I once met a girl at a party who said that her
limited claim to fame in the geeky world was
that she went to University with Alan Cox, the guy
that wrote AberMUD. She was completely unaware of
his fame in the Linux world...
As mentioned in parent, a non-compete will screw you before you even get off the ground
Assuming you have a valid non-compete. They're normally a clause in an employment contract, a contract which ceases to exist when you stop working for a company. Most non-competes aren't worth the paper they're written on. But most people don't know that, and indeed most companies too. If non-competes were valid, Microsoft wouldn't have settled the Kai Fu Lee case, they'd have pushed it all the way.
Grrr. I wish people wouldn't wheel this out every time someone mentions regular expressions. Simply because it's plain wrong, and written by someone who either doesn't understand RFC 822 or doesn't understand regular expressions (I'm not entirely sure which)
FWIW, it would never have occurred to me that a news story might be blocked by a gateway. Had I been submitting the story to Slashdot, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Different cultures have different moral values, and in mine, gambling is simply not on the scale of things that people might object to. If that makes me irresponsible or inconsiderate in your eyes, so be it.
Slashdot is usually a little more responsible than that.
Yeesh. Linking to an article on a gambling web site that is completely relevant to the story, and you call that irresponsible? Land of the free, eh? No wonder America is in such a bad state right now...
Disclaimer: My income is 100% dependent on online gambling, so I have strong views on this. But I might have more sympathy if the US anti-gambling laws were genuinely for moral reasons, rather than just protectionism. I'd still disagree with them, but that's another matter...
Deja vu. There used to be a pretty reasonable Tetris on Facebook called Block Star. It was shut down, and replaced with an officially licensed version called Tetris Friends. But no one plays that because it's crap in comparison (and it doesn't work on Macs or under Linux). Sigh.
I certainly don't see how they veered too far from the original concept of Doom either. Am I alone in this opinion?
Yes. At least, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they got the atmospherics right, but that was only ever incidental to Doom (although it certainly added to the overall experience). No, the real thing that made Doom was the gameplay, and specifically, the feeling that you were hopelessly outnumbered by hordes of enemies. Fighting a small handful of enemies just isn't the same, no matter how many polygons they made have, or how well rendered they may be. If you want to see a true successor to Doom, look at Serious Sam, not Doom 3.
Wrong way around. Has apt improved to the point where it can match yum yet?
FYI, Red Hat looked at using apt, but found it wasn't able to support the multiple
architectures that they required, so they went with yum instead (which had the
necessary multiple architecture support). Now it's true that performance has been lacking
in the past (IIRC, mostly due to yum checking the remote repo every time, compared
to apt which checks a locally cached version of the repo metadata). But performance
has improved in recent times, and there's no reason why yum couldn't be made to use
a similar local cache (if it hasn't already -- I admit I haven't checked).
If we distribute MySQL with our software, we need a commercial licence unless we distribute our source code under the GPL.
Nope. They provide a commercial license. You don't have to use it. You could use the GPLed version instead, without needing to release any of your code under the GPL. But having said that...
the MySQL client libraries - those also use GPL
I wasn't aware of that bit. Although you can quite happily ship the MySQL database with your product without GPLing your own code, it's essentially not particularly useful without the client libraries. So yes, I take it back. In your case, shipping MySQL would cause licensing problems for you. But then again, PostgreSQL's a better database anyway, so it's not as if you're losing out:-)
We won't use GPL, it's just too much hassle. (eg for databases we use SQLite (Public Domain) or PostgreSQL (BSD), not MySQL (GPL)).
Wow. I suggest you go away and read up about how licensing works, because you're seriously misunderstanding the way it works if you
believe the GPL is a problem here. The license for a standalone database like that is irrelevant. It only becomes a problem
for you if you use an embedded database like BerkeleyDB. I can think of many arguments against using and shipping MySQL. But the
license isn't one of them.
The LGPL is a good license. BSD is a good license. GPLv2 is a maybe license, the GPLv3 is shit.
Errrr.... no. They're all good licenses, with different goals behind them. Choose the one that's right for you.
But don't criticize others because they happen to have different goals to you.
Taking somebodies code and making is disappear sucks, but taking someones code and giving credit while
using it in a closed app..I don't get why this is such a big deal?
How about because the author doens't want that to happen? If you don't care about that, then BSDL or LGPL
would seem to be good choices for you. Others do care, and hence the GPL is more appropriate for them.
Let the market decide vs. forcing the GPL and it's uber linkage pawnage down everyones throat.
