we used to have to get up at 11 at night the day before, and stand in line 28 hours to log in to a crusty tty terminal on a 300 baud connection to an overloaded server powered by three men on bicycles, telnet to a broken-down, buggy news server to retrieve naughty pictures from usenet by hand, in multi-part postings that never had all the parts, so you had to invent and UUencode the missing bits by hand before you joined them all together and decoded the result -- again, by hand -- just so we could view them dithered in ASCII text. And that's how we liked it.
You tell that to the youth of today, and they won't believe you!
I think what you're missing is the high earner's surtax. I can guarantee you that if you're making $110,000 in BC, you'll be paying over 56%. I've checked with several accountants on this one.
Of course, coming from Ontario, and not having been a BC resident you have probably not experienced the wonders of our provincial government, so you can be forgiven for not having a very clear understanding.
Whoa... calm down, maybe read the post you're replying to.
I don't think the original poster ever said that there was no racism in Canada. You're obviously quite bitter and angry about several incidents you've witnessed, but there's nothing in the original post that has much to do with racism unless your mind really twists the comments in mysterious ways.
Racism is a problem in every country, Canada, the States, England, France, Japan, China, India, South Africa, I could go on, but I don't have the time or the will to spell out the name of every country on the planet. Humans are humans. Racism is idiotic whether it's white people discriminating against black people or Pakistanis discriminating against white people or Black people discriminating against Asians or anyone else discriminating against anyone else. It isn't just the black and white (pardon the pun) issue of "white people are racists" that most people would like to believe. There are idiots in every race and culture, and by extension, there are racists of all colours. Deal with it by not being a part of the problem. Preferrably in a less inflammatory way.
The main thing I don't like about it is that Pentax isn't that big a brand, so accessories are harder to find.
Hmm. Pentax seems to be no problem to find up here (Victoria, Canada), but then again, one of the shops in town specialises in Pentax.
I'd say that "decent" is a relative term.
Oh I agree 100% there. You can definitely get a decent camera for anywhere upwards of $500 US. When I said decent, I decent (as in niiiice). If you want autofocus, a good metering system, aperture and exposure priority modes, you're going to be looking somewhere upwards of $900 US at least...
I use two cameras on a daily basis: a Nikon F100 and a Nikon FE. The F100 is loaded with a ton of options, but not as heavy as the F5 (and without a few of the F5s cool gizmos), and is great when I need high-quality pictures without in a hurry. On the other hand, I have a really nice Nikon FE from the early 80s that is completely manual, doesn't have particularly wonderful metering, and is exposure priority only. That camera is great, and indestructible, and cost $300 CDN (about $200 US) used but in mint condition.
For a lot of things, I much prefer the FE, but if I'm taking shots of birds and other animals, which a propensity for moving just when you've finished focusing a manual camera, I prefer the F100.
Anyway, my conclusion is the same: One day, digital cameras will push traditional cameras into a niche, but not yet.
I agree 100% with you there. The average consumer has no need for gigantic enlargements, and wants a no fuss point-and-shoot camera.
There are always going to be a few people (namely professional photographers and enthusiasts) who want a film-based camera. Digital cameras are high enough quality now for a lot of newspaper shooting, but I would never consider taking extremely low-light pictures (CCD noise tends to be quite nasty on long exposures, or enhancements of low light shots, unless you have a bucket of liquid nitrogen handy like they do at observatories). But most people don't take pictures with large areas of black or in low light (unless they have a flash).
Anyway, the unfortunate end result is that film cameras will likely rise in price as they become less and less popular. I hope not...
Uh oh... you're not even gonna get a decent new analog SLR body for under $500...
Nikon's D1 is an excellent digital camera which works with almost all standard Nikon AF lenses, but the price is $5000-ish US. Kodak also makes some digital cameras, but they are converted analog cameras from Canon and Nikon, and they are in the near $10 000 US range.
As I say, even a decent (I expect if you want an SLR, you want decent quality) used SLR body is going to run you $300-ish, so I wouldn't count on any digital SLRs near that price anytime soon.
Traditional cameras are most definitely not cheaper. As someone who does a ton of photography, I should point out that most people don't realise it, but most of the cost of owning a camera is paying for film, development and printing.
