Wouldn't something like NT 2.4.345 be more correct? Second release of NT (or was it just the GUI that changed?), fourth service pack and some extra patches.
I think there is need for some place where authors of articles like this can send them and get help with things like "GNU Public License" and misunderstandings like "GNU... and Red Hat initiated work on the GTK."
It would benefit everyone. The authors wouldn't have to be embarrased over their writings. 'We' would have more people to understand what things are really about and everyone else wouldn't have to be misinformed.
If you want to rule you don't want people to think for themselves. That means you have to think for them. That means define "right" and call all else "wrong". Reward people for being "right" and punish them for being "wrong". For practical matters "right" mostly includes a hierarcical system. Wich means that the rewarding and punishing is transferred all the way down to the second level from the bottom of the tree. ("normal" children)
This is built in in most cultures of the world.
Social trees is useful for many things. If people fight with each other to advance in the tree, they will have enough troubles and worries not to think about the whole.
Unfortunately people fight better when they group but thats all right too because the groups can't be big enough, all members can't rise and then they start to fight internally. But if you want to group effectivley you need a welldefined enemy. If you must have an enemy you wouldn't want one who could fight back would you? (Holds true for world scale politics too...) What could then be better than the "wrong" (= not "normal")?
EverQuest!!!! Quake 3 more of the same (tired)
on
Mac Q3Test Shots
·
· Score: 1
Looks like this could be a good game. BUT: As I understand it they wont let people set up their own servers with custom worlds and rules. Bad.
Is there any other games like this around or coming?
> KDE: KDE is _neither_ in contrib _nor_ non-free, and nor will it ever change. check bugs.debian.org to see why.
Hmm, might be true. But does it matter? Debian don't want to distribute KDE because it would be illegal for them. (Even if it's no risk) But I ran KDE until GNOME 1.0, installed it from deb's in something like 1.5 minutes and it works just fine in Debian.
So if anyone wants to run KDE in Debian there is no problem att all to do so.
I think Debian fixed this problem long ago. (With 2.0) I've had both libc5 and glibc2 a long time now and never ever had a problem with it.
But here might be some problem I just have not encountered? I really don't know much about this and I've never had a reason to look into it. It has just always worked.
> The FSF started in the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, and RMS still works there.
Didn't he quit when he started the GNU project and made a living by selling emacs? (before FSF started to get that money) When did he go back there then?
Hmm, I get the feeling that the propaganda level in NATO countries is higher that I thought. Can anyone from inside tell how bad it is?
And the human nature, it indeed makes me sick too. But, hehe, look at your own post will you...
And the next WW, what USA is doing today is frightenly similar to what Germany did -30/40. They have attacked four countries in just a few months for varios imaginative reasons ("peace", "self defence", "revenge", "UN support"...)
> the company is trying to encourage other Linux distributors besides Red Hat to support the chip.
I was a little surprised when I read this so I checked SuSE, PHT and Caldera but no, it really seems like only Debian and RedHat supports the Alpha. Or is there specialised Alpha distributions hiding somewhere?
I don't think RedHat is acting like M$ either, on the contrary, they seem to be better as time goes (no longer any proprietary software in the dist.) but I keep an eye on them in case that changes.
But one thing disturbs me, but I am not sure I got this right since I wasn't there at the time but:
1. Debian made their package system. (right?)
2. RedHat thought: Great idea, let's make one too.
Under many circumstances I can understand that. The problem is that the Debian system clearly is better so why didn't they use that? Or even renamed it to RPM but kept them compatible??? Or was Debians packaging system really crappy at the start?
no cost != free software != copyleft
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Quote from opensource.org:
"if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to ``open source'' - that, they'll buy."
I've got the impression that US government doesn't care about the people too, but seriously do you think EU does???
The whole point with that damn union is to make something big and powerful and get rid of that disturbing democrazy thing. Mighty people in Europe haven't ruled the world for *years* and how fun is it to play Civilization Live(tm) without a big empire? (And we all know how annoying it is to get voted down when you try to start a fun little war.)
