There is nothing wrong with people wanting to conserve their bandwidth by limiting framing and linking. Not everyone has an SGI server attached to an OC connection, and Public Stations are on highly limited resources, and if you doubt that, feel free to volunteer your time during the next donations drive. It is their content, not yours, even when provided for public viewing; this is the very reason why we have places, like NYT, limiting user access. Properly requesting the right to linking shouldn't be considered an issue at all; it's no more taxing than getting the source code to the binary you downloaded last week.
Second, the footer isn't buried. Maybe, just like you got used to ignoring banner advertisement because they are always there, you've learned to ignore the footer of a site's pages because it contains the same legal information for just about every page; however, unlike the banner advertisement, you should bother to check out that footer the first time you visit a site. Footers have almost always contained some basic resource information, like who built the site, who hosts the site, who to write to about information of the site and the link to the terms of service. Ignoring the footer is as bad as ignoring a license or a README. The footer isn't there to make the site look professional; it happens to be there to inform you on the subject of site. Whether you're looking at IBM's footer or Slashdot's, it contains important information. Or have you totally forgotten about this:
Anyone who ignores the footer is not as competent a web user as they should be. These are the same persons who would put hot coffee in their lap, brake suddenly and blame the seller of the coffee for their scolding. Perhaps the problem with a place designed entirely around freedom of speech is that too many people will abuse it and then whine about it later.
Total disagreement
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The problem is not the filesystem. Only users uncertain about the FileSystem Hierarchy Standard or the basis of the POSIX layout could make that mistake. Once you start installing your own files, you'll find most of them goto/usr/local/share, which, for a Windows, is much the equivelant of C:/Program%20Files.
The problem with RPMs comes out of the libraries used by the individual compiler. The most noticeable of these is when an unsuspecting regular GNOME user tries to install a binary constructed by a Ximian GNOME user. Most often when you're told by your package management utility that the particular package has a dependency issue, over fifty percent of the time, I would bet, it's really complaining about a library someone else has that you don't, and the remainder is typically a particular application it was designed to use. If you installed from sources, you would see, and I'm saying from experience, around 85% of these problems dissipate. A large part of this in thanks to considerate programmers who put the time to write alternative configure lines for the to-be-abstracted make file.
If./configure --option(s) && make && make install && make clean && rm -rf../<name> is to difficult for you to do, perhaps you should consider using a Mac.
Ditto on make uninstall too, oh, and don't do the && rm -rf if you think you're going to use make uninstall.
For anyone else with actual standards questions, my email still works (just in case those of you who still care about standards, both of you, still want some guidance).
The generalization cannot be protected for the obvious reasons stated in the article, but the copyright can be supported if there is a far more obvious word for word copying.
For instance, if an ISP has a one article in a FAQ like: What are "WinModems" and/or software dependent modems? These are modems that leave some or most of the work needed in modulating or demodulating (translating and talking to the Internet) to the processor rather than completing all the work themselves. For various reasons, we do not recommend these modems...
Now, if some other ISP were to use it word for word, they would be violating copyright, but if they had the following (or any variation) it would be very difficult to claim it against the copyright: What are Win and software modems? Modems that leave much of the work of talking to the Internet (MODulating and DEModulating) to your processor rather than completing the function themselves are often referred to as WinModems (a category of software modems). For various reasons, we recommend using a real or hardware modem...
The similarities may appear blindingly but remember the conditions, same subject, same type of company. And remember, there's a reasion they're called Frequently Asked Questions.
In general, just about anything is able to have a copyright attached to it. There are conditions that will collapse a copyright if challenged in court however, like a commonly used phrase, insufficient to make something unique or a pre-existing work. Take twenty bucks to the copyright office and copyright your name, even John Smith will get through, but if you challenge someone or they challenge you, then it may be abolished (and you don't get your gas money back). This is what makes copyrights different from trademarks and patents; trademarks and patents have to be researched first, and naturally, cost more money.
Barbarella and Gort deserve higher credit, and Contact definately deservers to be in the top 20, as well as The Forbidden Planet. On the otherhand, Robocop is too pulp and comic extract to be honestly considered on such a list.