No. Let the author decide. The author of any given bit of code is under no obligation to release
it to the public at all. When they choose to do so, they get to release it on the terms they decide. For
some that will be "take my code, do what you want with it", while for others it will be "take my code,
but any changes you make to it have to be available to all". Different people have different views on
it, and there are a range of licenses to choose from that cater for that. Simple, really...
Sigh. Why am I not surprised to see another corrupt politician?
Although I disagree with the idea that gambling is somehow immoral,
it wouldn't be so bad if that was the position that was being taken.
But no, it seems that gambling itself is fine, it's just that
Internet gambling somehow is not. Perhaps the supposed rationale[1]
is that it's not regulated the same way that in-state gambling is.
But then by that token, online shopping should be banned, too.
I'd be intrigued to see the wording of the bill. After all, spread
betting on the financial markets is gambling. Indeed, the entire
futures market is gambling. Hell, even taking out an insurance
policy is gambling. Which of those will be made an offence punishable
by incarceration, and which won't? Who determines which activity falls
on which side of the line, and why?
Disclaimer: I make my living through online gambling.
[1] Yes, I know the public rationale is in all likelihood
utterly unrelated to the real reason, but I have to at least go
along with the pretense.
I was under the impression "general" linux does not have MAC, it is a DAC system and SeLinux is adding that MAC ability.
Yes, but SELinux has been installed by default in Fedora and RHEL for some time now. True, the other
distributions are lagging behind a bit[1], but I'm sure they'll catch up in time. And after all,
this is a Fedora story...
[1] It pisses me off no end that my Ubuntu server doesn't come with SELinux,
and that it's a massive pain in the arse to try and add it afterwards. The
only reason it's Ubuntu is because it's a Sparc box. Were Sparc hardware
supported by Fedora and/or CentOS, Ubuntu would be ditched in a flash...
At this point I don't care who directs The Hobbit. In a lot of ways I don't even care if it ever gets made. This is largely due to seeing how much Jackson got away with botching LOTRs and now has set up a precedent for the future botching of JRRTs works.
I couldn't agree more. While all around me were raving about the LOTR films, I was hanging my head in disbelief at how badly Jackson had screwed them up.
I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for "The Hobbit" to never be made into a film. Sadly, I can't see that being very likely at
this point:-(
Well Andy Frost from the UK runs sub 1 second 0-60s in the mid 7's.
Actually, no he doesn't. On a well prepped track, he runs around 2.5s from memory.
The other big hitters in the SE class -- Splinter, Steve Pateman, John Sleath,
Colin Lazenby, etc -- are all in the same ballpark. They generally have quite
poor 0-60mph times compared to other cars running similar ETs due to the tyres.
They make up a lot in the second half of the track, while cars on slicks tend
to pick up more in the first half, and hence have better 0-60mph times.
At the Trax event at Silverstone a couple of weeks ago (which admittedly isn't up
to the standards of Santa Pod), Andy managed a best 0-60mph time of 3.2s. Yes,
his web site does mention a 1s 0-60mph time. But it doesn't reflect reality. I'll
remind him to fix it...
0-60 in 1 second is standard for drag cars or bikes running in the 7s on the quarter mile.
Not really. I run 8.2s quarters, and my 0-60 times are around 1.95 seconds. A car running high 6s
passes will have a sub-1 second 0-60mph time, but most 7 second cars won't. Of course, an electric
powered vehicle will have a different acceleration profile to one powered by an internal combustion
engine, which may account for the claimed times in this case.
Redhat have explicitly stated that they won't go down the whole cross patent deal path, so what's there to deny?
Red Hat's management would be negligent if they didn't discuss potential patent infringments with the competition.
That doesn't mean they're talking about a Novell-style deal, though. I suspect MS appreoached them and said "we
think you're infinging our patents, what are you going to do about it". RH probably replied with "...and you're
infringing these patents held by OIN". That leads to a discussion between the two parties. Discussion != agreement.
Why he can't just come out and say that, I don't know.
Why people insist on running Linux when they could use OS X, I'll never understand.
Err... because Linux is better? Seriously, everyone raved about OS X, so I gave it a go.
I found it horribly restricting, and it didn't suit my way of working, so I went back to
Linux.
it does everything you need it to do, and -- above all -- it just works
Were that true, then maybe I'd be using it. Since it didn't do everything I needed it to,
I'm not. It may well be a good option for many people. But for me, Linux allows me to be
more productive. Why would I want to switch to an OS that didn't work as well as the one
I'm currently using?