"What product is naturally unlimited? The years of man hours invested by the program's authors?"
No, the resulting product. The author should be compensated for their labour but the software should be free.
"Proprietary software is like a well you dug up closer to the town than the river. You spent the time, energy, and resourcefullness to create the well, not the towns folk, hence you have the right to charge whatever you want, and impose arbitrary limitations on it's use. "
Again, you should be rewarded for your work but you should not act so bad towards the rest of the people or hide from them how to dig wells.
You are right about the support. The best thing is if users pay for the (speach-free) software. Watch Red Hat.
"As RMS says, these companies will never make as much money as Microsoft."
And that's bad? Think about what much better things those resources could have been used for.
"Well that is certainly a convincing argument... Motivation for proprietary software: we could get rich! Motivation for free software: we won't have to starve!"
Motivation for proprietary software: we could get rich! Motivation for almost everything else: we won't have to starve!
It works.
"If everyone just did what was right for them (without using force upon another) and quit worrying about the other guy I think we'd all be better off."
Yes 2.2.x works fine, but I don't think it's *officially* 2.2 ready, tested and guaranteed to work for everyone and their grandmas c64. Like potato, 'unstable' and 'development version' yes, but it works just great for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't something like NT 2.4.345 be more correct? Second release of NT (or was it just the GUI that changed?), fourth service pack and some extra patches.
Debian 2.2 (potato) is updated at least once a day. It's wonderful - you automatically get the latest of everything and needed security fixes.
Of course, the latest is never thoroughly tested but thats what development versions are *for*.
I think there is need for some place where authors of articles like this can send them and get help with things like "GNU Public License" and misunderstandings like "GNU ... and Red Hat initiated work on the GTK."
It would benefit everyone. The authors wouldn't have to be embarrased over their writings. 'We' would have more people to understand what things are really about and everyone else wouldn't have to be misinformed.
If you want to rule you don't want people to think for themselves. That means you have to think for them. That means define "right" and call all else "wrong". Reward people for being "right" and punish them for being "wrong". For practical matters "right" mostly includes a hierarcical system. Wich means that the rewarding and punishing is transferred all the way down to the second level from the bottom of the tree. ("normal" children)
This is built in in most cultures of the world.
Social trees is useful for many things. If people fight with each other to advance in the tree, they will have enough troubles and worries not to think about the whole.
Unfortunately people fight better when they group but thats all right too because the groups can't be big enough, all members can't rise and then they start to fight internally. But if you want to group effectivley you need a welldefined enemy. If you must have an enemy you wouldn't want one who could fight back would you? (Holds true for world scale politics too...) What could then be better than the "wrong" (= not "normal")?
Looks like this could be a good game.
BUT: As I understand it they wont let people set up their own servers with custom worlds and rules. Bad.
Is there any other games like this around or coming?
x
Try to remove everything that says (C) Free Software Foundation and try to boot.
What about the, as it seems, equally newbiefriendly (and "one size fits all, use KDE or get lost") " EasyLinux" that was on /. a while ago?
> KDE: KDE is _neither_ in contrib _nor_ non-free, and nor will it ever change. check bugs.debian.org to see why.
Hmm, might be true. But does it matter? Debian don't want to distribute KDE because it would be illegal for them. (Even if it's no risk) But I ran KDE until GNOME 1.0, installed it from deb's in something like 1.5 minutes and it works just fine in Debian.
So if anyone wants to run KDE in Debian there is no problem att all to do so.
I think Debian fixed this problem long ago. (With 2.0) I've had both libc5 and glibc2 a long time now and never ever had a problem with it.
But here might be some problem I just have not encountered? I really don't know much about this and I've never had a reason to look into it. It has just always worked.
At least the Baby Gnu (the one used as /. icon) is good and cute.
I'm running a current Debian 2.2 (potato) wich uses glibc2.1 and it works fine. Er, no, it's buggy and slow but it works.
> The FSF started in the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, and RMS still works there.
Didn't he quit when he started the GNU project and made a living by selling emacs? (before FSF started to get that money) When did he go back there then?