Second, traditional cameras, are likely to be just as fragile as a digital camera, except that they have more moving parts (shutter screens, rollers, etc.) that can seize up over time. I certainly wouldn't take this into consideration when buying a camera though -- unless I knew it was going to be handled rough.
That being said, my recommendation would be to head over to www.photo.net, Phil Greenspun's excellent photography resource, and check out the ton of recommendations tips and techniques he and reviewers have posted.
Though I don't own a digital camera, I have done a ton of looking in the past few months because I am thinking of getting one to reduce the cost of photography. The Nikon Coolpix is the best I've seen for the snapshot shooter, while the Nikon D1 is the most fantastic SLR I've had the pleasure of checking out. Nikon is known for their excellent optics, and I have been nothing but pleased with anything I have owned from them. I was also impressed with some of the Kodak cameras I played with, so you might consider checking some of those out.
Before you buy any camera, ask to play around with it a bit first. Most shops will allow you to shoot a roll (or, I guess, a flash card?) if you give them collateral, or know them well. If not, ask to shoot a few in the store. And, last but not least, definitely read the reviews available on the net before you buy.
I have to agree that there is nothing like the feel of a book in your hands, and that I would read a paperback or a hardcover over an electronic version any day.
However, there are some materials that are simply impossible to find at the local library. If I need to find a certain book, paper or article and the library doesn't have it and can't order it in, then I'm out of luck. At that point, I would love to have the option of looking it up online.
I'm not advocating that we dump paper for photons -- in my bedroom alone I have almost one hundred books, let alone the majority of them sitting in the next room -- but by making more books available in electronic format, I can only benefit. I'll still buy every decent book I can get my hands on, but those that I can't physically get my hands on, I can look up online if need be.
Of course, the question then becomes "will putting more books online result in a decline in the number of paper books published?" I don't think so, not when the majority of the world still abhors deciphering the crusty, pixellated characters on a computer screen. Not only that, but when was the last time you took your computer to bed with you to read?
What is the current state of the HURD? In reading the web page it looks like a great kernel, but it seems as though development is moving on rather slowly. What can people out there do to spur development on the HURD? What resources are available to developers to help them get started? I personally think it would be great to see another free software kernel based on fresh ideas.
My apologies, I suppose it's a bit hypocritical to be jabbing you for not reading the original text, when I obviously missed a crucial detail. Perhaps the original article should have been better worded to actually infer that you had read the clause in the GPL.
However, your reply to the above comment remains just as pointless as ever. In any case, if you knew that all that was required was to email the original author, why ask Slashdot? You already had the answer. Are you attempting to find a work-around in case the original author says "no, I won't re-issue under another license?"
If so, that's a pretty certain way to piss off a hell of a lot of people, not the least the author of the code you're trying to make use of.
what part of "this is an email I sent to the author" don't you get?!
Just curious, but what exactly does your comment add to the discussion?
Actually, if you re-read the actual article, it says that the email was sent to the author to ask his opinion on the GPL/LGPL issue (ie. the same question that is being asked here), NOT whether the author will re-issue the software under another license.
Before flaming senselessly, please consider reading the text in question a little bit more carefully.
Just because the likes of Micro$oft cannot be bothered to use this stuff, does not mean that closed source can -never- deliver quality or security. It just costs more.
Agreed; however, who says that the CMM can't be applied to open source software as well? In all honesty, companies that are stringent in their code review are most likely developing critical systems. If such systems are developed by the open source community, there is no reason why some form of rigorous peer review could not be applied. However, open source code has the additional advantage of unstructured peer review to begin with.
While I agree that closed source software can achieve very low bugginess through rigorous peer review, open source code still has the advantage.
Actually, Proxima Centauri is Alpha Centauri C. Alpha Centauri consists of three stars; a double (A and B) and a loosly bound escaping star, C. A and B lie at 4.35 light-years from the sun, separated by about 23 AU, and C lies at about 4.22 ly from us, 13 000 AU from the other two.
I wouldn't say that atomfilms is useless and evil, but yes, ActiveX most definitely sucks (like pretty much anything Microsoft has attempted to design), and they really should redesign the site so that it looks good to people other than Windows users. From Linux, I'm able to view it, but it's not exactly pretty. I would assume that it works somewhat on a Mac...
Fortunately, they have provided content in RealPlayer format, and not just Windows Media Player, so that you're not entirely restricted to a Wintel box.