I guess I should break it down further as two types of geeks, R-Type and S-Type, from the "Star Trek" Geeks that prevail the two categories, trekkeR and trekkieS.
In the universe of Star Trek, the R-Types (trekker) are so hard core that even the suggestion that any part of the Star Trek universe has been changed upsets them greatly and they will resist the change. For example, the contemporization of the Star Trek timeline resulted in one slashdot R-Type to make a relatively large posted with an ending thesis, paraphrased thus, "Real fans know when they're being screwed." The R-Type can be broken into two classes, Zealots and Academics. A Zealots will stand behind the ideas and concepts within their geek subject, even when serious doubt is cast upon them. Trekkers, for example, will often claim "warp travel" to be perfectly portrayed, and furthermore, as the possibly the only valid means of interstellar travel. Academics, on the other hand, appear somewhat more open minded. They are often found pointing out flaws and seem uninterested in the overall experience. However, though they often show an interest in various concepts, but end up having the tendancy of staying with whatever concept got them to a specific point first. The archetypical R-Type Academic is "The Simpsons"' "Comic Book Store Guy."
S-Type geeks, however, are far more interested in the overall experience. In refernce to the trekkies watching "Enterprise", they appreciate the contemporization of the Star Trek timeline. They also break into two categories, Loyalists and Objectivists. The Loyalists will enjoy their geek subject despite various disappointments and alterations and tend not to understand why so many people whine as much as they do. Objectivists consider not just the total effect, but elements and subjects. An Objectivist, though able to continue to like and enjoy all of this, will still compare their geek subject beyond its limited scope and make more fair judgements, but not as harsh as R-Type Academians.
You can guess what type and class a person is if they are a Star Trek fan about 75% of the time using this chart-ette:
R-Type Zealots prefer The Original Series
R-Type Academians will more likely enjoy VOYager, but claim The Next Generation as their preference
S-Type Loyalists will love The Next Generation and claim it above all as the best, but will consider ENTerprise to be quite enjoyable.
S-Type Objectivists (both of us) prefer Deep Space 9; Objectivists tend to be more appreciative of speculative fiction.
I think that covers my attempt at the classification of Geeks.
"Geek" in its modern form is more of a title adjective. It refers to people who take extensive, possibly obsessive, interest a particular subject. This often associates with science and science fiction, but can pertain to a large area of subjects.
Your self-description is suggestive of one of the two most common geek architypes known, Computer Geek, with the other being the SSFF Geek (science/speculative fiction/fantasy). You may as well get used to the various forms of geeks and the worlds they associate themselves to.
I believe most people have an honest geekability within them, though I also believe that a large number of people have less thought of qualities. For example, the president in "West Wing" has a geek factor towards environmentalism, but specifically with state and national parks. The least geeky of geekisms, and quite frankly, the most fightening, would be the Bible Geek, people who can give out four interpretations for every chapter of ever gospel; thankfully, those types of geeks have reduced in numbers in the past century;o)
Now establishing the legal department with the sole pupose of hunting people down and suing each sukkel one of them! Er, pardon my french;o)
Personally, I'm against using a direct medium for impersonal marketting. Here, in Wisconsin, the other land of Cheese-heads, we have similar commercials, but the only problem is that few people ever use the services. Atleast, by June 14th, a law will go into effect making it illegal to telemarket to people you don't have a current business relationship with. Just what we need, our own long distance company asking us if we want to switch plans....
I'm not talking about a company that will produce designs that come in...I'm talking about a company that will produce at home systems to create them.
(hold for laughter)
I'm not saying it would necessarily be comparable to what chip manufacturers are capable of, but it is too early to say how it will develop. "Consider, if you will," the future means of development. Where was Ball Grid Array twenty years ago? Today, we have these large factory machines with huge arms with tiny miniscule "fingers" that carve and set those transistors onto wafers. But picture what happens at the very end of that tiny finger, and maybe it could be better than what you may expect...