> I like Linux fdisk lots, but it's surely not easy.
cfdisk is.
Hmm, I get the feeling that the propaganda level in NATO countries is higher that I thought. Can anyone from inside tell how bad it is?
...)
And the human nature, it indeed makes me sick too. But, hehe, look at your own post will you...
And the next WW, what USA is doing today is frightenly similar to what Germany did -30/40. They have attacked four countries in just a few months for varios imaginative reasons ("peace", "self defence", "revenge", "UN support"
And I'm human too...
> the company is trying to encourage other Linux distributors besides Red Hat to support the chip.
I was a little surprised when I read this so I checked SuSE, PHT and Caldera but no, it really seems like only Debian and RedHat supports the Alpha. Or is there specialised Alpha distributions hiding somewhere?
I don't think RedHat is acting like M$ either, on the contrary, they seem to be better as time goes (no longer any proprietary software in the dist.) but I keep an eye on them in case that changes.
But one thing disturbs me, but I am not sure I got this right since I wasn't there at the time but:
1. Debian made their package system. (right?)
2. RedHat thought: Great idea, let's make one too.
Under many circumstances I can understand that. The problem is that the Debian system clearly is better so why didn't they use that? Or even renamed it to RPM but kept them compatible??? Or was Debians packaging system really crappy at the start?
Quote from opensource.org:
"if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to ``open source'' - that, they'll buy."
What they disagree about is how to advertise it.
A fairly good, short definition of what FSF means by "free software" is the Debian free software guidelinesFor more detail see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categorie s.html and the rest of www.gnu.org/philosophy/
Do you mean Open Source(R) or "source code available"? Open Source and free software means the exact same thing.
And, yes, who the hell cares if they can see the source if they still aren't free to use it?
> It's only when you try to mix GPL with non GPL when you really start having problems.
:)
Well... If it's more restrictive that the GPL you probably can't use it anyway and if it is less restrictive then it's probably possible to GPL it.
Ok, that makes more things go GPL and that can be considered good or bad or suggest that GPL is the 'perfect mix'
> enough holes/ambiguities to scare me
I've always seen the GPL to be *extremely* well thought-out but I could of course be wrong. What holes?
They more often don't mention Debian (which is larger than SuSE (three times if you believe /. polls))
I'll bet the only reason they mention it here is that they seem to think Debian is a company...
What does S.u.S.E stand for by the way?
I've got the impression that US government doesn't care about the people too, but seriously do you think EU does???
The whole point with that damn union is to make something big and powerful and get rid of that disturbing democrazy thing. Mighty people in Europe haven't ruled the world for *years* and how fun is it to play Civilization Live(tm) without a big empire? (And we all know how annoying it is to get voted down when you try to start a fun little war.)
So, what is the proper name for Debian GNU/Hurd?
"What product is naturally unlimited? The years of man hours invested by the program's authors?"
No, the resulting product. The author should be compensated for their labour but the software should be free.
"Proprietary software is like a well you dug up closer to the town than the river. You spent the time,
energy, and resourcefullness to create the well, not the towns folk, hence you have the right to charge
whatever you want, and impose arbitrary limitations on it's use. "
Again, you should be rewarded for your work but you should not act so bad towards the rest of the people or hide from them how to dig wells.
You are right about the support. The best thing is if users pay for the (speach-free) software. Watch Red Hat.
"As RMS says, these companies will never make as much money as Microsoft."
And that's bad? Think about what much better things those resources could have been used for.
"Well that is certainly a convincing argument...
Motivation for proprietary software: we could get rich!
Motivation for free software: we won't have to starve!"
Motivation for proprietary software: we could get rich!
Motivation for almost everything else: we won't have to starve!
It works.
"If everyone just did what was right for them (without using force upon
another) and quit worrying about the other guy I think we'd all be better off."
There is *many* who needs your help.
Yes 2.2.x works fine, but I don't think it's *officially* 2.2 ready, tested and guaranteed to work for everyone and their grandmas c64. Like potato, 'unstable' and 'development version' yes, but it works just great for me.