In any case, I think the animators that have allowed their work to be displayed on the web should be congratulated; they're certainly not useless and evil. The web site designer at Atom Films is the one who needs a talking to; not flames, but perhaps a little coersion.
--
On a related note, I thought that M$ had dumped craptiveX (or at least a limited subset) onto Mac users. I'm almost certain of that. Perhaps they ditched the effort? Still there would have to be Mac-compiled binaries of the controls to actually work, assuming that activeX stuff is actually compiled and not VB or something godawful like that. I suppose we can only hope that they never got around to polluting other platforms with that crap.
A bit offtopic, but the site that will be hosting the new Nick Park films, www.atomfilms.com, already has a ton of wonderful shorts on their site. My personal favourite has to be Jolly Roger, which is absolutely hilarious.
It's nice to see a group of people who, unlike some organisations we know, are committed to making full use of new technologies rather than launching litigation against anyone who sees potential in digital distribution.
On a related note, it's important to support sites like this. By spreading the word, and voicing your appreciation, we can encourage others to venture into this new realm of distribution. Don't let the MPAA control the course of technology! Support this kind of thing by downloading their stuff and possibly even buying a video/DVD of their animation. (No, I'm not affiliated with them, or the animation industry, in any way!)
As I say, it's great to see people who see the Internet as a great new means of distribution instead of a threat. Keep up the great work!
I never understood why everyone found it so difficult to copy DVD to VHS either. I copied several films (ummm, for testing purposes only) and the VHS output was just as good as any rental video. I certainly wouldn't think that they just forgot to put the copy protection on... it was the latest James Bond film (whose name I can't recall at the moment).
Perhaps it's because my VCR is so old? It's one of the very first front-loaders.
Quite true... remember the ill-fated attempt to introduce Budweiser beer (at the American 3%) to Canada? Remember their huge ad campaign where they attempted to re-market it by strengthening it to put it on par with our beer?
As someone else posted earlier, Canadians tend to dismiss American beers as being for "children and the elderly."
Not to say that all Canadian beers are great, either though. But when you've got as many breweries as we have, a few bad ones have to slip through. In terms of sheer numbers, Canada produces more brands of beer than any other nation on the planet. This is mostly the fault of beer itself, being that it doesn't transport well, so you've got to have a ton of breweries when you've got a country so damn large.
In any case, when you've got "Fin du Monde" and "Maudite" at 9 to 12%, in a 750mL bottle, there's not much American beers can do for you.
As for Guinness... it puts all of our beers to shame, at least here on Vancouver Island.
What I hate is all the unnatural dependencies on GNOME on RedHat systems. For instance, last night I upgraded my RH5.2 system to RH6.1. I have a lot of complaints about how this worked (like, why can't I cancel or at least unmount my drive? and why can't password-less users login or at least have root change their passwords), but the relevant complaint is the GNOME deps.
Ummm, no. I think your problem is RedHat. I use Gnome on Debian, and have never once had any problem with it. If you're a package manager kind of person, dpkg has never caused any dependency problems with me, and if you prefer tar.gz sources, just go to www.gnome.org and download the lot from their website.
If you're using RPMs and you've got dependency problems with Gnome, then RedHat is your problem.
Even that's not good enough. Section 6 of the GPL says that he can't impose additional restrictions on the distribution of the software, which he is doing.
Absolutely - I was just being goofy. On a more serious note though, it's unfortunate that people out there try to pull this kind of thing. What's worse is that he attempts to disguise his ploy as being good for the community.
As for his claim that the majority of people out there are demanding the source code to an application have no intention of making bugfixes/improvements, that's simply ludicrous at best. There are a ton of people volunteering a ton of their time to write great software out there - look at almost any open source project. Look at the FSF, Debian, Apache, XMMS... I could go on for a couple gazillion pages.
Fundamentally, if his goal was to incite more people to get into the spirit of the GPL, it would have made more sense to lead by example. Somehow I get the impression that his real intention has nothing to do with helping out... call me a skeptic.
Since the response from Slade claims that he is not restricting access to the code, he's just licensing the bandwidth, maybe someone would care to mirror the source? Or perhaps he doesn't have the bandwidth for that one transfer?
Hmmm, perhaps he'd be open to us sending him a self-addressed, stamped envelope, a ream of paper and some toner and asking for a printout?