Project the advancement of the field of the development, creation and deployment of nano-technology. Conceive of a device, a small box, about the size of desktop's UPS, like mine, the APC Smart-UPS 400: This device has a vacuum bay in the center with a transparent area over it, distilled water at the chamber's bottom, a series of small, barely visible sting-like lines forming a grid somewhere in the middle and a tiny arm on each side. When fed the information to the/dev/nwu (nanonic writing utility), those tiny arms start somewhere on the grid and coming from both between and outside of their "fingers" are little glimmering filaments that slowly weave into your processor.
Sure...it seems a long way off now, but with the rapid rate of technology today, I'll bet anything's possilbe tomorrow.
You seem to think that there was ever a chance in Redmond such a device would be made a major chip manufacturer. Such a thought is not unlike the idea that HP, Xerox or IBM was most likely to create a computer system for Mr. Schmoe. Behold, AMSTRAD, Commodore and the eventual Apple; the latter only being able to exist due to the irony in HP choosing not to chase the home market.
In this same fashion, I forsee a small, little known upstart, possibly started by the next Steve Wozniak, that, after playing with the idea, will try to see if there's a commercial place for it. The device will kick off in limited engineering/academia circles, much like the Apple, and then, a new type of company will be built, and with its rivarly, shall the others finally respond.
I had an article on this awhile back ago (toasted like AlaskanUnderachiever's previous four AMD's), but with the site now gone, I can't seem to find it in either google or wayback.
Anyhow, I think it is important that even hardware move over to the open source world. There are three requirements for this to kick off:
An inexpensive system for creating them
Knowledge and understanding of the standards involved
A central repository for updating and dissemination
If a common public utility for creating wafers could come out at fair cost (say, atleast equal to a computer, estimate $800 or so) that would be a major step for the first part. If the group involved at the IEEE for processor standards could freely distribute some or all of the necessary information, similar to as PARC did with POSIX, that would assist in the second. Finally, we would need a FreshMeat equivelant for hardware designs.
Processors are only a beginning...solid state technology, drives and cards would come fast thereafter. Is it an emerging field or something that will remain in the hands of the elite few who actually know the difference between a PSU and an FPU? I can wait you people out...I've been waiting out for the creation of massively distributed Open Source Software before many of you were born!
Quothe the PhilHibbs, "Just because it's compiled with GCC, that doesn't make it part of the GNU project. Using a GPL'd compiler does not make the compiled output GPL'd."
See...you assumption, not the AnonCow's, which was the very point made. I suppose that opens me up for another quote: "Hah, I out-pedant thee! A pox on thy inferior pedantry!"
Additionally, your argument is dependant on dynamic linking rather than static linking, of course, "doesn't make it" and "does not make" is sufficiently ambiguous language when in conjuction with "Just because..." hmm, just because...isn't that a parental phrase?
You live on Venus with Earth length days?
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 1
You actually gain just a twee bit over two hours.
Stallman, Stallman, Stallman; there, I'm on topic!
Actually, he's asking you to refer to the Mustang as an STS/Mustang, as it contains hardware, including the engine design, from STS. You know...we actually call it a Mustang STS <v#>. Just some food for thought.
Hmm, can't wait to get me that RedHat Linux GNU 2.4.x (ok...GNU has no version, but he kernel does, just making a point).
But I believe the point is that had Dickie not produced and freely released the GCC in the first place, a lot of the software produced, free/free or otherwise, would not have been so produced. If you review the POSIX standards, you'll see that that/usr/include needs to be there and with most of the header files that you have now already included. Linux, GNU-ified or otherwise, would be far from compliant were there not a free, common compiler and header set. I don't see one mention of the GPL in the AnonCow's post. You didn't make any particular presumption...did you?
Ok, I can see some of you have this "Dickie's a hardass" thing going on. But, I was wondering, if there was another group comperable to the GNU Project, that released utilities, libraries and other POSIX 1003 related materials, would you use "GNU" to distinguish the base from the other company?
Let's say Red Hat 8.0 (due out with the eventual new kernel era; feel free to replace RH with your preferred distro or if you do it from scratch, well, novelty factor...) allowed the user to choose between GNU and said group (which I'll just refer to as BOB -no MSBob jokes please- ), as well as allowing for individual selection process, and you choose primarily GNU, would you use GNU to differentiate your specific base?