Personally, I think all of *NIX should adopt an OOP shell environment, and go more towards a RDMS type filesystem with builtin replication, redundancy, and failover. Get away from the everything is a file paradigm, and more towards everything is a datatype paradigm.
Heh. The very reason Unix has succeeded, and has lasted so long is the "everything is a file" paradigm. The whole MS PowerShell philosophy is catering
to a completely different mindset, one that rewards complexity, and has been proven, at every step, to be inferior in the real world. Yes, it might
seem very tempting now. But I'll guarantee you that it won't have the same success as the Unix shells. The complexity will be its downfall.
Slashdot Mirror
Fedora != unstable.
I once met a girl at a party who said that her limited claim to fame in the geeky world was that she went to University with Alan Cox, the guy that wrote AberMUD. She was completely unaware of his fame in the Linux world...
As mentioned in parent, a non-compete will screw you before you even get off the ground
Assuming you have a valid non-compete. They're normally a clause in an employment contract, a contract which ceases to exist when you stop working for a company. Most non-competes aren't worth the paper they're written on. But most people don't know that, and indeed most companies too. If non-competes were valid, Microsoft wouldn't have settled the Kai Fu Lee case, they'd have pushed it all the way.
Beautiful regexp that validates RFC 822 addresses: Mail-RFC822-Address.html
Grrr. I wish people wouldn't wheel this out every time someone mentions regular expressions. Simply because it's plain wrong, and written by someone who either doesn't understand RFC 822 or doesn't understand regular expressions (I'm not entirely sure which)
Is your UID for sale by any chance?
How much are you offering?
FWIW, it would never have occurred to me that a news story might be blocked by a gateway. Had I been submitting the story to Slashdot, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Different cultures have different moral values, and in mine, gambling is simply not on the scale of things that people might object to. If that makes me irresponsible or inconsiderate in your eyes, so be it.
Slashdot is usually a little more responsible than that.
Yeesh. Linking to an article on a gambling web site that is completely relevant to the story, and you call that irresponsible? Land of the free, eh? No wonder America is in such a bad state right now...
Disclaimer: My income is 100% dependent on online gambling, so I have strong views on this. But I might have more sympathy if the US anti-gambling laws were genuinely for moral reasons, rather than just protectionism. I'd still disagree with them, but that's another matter...
Deja vu. There used to be a pretty reasonable Tetris on Facebook called Block Star. It was shut down, and replaced with an officially licensed version called Tetris Friends. But no one plays that because it's crap in comparison (and it doesn't work on Macs or under Linux). Sigh.
Yes. At least, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, they got the atmospherics right, but that was only ever incidental to Doom (although it certainly added to the overall experience). No, the real thing that made Doom was the gameplay, and specifically, the feeling that you were hopelessly outnumbered by hordes of enemies. Fighting a small handful of enemies just isn't the same, no matter how many polygons they made have, or how well rendered they may be. If you want to see a true successor to Doom, look at Serious Sam, not Doom 3.
Wrong way around. Has apt improved to the point where it can match yum yet? FYI, Red Hat looked at using apt, but found it wasn't able to support the multiple architectures that they required, so they went with yum instead (which had the necessary multiple architecture support). Now it's true that performance has been lacking in the past (IIRC, mostly due to yum checking the remote repo every time, compared to apt which checks a locally cached version of the repo metadata). But performance has improved in recent times, and there's no reason why yum couldn't be made to use a similar local cache (if it hasn't already -- I admit I haven't checked).
Nope. They provide a commercial license. You don't have to use it. You could use the GPLed version instead, without needing to release any of your code under the GPL. But having said that...
the MySQL client libraries - those also use GPL
I wasn't aware of that bit. Although you can quite happily ship the MySQL database with your product without GPLing your own code, it's essentially not particularly useful without the client libraries. So yes, I take it back. In your case, shipping MySQL would cause licensing problems for you. But then again, PostgreSQL's a better database anyway, so it's not as if you're losing out :-)
Wow. I suggest you go away and read up about how licensing works, because you're seriously misunderstanding the way it works if you believe the GPL is a problem here. The license for a standalone database like that is irrelevant. It only becomes a problem for you if you use an embedded database like BerkeleyDB. I can think of many arguments against using and shipping MySQL. But the license isn't one of them.
Errrr.... no. They're all good licenses, with different goals behind them. Choose the one that's right for you. But don't criticize others because they happen to have different goals to you.
Taking somebodies code and making is disappear sucks, but taking someones code and giving credit while using it in a closed app..I don't get why this is such a big deal?