Geez, it's hard to believe people are dumb enough to try stuff like this. Makes you wonder whether he ever bothered to read the GPL before making such a lame attempt at circumventing it...
Re: Don't forget the Vegetables
on
Furry Cow Cases
·
· Score: 1
Not to put a damper on your complaint, but I hope you're not a (GASP!) vegetarian! Remember, they're alive too. As the Arrogant Worms (a fine band) once put it:
I've heard the screams of the Vegetables (scream scream scream) Watching their skins being peeled (Having their insides revealed) Grated and steamed without mercy (Burning off calories) How do you think that feels? (Bet it hurts really bad) Carrot Juice Constitutes Murder (And that's a real crime) Greenhouses, prisons for slaves (Let my vegetables grow) It's time to stop all this gardening (it's as dirty as hell) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)
Slashdot Mirror
right then...
we used to have to get up at 11 at night the day before, and stand in line 28 hours to log in to a crusty tty terminal on a 300 baud connection to an overloaded server powered by three men on bicycles, telnet to a broken-down, buggy news server to retrieve naughty pictures from usenet by hand, in multi-part postings that never had all the parts, so you had to invent and UUencode the missing bits by hand before you joined them all together and decoded the result -- again, by hand -- just so we could view them dithered in ASCII text. And that's how we liked it.
You tell that to the youth of today, and they won't believe you!
Here is the press release from Discreet (the division of Autodesk responsible for gMax). This was the July 26 press release from siggraph.
If a tree falls in the forest, and kills a mime, does anyone care?
You should probably consider attributing this to Gary Larson, who came up with it...
I think what you're missing is the high earner's surtax. I can guarantee you that if you're making $110,000 in BC, you'll be paying over 56%. I've checked with several accountants on this one.
Of course, coming from Ontario, and not having been a BC resident you have probably not experienced the wonders of our provincial government, so you can be forgiven for not having a very clear understanding.
Whoa... calm down, maybe read the post you're replying to.
I don't think the original poster ever said that there was no racism in Canada. You're obviously quite bitter and angry about several incidents you've witnessed, but there's nothing in the original post that has much to do with racism unless your mind really twists the comments in mysterious ways.
Racism is a problem in every country, Canada, the States, England, France, Japan, China, India, South Africa, I could go on, but I don't have the time or the will to spell out the name of every country on the planet. Humans are humans. Racism is idiotic whether it's white people discriminating against black people or Pakistanis discriminating against white people or Black people discriminating against Asians or anyone else discriminating against anyone else. It isn't just the black and white (pardon the pun) issue of "white people are racists" that most people would like to believe. There are idiots in every race and culture, and by extension, there are racists of all colours. Deal with it by not being a part of the problem. Preferrably in a less inflammatory way.
The main thing I don't like about it is that Pentax isn't that big a brand, so accessories are harder to find.
Hmm. Pentax seems to be no problem to find up here (Victoria, Canada), but then again, one of the shops in town specialises in Pentax.
I'd say that "decent" is a relative term.
Oh I agree 100% there. You can definitely get a decent camera for anywhere upwards of $500 US. When I said decent, I decent (as in niiiice). If you want autofocus, a good metering system, aperture and exposure priority modes, you're going to be looking somewhere upwards of $900 US at least...
I use two cameras on a daily basis: a Nikon F100 and a Nikon FE. The F100 is loaded with a ton of options, but not as heavy as the F5 (and without a few of the F5s cool gizmos), and is great when I need high-quality pictures without in a hurry. On the other hand, I have a really nice Nikon FE from the early 80s that is completely manual, doesn't have particularly wonderful metering, and is exposure priority only. That camera is great, and indestructible, and cost $300 CDN (about $200 US) used but in mint condition.
For a lot of things, I much prefer the FE, but if I'm taking shots of birds and other animals, which a propensity for moving just when you've finished focusing a manual camera, I prefer the F100.
Anyway, my conclusion is the same: One day, digital cameras will push traditional cameras into a niche, but not yet.
I agree 100% with you there. The average consumer has no need for gigantic enlargements, and wants a no fuss point-and-shoot camera.
There are always going to be a few people (namely professional photographers and enthusiasts) who want a film-based camera. Digital cameras are high enough quality now for a lot of newspaper shooting, but I would never consider taking extremely low-light pictures (CCD noise tends to be quite nasty on long exposures, or enhancements of low light shots, unless you have a bucket of liquid nitrogen handy like they do at observatories). But most people don't take pictures with large areas of black or in low light (unless they have a flash).