Linux is just a kernel and some really basic utilities (boot scripts etc also available on the kernel site), so, would you specify GNU/Linux from BOB/Linux? Obviously just saying "RedHat" would not be enough. The alternative would catch on in some groups quick enough due to the sheer novelty value, so that, you could not just assume GNU to be the default. Would you be more likely to refer to your build as GNU if not GNU/Linux?
If you just want to play with Dickie, just call him "Dickie" and pronounce GNU as "ngoo." I think I've borderlined a few cease and desist letters, myself.
FDisk isn't exactly the tool of choice; it doesn't even let you choose where to place a partition...
I have encountered it within a few Win98'ers, but I've only experienced it myself within WinME. Near the very end of the scandisk section, after having gone over most of the disk, ScanDisk will inform you of an "error" in the "bootsector" which it believes to be improperly formatted or inaccurate data. If you repair this error, ScanDisk either removes any boot information (resulting in a halting LiLo screen or a blank screen, but never a "No Operating System Found" message) or replaces it with a basic NT bootloader. When replaced with a basic NT bootloader, your system will only be able to boot into Windows.
I do not know whether the 98 users have these issues as a service pack or from an alteration in SE, but I've not see the original 98 users have an issue. However, if ScanDisk consider a non-NT/Windows bootloader an error, so will Defrag, as a result, defrag will tell you there's an error and you be told to run ScanDisk and the circle of death is complete.
I was unable to find the specific events that will occur if you install LiLo to the MBR, but I did find various warnings about installing LiLo to the MBR if you are dual booting. Ironically, this often involves a claim that Windows will not boot (typically not true, as most Linux distros will add Windows to the LiLo conf file).
My first experience with this was with Mandrake 6.0 which persisted to 7.1 (the latest version I've tried), and found this to be true with many RH-style distros. LiLo users should leave LiLo on the boot partition (if you're using LiLo with the lba32 BIOS extension, you can do this past the 1024th cylindar).
Fixing the MBR will put NT's bootloader on it, resulting in only being able to boot to Windows (but you can point to Linux if you've installed a bootloader to the/boot partition (or/root if you didn't make a seperate partition for/boot).
Though I've never encountered your experience, I'm quite curious as to how or what utility you used to convert the ext2 to VFAT.
I haven't seen scandisk run during boot since the first version of Windows 98. I should point out, however, I am not an expert in the world of Windows, only on how Windows interacts with various operating systems.
If you could detail the events in converting ext2, I may beable to hypoth-o-think the issue.
The point is that Bill Gates/MS Marketting&Legal or whomever have done more than enough as far as one can in a capitalistic society to more or less be equivelated to someone on the level of Stalin.
Working hard and getting the breaks? You could say they worked hard...but MS software in general hasn't been worked out too well. If ever a law is passed requiring software be warranted, you just watch to see how MS explains what is and isn't their fault...see my XP protected libraries comment in the same article....
He probably won't notice...he doesn't seem to check, as I told him a day or so in advance via the board.  I posted there because he said it was easier to use it than play email/phone tag...
You can't kill people...unless you get a license to hunt the poor, but I'm going somewhere with this. What's the total cost to companies running MS sofware over the past decade? Security flaws (don't forget the "we don't have to encrypt passwords on NTFS) to servers bogging down from VBS attachments. Articles having to be rewritten because of unknown lockups or crashes. Bob knows how much else...and these are the people that sided with Microsoft!
BUT! There is one difference; Stalin was a bastard at using power but great at politics...Gates is just incompetent at coding and construction and has to buy politicians....
That could have come out better, but the fourth glass of JB is making it difficult to say things the way I want to.