How about because the author doens't want that to happen? If you don't care about that, then BSDL or LGPL would seem to be good choices for you. Others do care, and hence the GPL is more appropriate for them.
Let the market decide vs. forcing the GPL and it's uber linkage pawnage down everyones throat.
No. Let the author decide. The author of any given bit of code is under no obligation to release it to the public at all. When they choose to do so, they get to release it on the terms they decide. For some that will be "take my code, do what you want with it", while for others it will be "take my code, but any changes you make to it have to be available to all". Different people have different views on it, and there are a range of licenses to choose from that cater for that. Simple, really...
Although I disagree with the idea that gambling is somehow immoral, it wouldn't be so bad if that was the position that was being taken. But no, it seems that gambling itself is fine, it's just that Internet gambling somehow is not. Perhaps the supposed rationale[1] is that it's not regulated the same way that in-state gambling is. But then by that token, online shopping should be banned, too.
I'd be intrigued to see the wording of the bill. After all, spread betting on the financial markets is gambling. Indeed, the entire futures market is gambling. Hell, even taking out an insurance policy is gambling. Which of those will be made an offence punishable by incarceration, and which won't? Who determines which activity falls on which side of the line, and why?
Disclaimer: I make my living through online gambling.
[1] Yes, I know the public rationale is in all likelihood utterly unrelated to the real reason, but I have to at least go along with the pretense.
Yes, but SELinux has been installed by default in Fedora and RHEL for some time now. True, the other distributions are lagging behind a bit[1], but I'm sure they'll catch up in time. And after all, this is a Fedora story...
[1] It pisses me off no end that my Ubuntu server doesn't come with SELinux, and that it's a massive pain in the arse to try and add it afterwards. The only reason it's Ubuntu is because it's a Sparc box. Were Sparc hardware supported by Fedora and/or CentOS, Ubuntu would be ditched in a flash...
I couldn't agree more. While all around me were raving about the LOTR films, I was hanging my head in disbelief at how badly Jackson had screwed them up. I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for "The Hobbit" to never be made into a film. Sadly, I can't see that being very likely at this point :-(
Here you go. From memory, it was that image that brought me to CnD in the first place...
Heh... and I thought I held out for a long time!
Actually, no he doesn't. On a well prepped track, he runs around 2.5s from memory. The other big hitters in the SE class -- Splinter, Steve Pateman, John Sleath, Colin Lazenby, etc -- are all in the same ballpark. They generally have quite poor 0-60mph times compared to other cars running similar ETs due to the tyres. They make up a lot in the second half of the track, while cars on slicks tend to pick up more in the first half, and hence have better 0-60mph times. At the Trax event at Silverstone a couple of weeks ago (which admittedly isn't up to the standards of Santa Pod), Andy managed a best 0-60mph time of 3.2s. Yes, his web site does mention a 1s 0-60mph time. But it doesn't reflect reality. I'll remind him to fix it...
Not really. I run 8.2s quarters, and my 0-60 times are around 1.95 seconds. A car running high 6s passes will have a sub-1 second 0-60mph time, but most 7 second cars won't. Of course, an electric powered vehicle will have a different acceleration profile to one powered by an internal combustion engine, which may account for the claimed times in this case.
Red Hat's management would be negligent if they didn't discuss potential patent infringments with the competition. That doesn't mean they're talking about a Novell-style deal, though. I suspect MS appreoached them and said "we think you're infinging our patents, what are you going to do about it". RH probably replied with "...and you're infringing these patents held by OIN". That leads to a discussion between the two parties. Discussion != agreement. Why he can't just come out and say that, I don't know.
Err... because Linux is better? Seriously, everyone raved about OS X, so I gave it a go. I found it horribly restricting, and it didn't suit my way of working, so I went back to Linux.
it does everything you need it to do, and -- above all -- it just works
Were that true, then maybe I'd be using it. Since it didn't do everything I needed it to, I'm not. It may well be a good option for many people. But for me, Linux allows me to be more productive. Why would I want to switch to an OS that didn't work as well as the one I'm currently using?
Not that bad? fork() is a far better model for concurrency than threads.
Heh. The very reason Unix has succeeded, and has lasted so long is the "everything is a file" paradigm. The whole MS PowerShell philosophy is catering to a completely different mindset, one that rewards complexity, and has been proven, at every step, to be inferior in the real world. Yes, it might seem very tempting now. But I'll guarantee you that it won't have the same success as the Unix shells. The complexity will be its downfall.
That was exactly my thought. I think I'll give them a call, and ask them about deactivating the line for voice.