations with Photoshop, and let the GIMP do its thing on the rest of the machines: being "good enough" instead of a full replacement.
StarOffice is still nowhere close to Microsoft Office.
In terms of what? Have you really used the latest StarOffice/OpenOffice.org packages? Yes, MS Office does have larger feature set, but how many of those features that StarOffice doesn't have really get used?
Wait, so by skipping commercials and not paying for subscriptions to TV services, TV might start going away? HOW CAN I LOSE?
Yeah, I love the Simpsons and South Park, but aside from this...
Fuck television.
I honestly think we'd be better off without TV. By this, I mean TV's content, not its medium. Other than mild health risks and the need too be carefully recycled instead of thrown away when they die, I have no problems with CRTs. However, if that spring-loaded tube (no pun intended) full of raw sewage mixed with mind numbing mental barbituates that passes for "content" on the networks goes away, how much have we really lost? Yeah, I'll miss a few shows, but I've gotten to the point where I truly believe the world would be a far better place without the fscking idiot box roaring all day in everyone's home. I really don't mind most web ads, and if the ads on 'net radio are enough to keep it going, RIGHT ON! It's worth it. Even the most glossy, corporate-influencesd *cough*USA Today*cough* newspapers and magazines, ad-laden as they may be, far surpass the mind paralyzing tripe on TV.
So like I said, if commercial television starts dying, who exactly loses here? Soap opera addicts? "Friends" junkies? People that can't get enough of that top-notch Fox "News"? Good riddance to bad rubbish. The sooner corporate TV dies, the better.
try again, friend. ;)
from the site:
Longer bars indicate better performance, with the fastest browser scoring 100.
The Java test was the only one that IE won!
Actually, Linux.com editors seem to say even more nice things about the closed source, commercial Opera than they do any open source browser. I don't think I've read a browser review yet on Linux.com that didn't mention it, so if you're implying bias, go look again.
I'm not sure which Seagates *you're* using, but the spin noise on my Barracuda IV 80gig is almost unnoticable. The seeks are audible, but they're really not too bad. Maybe you got one out of a "bad" batch?
In the words of the Human Torch, FLAME ON!
Michael, can you stop posturing for just a moment to realize what the poster was really saying?
First, he never said "sharing is bad," so you can shove your straw man straight up your ass.
Second, yes, "theft" is clearly a sub-optimal term for what they're doing, but I don't think it requires too much imagination to see what he's getting at, so stop pretending like he doesn't have a point.
I'm tired of greedy capitalists as much as anyone else, but is it SO WRONG to want to compensate artists for their work? The american system of copyrights is TOTALLY b0rked but that doesn't make some of the alternatives (kazaa, film88, etc) morally acceptable either.
Agreed. the BSA suck hard, but they're simply the manifestation of what's WRONG with commercial software and American attitudes towards copyright, but that doesn't put them on the same level as Nazis or suicide bombers killing schoolkids.
Besides, the BSA is easily avoided.
Only the very worst porn, such as child porn, beastiality, snuff films, which are already rightfully illegal, can possibly compare to a book that claims God "him"self could ever endorse something like this:
1 Samuel, 15:3
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
This is supposedly God telling people to kill babies. Say what you will about the slaughter of the men (read: the armies and gov't) of Amalek, but what purpose does killing the BABIES serve? I challenge anyone to find something more perverse than the wholesale destruction of living children.
from where I sit it seems that all Stallman ever does is condemn and complain
D E/Linux. I have a LOT of respect for RMS, but I definitely think he could pick his battles a little more carefully.
But he doesn't *just* bitch. He puts his code where his mouth is.
All he is doing is marginalizing himself by looking like a chronic crybaby.
I'll give you this one. I wish there was an easier way to give the GNU project credit, because calling it GNU/Linux is stupid, and discounts the other MAJOR packages and projects that also are considered essential to Linux distributions. To be fair, by RMS's standard, it should be GNU/Apache/Samba/XFree/OpenOffice/Mozilla/GNOME/K
It does not permit the government to hand me a set of ideals and force me to comply.
No, that's exactly what government does, by its nature - the concept of government itself is an ideal! ALL sets of rules (including anarchy, the single rule that there are no other rules, which translates to the 'law of the jungle') espouse an ideal of some sort. The question is which ideal or set of ideals a particular set of rules endorses, but it is impossible not to follow an ideal of some kind, no matter what you do, especially on a governmental basis.
Heh... this'll teach me to listen to story submitters...
:/ whoops.
I'm skimming the whitepaper now, and actually page 12 lists both "KDE 3 minimal system" and "GNOME 2 minimal system" as "Essential Functionality", which reads to me as "Required to be UL certified"
This also means my parent post is a troll, as it's uninformed.
RedHat will become LSB and Li18nux compliant
I don't know about Li18nux, but Red Hat has already said they will release an LSB-compliant distro this year.
This just sounds like LSB with really good internationalization support. I might be glossing over some important things here, and if I am, please, someone tell me, but that sounds like that's all there is to it. Oh, yeah, and they enforce the use of KDE 3, which means I'm not interested, thanks. I guess I can see why they're picking just one desktop; it would seem to make sense, but I just can't stand KDE. ;) (could Kontrol-center get just a FEW MORE USELESS PREFS?!!?)
:) On the other side of things, there's United Linux, Mandrake, Lycoris. and Lindows... that pits some serious muscle against some serious muscle. While I'm rooting for GNOME, I'm excited no matter what the outcome, because it can only mean a better desktop for all users!
I'm really glad they're pushing for LSB compliance, but RH has promised they will be releasing a LSB 1.1 compliant distro this year. Since 7.3 isn't it, that means it'll have to be what will undoubtably be called RH 8.0 and will probably be released this Fall/early Winter, at least based on their past release patterns.
As an aside, the GNOME/KDE thing is about to get very interesting... GNOME 2 is like a couple weeks from release, and it's going to be the default desktop for Solaris, HP-UX, and (of course) Red Hat. All of these are major "enterprise" players. (I wouldn't be *too* surprised to see AIX follow suit.... any IBM people care to comment? Heh... CAN you?
Hmmm... so Flash is a bad evil tool of the devil (as spouted here at Slashdot) but when the EFF uses it, no problem? Come on.
It's not as sensational *cough*karmawhore*cough* as you're making it sound. The FS/OSS community tends not to like Flash not because it's "a bad evil tool" but because it's TERRIBLY OVERUSED. 90% of Flash stuff SHOULD NOT be in Flash. The last 10% is what it should be used for: animation! The EFF are in this 10% with this cartoon, and thus it is not hypocritical.
You just *nailed it*.
:)
I'd expound a bit more, but you hit the point exactly, and very concisely as well. Nicely done!
moderators: mod parent up, please!
then don't spread FUD about metacity, idiot. It's taking up all that room because you don't have the GNOME 2 libraries installed, which Metacity requires. :P
Well, they don't use a "size wheel", but yes, Nautilus icons like this can be scaled up and down in real time with drag handles. :)