You're not off by the level of understanding, though suggesting age is related (not far from 75, myself) might be a bit off. However, you example is smack on the nose! This is what makes explanations and testimonies by Dickie and others very important, as they (he in particular) are fairly good at explaining that in a way even non-computer users can understand.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to conserve their bandwidth by limiting framing and linking. Not everyone has an SGI server attached to an OC connection, and Public Stations are on highly limited resources, and if you doubt that, feel free to volunteer your time during the next donations drive. It is their content, not yours, even when provided for public viewing; this is the very reason why we have places, like NYT, limiting user access. Properly requesting the right to linking shouldn't be considered an issue at all; it's no more taxing than getting the source code to the binary you downloaded last week.
Second, the footer isn't buried. Maybe, just like you got used to ignoring banner advertisement because they are always there, you've learned to ignore the footer of a site's pages because it contains the same legal information for just about every page; however, unlike the banner advertisement, you should bother to check out that footer the first time you visit a site. Footers have almost always contained some basic resource information, like who built the site, who hosts the site, who to write to about information of the site and the link to the terms of service. Ignoring the footer is as bad as ignoring a license or a README. The footer isn't there to make the site look professional; it happens to be there to inform you on the subject of site. Whether you're looking at IBM's footer or Slashdot's, it contains important information. Or have you totally forgotten about this:
Anyone who ignores the footer is not as competent a web user as they should be. These are the same persons who would put hot coffee in their lap, brake suddenly and blame the seller of the coffee for their scolding. Perhaps the problem with a place designed entirely around freedom of speech is that too many people will abuse it and then whine about it later.
The problem is not the filesystem. Only users uncertain about the FileSystem Hierarchy Standard or the basis of the POSIX layout could make that mistake. Once you start installing your own files, you'll find most of them goto /usr/local/share, which, for a Windows, is much the equivelant of C:/Program%20Files.
The problem with RPMs comes out of the libraries used by the individual compiler. The most noticeable of these is when an unsuspecting regular GNOME user tries to install a binary constructed by a Ximian GNOME user. Most often when you're told by your package management utility that the particular package has a dependency issue, over fifty percent of the time, I would bet, it's really complaining about a library someone else has that you don't, and the remainder is typically a particular application it was designed to use. If you installed from sources, you would see, and I'm saying from experience, around 85% of these problems dissipate. A large part of this in thanks to considerate programmers who put the time to write alternative configure lines for the to-be-abstracted make file.
If
Ditto on make uninstall too, oh, and don't do the && rm -rf if you think you're going to use make uninstall.
For all other questions about POSIX, feel free to pickup this handy guide
For anyone else with actual standards questions, my email still works (just in case those of you who still care about standards, both of you, still want some guidance).
The generalization cannot be protected for the obvious reasons stated in the article, but the copyright can be supported if there is a far more obvious word for word copying.
For instance, if an ISP has a one article in a FAQ like:
What are "WinModems" and/or software dependent modems?
These are modems that leave some or most of the work needed in modulating or demodulating (translating and talking to the Internet) to the processor rather than completing all the work themselves. For various reasons, we do not recommend these modems...
Now, if some other ISP were to use it word for word, they would be violating copyright, but if they had the following (or any variation) it would be very difficult to claim it against the copyright:
What are Win and software modems?
Modems that leave much of the work of talking to the Internet (MODulating and DEModulating) to your processor rather than completing the function themselves are often referred to as WinModems (a category of software modems). For various reasons, we recommend using a real or hardware modem...
The similarities may appear blindingly but remember the conditions, same subject, same type of company. And remember, there's a reasion they're called Frequently Asked Questions.
In general, just about anything is able to have a copyright attached to it. There are conditions that will collapse a copyright if challenged in court however, like a commonly used phrase, insufficient to make something unique or a pre-existing work. Take twenty bucks to the copyright office and copyright your name, even John Smith will get through, but if you challenge someone or they challenge you, then it may be abolished (and you don't get your gas money back). This is what makes copyrights different from trademarks and patents; trademarks and patents have to be researched first, and naturally, cost more money.
<insert one-click patent jokes here>
Barbarella and Gort deserve higher credit, and Contact definately deservers to be in the top 20, as well as The Forbidden Planet. On the otherhand, Robocop is too pulp and comic extract to be honestly considered on such a list.
I guess I should break it down further as two types of geeks, R-Type and S-Type, from the "Star Trek" Geeks that prevail the two categories, trekkeR and trekkieS.