Anyway, the unfortunate end result is that film cameras will likely rise in price as they become less and less popular. I hope not...
Uh oh... you're not even gonna get a decent new analog SLR body for under $500...
Nikon's D1 is an excellent digital camera which works with almost all standard Nikon AF lenses, but the price is $5000-ish US. Kodak also makes some digital cameras, but they are converted analog cameras from Canon and Nikon, and they are in the near $10 000 US range.
As I say, even a decent (I expect if you want an SLR, you want decent quality) used SLR body is going to run you $300-ish, so I wouldn't count on any digital SLRs near that price anytime soon.
First, they're cheaper, and less fragile.
Traditional cameras are most definitely not cheaper. As someone who does a ton of photography, I should point out that most people don't realise it, but most of the cost of owning a camera is paying for film, development and printing.
Second, traditional cameras, are likely to be just as fragile as a digital camera, except that they have more moving parts (shutter screens, rollers, etc.) that can seize up over time. I certainly wouldn't take this into consideration when buying a camera though -- unless I knew it was going to be handled rough.
That being said, my recommendation would be to head over to www.photo.net, Phil Greenspun's excellent photography resource, and check out the ton of recommendations tips and techniques he and reviewers have posted.
Though I don't own a digital camera, I have done a ton of looking in the past few months because I am thinking of getting one to reduce the cost of photography. The Nikon Coolpix is the best I've seen for the snapshot shooter, while the Nikon D1 is the most fantastic SLR I've had the pleasure of checking out. Nikon is known for their excellent optics, and I have been nothing but pleased with anything I have owned from them. I was also impressed with some of the Kodak cameras I played with, so you might consider checking some of those out.
Before you buy any camera, ask to play around with it a bit first. Most shops will allow you to shoot a roll (or, I guess, a flash card?) if you give them collateral, or know them well. If not, ask to shoot a few in the store. And, last but not least, definitely read the reviews available on the net before you buy.
I have to agree that there is nothing like the feel of a book in your hands, and that I would read a paperback or a hardcover over an electronic version any day.
However, there are some materials that are simply impossible to find at the local library. If I need to find a certain book, paper or article and the library doesn't have it and can't order it in, then I'm out of luck. At that point, I would love to have the option of looking it up online.
I'm not advocating that we dump paper for photons -- in my bedroom alone I have almost one hundred books, let alone the majority of them sitting in the next room -- but by making more books available in electronic format, I can only benefit. I'll still buy every decent book I can get my hands on, but those that I can't physically get my hands on, I can look up online if need be.
Of course, the question then becomes "will putting more books online result in a decline in the number of paper books published?" I don't think so, not when the majority of the world still abhors deciphering the crusty, pixellated characters on a computer screen. Not only that, but when was the last time you took your computer to bed with you to read?
What is the current state of the HURD? In reading the web page it looks like a great kernel, but it seems as though development is moving on rather slowly. What can people out there do to spur development on the HURD? What resources are available to developers to help them get started? I personally think it would be great to see another free software kernel based on fresh ideas.
My apologies, I suppose it's a bit hypocritical to be jabbing you for not reading the original text, when I obviously missed a crucial detail. Perhaps the original article should have been better worded to actually infer that you had read the clause in the GPL.
However, your reply to the above comment remains just as pointless as ever. In any case, if you knew that all that was required was to email the original author, why ask Slashdot? You already had the answer. Are you attempting to find a work-around in case the original author says "no, I won't re-issue under another license?"
If so, that's a pretty certain way to piss off a hell of a lot of people, not the least the author of the code you're trying to make use of.
what part of "this is an email I sent to the author" don't you get?!
Just curious, but what exactly does your comment add to the discussion?
Actually, if you re-read the actual article, it says that the email was sent to the author to ask his opinion on the GPL/LGPL issue (ie. the same question that is being asked here), NOT whether the author will re-issue the software under another license.
Before flaming senselessly, please consider reading the text in question a little bit more carefully.
Just because the likes of Micro$oft cannot be bothered to use this stuff, does not mean that closed source can -never- deliver quality or security. It just costs more.