In the universe of Star Trek, the R-Types (trekker) are so hard core that even the suggestion that any part of the Star Trek universe has been changed upsets them greatly and they will resist the change. For example, the contemporization of the Star Trek timeline resulted in one slashdot R-Type to make a relatively large posted with an ending thesis, paraphrased thus, "Real fans know when they're being screwed." The R-Type can be broken into two classes, Zealots and Academics. A Zealots will stand behind the ideas and concepts within their geek subject, even when serious doubt is cast upon them. Trekkers, for example, will often claim "warp travel" to be perfectly portrayed, and furthermore, as the possibly the only valid means of interstellar travel. Academics, on the other hand, appear somewhat more open minded. They are often found pointing out flaws and seem uninterested in the overall experience. However, though they often show an interest in various concepts, but end up having the tendancy of staying with whatever concept got them to a specific point first. The archetypical R-Type Academic is "The Simpsons"' "Comic Book Store Guy."
S-Type geeks, however, are far more interested in the overall experience. In refernce to the trekkies watching "Enterprise", they appreciate the contemporization of the Star Trek timeline. They also break into two categories, Loyalists and Objectivists. The Loyalists will enjoy their geek subject despite various disappointments and alterations and tend not to understand why so many people whine as much as they do. Objectivists consider not just the total effect, but elements and subjects. An Objectivist, though able to continue to like and enjoy all of this, will still compare their geek subject beyond its limited scope and make more fair judgements, but not as harsh as R-Type Academians.
You can guess what type and class a person is if they are a Star Trek fan about 75% of the time using this chart-ette:
R-Type Zealots prefer The Original Series
R-Type Academians will more likely enjoy VOYager, but claim The Next Generation as their preference
S-Type Loyalists will love The Next Generation and claim it above all as the best, but will consider ENTerprise to be quite enjoyable.
S-Type Objectivists (both of us) prefer Deep Space 9; Objectivists tend to be more appreciative of speculative fiction.
I think that covers my attempt at the classification of Geeks.
"Geek" in its modern form is more of a title adjective. It refers to people who take extensive, possibly obsessive, interest a particular subject. This often associates with science and science fiction, but can pertain to a large area of subjects.
Your self-description is suggestive of one of the two most common geek architypes known, Computer Geek, with the other being the SSFF Geek (science/speculative fiction/fantasy). You may as well get used to the various forms of geeks and the worlds they associate themselves to.
I believe most people have an honest geekability within them, though I also believe that a large number of people have less thought of qualities. For example, the president in "West Wing" has a geek factor towards environmentalism, but specifically with state and national parks. The least geeky of geekisms, and quite frankly, the most fightening, would be the Bible Geek, people who can give out four interpretations for every chapter of ever gospel; thankfully, those types of geeks have reduced in numbers in the past century;o)
Now establishing the legal department with the sole pupose of hunting people down and suing each sukkel one of them! Er, pardon my french;o)
Personally, I'm against using a direct medium for impersonal marketting. Here, in Wisconsin, the other land of Cheese-heads, we have similar commercials, but the only problem is that few people ever use the services. Atleast, by June 14th, a law will go into effect making it illegal to telemarket to people you don't have a current business relationship with. Just what we need, our own long distance company asking us if we want to switch plans....
I'm not talking about a company that will produce designs that come in...I'm talking about a company that will produce at home systems to create them.
(hold for laughter)I'm not saying it would necessarily be comparable to what chip manufacturers are capable of, but it is too early to say how it will develop. "Consider, if you will," the future means of development. Where was Ball Grid Array twenty years ago? Today, we have these large factory machines with huge arms with tiny miniscule "fingers" that carve and set those transistors onto wafers. But picture what happens at the very end of that tiny finger, and maybe it could be better than what you may expect...
Project the advancement of the field of the development, creation and deployment of nano-technology. Conceive of a device, a small box, about the size of desktop's UPS, like mine, the APC Smart-UPS 400: This device has a vacuum bay in the center with a transparent area over it, distilled water at the chamber's bottom, a series of small, barely visible sting-like lines forming a grid somewhere in the middle and a tiny arm on each side. When fed the information to the /dev/nwu (nanonic writing utility), those tiny arms start somewhere on the grid and coming from both between and outside of their "fingers" are little glimmering filaments that slowly weave into your processor.
Sure...it seems a long way off now, but with the rapid rate of technology today, I'll bet anything's possilbe tomorrow.
You seem to think that there was ever a chance in Redmond such a device would be made a major chip manufacturer. Such a thought is not unlike the idea that HP, Xerox or IBM was most likely to create a computer system for Mr. Schmoe. Behold, AMSTRAD, Commodore and the eventual Apple; the latter only being able to exist due to the irony in HP choosing not to chase the home market.
In this same fashion, I forsee a small, little known upstart, possibly started by the next Steve Wozniak, that, after playing with the idea, will try to see if there's a commercial place for it. The device will kick off in limited engineering/academia circles, much like the Apple, and then, a new type of company will be built, and with its rivarly, shall the others finally respond.
I had an article on this awhile back ago (toasted like AlaskanUnderachiever's previous four AMD's), but with the site now gone, I can't seem to find it in either google or wayback.
Anyhow, I think it is important that even hardware move over to the open source world. There are three requirements for this to kick off:
An inexpensive system for creating them
Knowledge and understanding of the standards involved
A central repository for updating and dissemination
If a common public utility for creating wafers could come out at fair cost (say, atleast equal to a computer, estimate $800 or so) that would be a major step for the first part. If the group involved at the IEEE for processor standards could freely distribute some or all of the necessary information, similar to as PARC did with POSIX, that would assist in the second. Finally, we would need a FreshMeat equivelant for hardware designs.
Processors are only a beginning...solid state technology, drives and cards would come fast thereafter. Is it an emerging field or something that will remain in the hands of the elite few who actually know the difference between a PSU and an FPU? I can wait you people out...I've been waiting out for the creation of massively distributed Open Source Software before many of you were born!
Quothe the PhilHibbs, "Just because it's compiled with GCC, that doesn't make it part of the GNU project. Using a GPL'd compiler does not make the compiled output GPL'd."
See...you assumption, not the AnonCow's, which was the very point made. I suppose that opens me up for another quote: "Hah, I out-pedant thee! A pox on thy inferior pedantry!"
Additionally, your argument is dependant on dynamic linking rather than static linking, of course, "doesn't make it" and "does not make" is sufficiently ambiguous language when in conjuction with "Just because..." hmm, just because...isn't that a parental phrase?
You actually gain just a twee bit over two hours.
Stallman, Stallman, Stallman; there, I'm on topic!
:P
Actually, he's asking you to refer to the Mustang as an STS/Mustang, as it contains hardware, including the engine design, from STS. You know...we actually call it a Mustang STS <v#>. Just some food for thought.
Hmm, can't wait to get me that RedHat Linux GNU 2.4.x (ok...GNU has no version, but he kernel does, just making a point).
But I believe the point is that had Dickie not produced and freely released the GCC in the first place, a lot of the software produced, free/free or otherwise, would not have been so produced. If you review the POSIX standards, you'll see that that /usr/include needs to be there and with most of the header files that you have now already included. Linux, GNU-ified or otherwise, would be far from compliant were there not a free, common compiler and header set. I don't see one mention of the GPL in the AnonCow's post. You didn't make any particular presumption...did you?
Ok, I can see some of you have this "Dickie's a hardass" thing going on. But, I was wondering, if there was another group comperable to the GNU Project, that released utilities, libraries and other POSIX 1003 related materials, would you use "GNU" to distinguish the base from the other company?
Let's say Red Hat 8.0 (due out with the eventual new kernel era; feel free to replace RH with your preferred distro or if you do it from scratch, well, novelty factor...) allowed the user to choose between GNU and said group (which I'll just refer to as BOB -no MSBob jokes please- ), as well as allowing for individual selection process, and you choose primarily GNU, would you use GNU to differentiate your specific base?
Linux is just a kernel and some really basic utilities (boot scripts etc also available on the kernel site), so, would you specify GNU/Linux from BOB/Linux? Obviously just saying "RedHat" would not be enough. The alternative would catch on in some groups quick enough due to the sheer novelty value, so that, you could not just assume GNU to be the default. Would you be more likely to refer to your build as GNU if not GNU/Linux?
If you just want to play with Dickie, just call him "Dickie" and pronounce GNU as "ngoo." I think I've borderlined a few cease and desist letters, myself.
FDisk isn't exactly the tool of choice; it doesn't even let you choose where to place a partition...
I have encountered it within a few Win98'ers, but I've only experienced it myself within WinME. Near the very end of the scandisk section, after having gone over most of the disk, ScanDisk will inform you of an "error" in the "bootsector" which it believes to be improperly formatted or inaccurate data. If you repair this error, ScanDisk either removes any boot information (resulting in a halting LiLo screen or a blank screen, but never a "No Operating System Found" message) or replaces it with a basic NT bootloader. When replaced with a basic NT bootloader, your system will only be able to boot into Windows.
I do not know whether the 98 users have these issues as a service pack or from an alteration in SE, but I've not see the original 98 users have an issue. However, if ScanDisk consider a non-NT/Windows bootloader an error, so will Defrag, as a result, defrag will tell you there's an error and you be told to run ScanDisk and the circle of death is complete.
I was unable to find the specific events that will occur if you install LiLo to the MBR, but I did find various warnings about installing LiLo to the MBR if you are dual booting. Ironically, this often involves a claim that Windows will not boot (typically not true, as most Linux distros will add Windows to the LiLo conf file).
/boot partition (or /root if you didn't make a seperate partition for /boot).
My first experience with this was with Mandrake 6.0 which persisted to 7.1 (the latest version I've tried), and found this to be true with many RH-style distros. LiLo users should leave LiLo on the boot partition (if you're using LiLo with the lba32 BIOS extension, you can do this past the 1024th cylindar).
Fixing the MBR will put NT's bootloader on it, resulting in only being able to boot to Windows (but you can point to Linux if you've installed a bootloader to the
Though I've never encountered your experience, I'm quite curious as to how or what utility you used to convert the ext2 to VFAT.
I haven't seen scandisk run during boot since the first version of Windows 98. I should point out, however, I am not an expert in the world of Windows, only on how Windows interacts with various operating systems.
If you could detail the events in converting ext2, I may beable to hypoth-o-think the issue.
The point is that Bill Gates/MS Marketting&Legal or whomever have done more than enough as far as one can in a capitalistic society to more or less be equivelated to someone on the level of Stalin.
Working hard and getting the breaks? You could say they worked hard...but MS software in general hasn't been worked out too well. If ever a law is passed requiring software be warranted, you just watch to see how MS explains what is and isn't their fault...see my XP protected libraries comment in the same article....
Ooh, can I get confirmation on this by anyone?
Je suis l'morse!
Only two
He probably won't notice...he doesn't seem to check, as I told him a day or so in advance via the board.  I posted there because he said it was easier to use it than play email/phone tag...
I just couldn't resist plugging his site...
You can't kill people...unless you get a license to hunt the poor, but I'm going somewhere with this. What's the total cost to companies running MS sofware over the past decade? Security flaws (don't forget the "we don't have to encrypt passwords on NTFS) to servers bogging down from VBS attachments. Articles having to be rewritten because of unknown lockups or crashes. Bob knows how much else...and these are the people that sided with Microsoft!
BUT! There is one difference; Stalin was a bastard at using power but great at politics...Gates is just incompetent at coding and construction and has to buy politicians....
That could have come out better, but the fourth glass of JB is making it difficult to say things the way I want to.
Um...IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR VOTING!
You're not off by the level of understanding, though suggesting age is related (not far from 75, myself) might be a bit off. However, you example is smack on the nose! This is what makes explanations and testimonies by Dickie and others very important, as they (he in particular) are fairly good at explaining that in a way even non-computer users can understand.
I've had to help more people through similar problems than I've had to explain Free Speech/Free Beer.