Agreed; however, who says that the CMM can't be applied to open source software as well? In all honesty, companies that are stringent in their code review are most likely developing critical systems. If such systems are developed by the open source community, there is no reason why some form of rigorous peer review could not be applied. However, open source code has the additional advantage of unstructured peer review to begin with.
While I agree that closed source software can achieve very low bugginess through rigorous peer review, open source code still has the advantage.
The string also appears in the DLL Mtd2lv.dll
Correction, that should be MDT2LV.DLL. But you're right, it is there as well! I'd be curious to see how many thousands more of these there are?
Actually, Proxima Centauri is Alpha Centauri C. Alpha Centauri consists of three stars; a double (A and B) and a loosly bound escaping star, C. A and B lie at 4.35 light-years from the sun, separated by about 23 AU, and C lies at about 4.22 ly from us, 13 000 AU from the other two.
I wouldn't say that atomfilms is useless and evil, but yes, ActiveX most definitely sucks (like pretty much anything Microsoft has attempted to design), and they really should redesign the site so that it looks good to people other than Windows users. From Linux, I'm able to view it, but it's not exactly pretty. I would assume that it works somewhat on a Mac...
Fortunately, they have provided content in RealPlayer format, and not just Windows Media Player, so that you're not entirely restricted to a Wintel box.
In any case, I think the animators that have allowed their work to be displayed on the web should be congratulated; they're certainly not useless and evil. The web site designer at Atom Films is the one who needs a talking to; not flames, but perhaps a little coersion.
--
On a related note, I thought that M$ had dumped craptiveX (or at least a limited subset) onto Mac users. I'm almost certain of that. Perhaps they ditched the effort? Still there would have to be Mac-compiled binaries of the controls to actually work, assuming that activeX stuff is actually compiled and not VB or something godawful like that. I suppose we can only hope that they never got around to polluting other platforms with that crap.
A bit offtopic, but the site that will be hosting the new Nick Park films, www.atomfilms.com, already has a ton of wonderful shorts on their site. My personal favourite has to be Jolly Roger, which is absolutely hilarious.
It's nice to see a group of people who, unlike some organisations we know, are committed to making full use of new technologies rather than launching litigation against anyone who sees potential in digital distribution.
On a related note, it's important to support sites like this. By spreading the word, and voicing your appreciation, we can encourage others to venture into this new realm of distribution. Don't let the MPAA control the course of technology! Support this kind of thing by downloading their stuff and possibly even buying a video/DVD of their animation. (No, I'm not affiliated with them, or the animation industry, in any way!)
As I say, it's great to see people who see the Internet as a great new means of distribution instead of a threat. Keep up the great work!
I never understood why everyone found it so difficult to copy DVD to VHS either. I copied several films (ummm, for testing purposes only) and the VHS output was just as good as any rental video. I certainly wouldn't think that they just forgot to put the copy protection on... it was the latest James Bond film (whose name I can't recall at the moment).
Perhaps it's because my VCR is so old? It's one of the very first front-loaders.
Are you sure about Canada producing the most beers?
Yes, Canada brews more TOTAL varieties of beer, BUT -- Belgians brew the most beers per capita, which is even better.
Quite true... remember the ill-fated attempt to introduce Budweiser beer (at the American 3%) to Canada? Remember their huge ad campaign where they attempted to re-market it by strengthening it to put it on par with our beer?
As someone else posted earlier, Canadians tend to dismiss American beers as being for "children and the elderly."
Not to say that all Canadian beers are great, either though. But when you've got as many breweries as we have, a few bad ones have to slip through. In terms of sheer numbers, Canada produces more brands of beer than any other nation on the planet. This is mostly the fault of beer itself, being that it doesn't transport well, so you've got to have a ton of breweries when you've got a country so damn large.
In any case, when you've got "Fin du Monde" and "Maudite" at 9 to 12%, in a 750mL bottle, there's not much American beers can do for you.
As for Guinness... it puts all of our beers to shame, at least here on Vancouver Island.
What I hate is all the unnatural dependencies on GNOME on RedHat systems. For instance, last night I upgraded my RH5.2 system to RH6.1. I have a lot of complaints about how this worked (like, why can't I cancel or at least unmount my drive? and why can't password-less users login or at least have root change their passwords), but the relevant complaint is the GNOME deps.
Ummm, no. I think your problem is RedHat. I use Gnome on Debian, and have never once had any problem with it. If you're a package manager kind of person, dpkg has never caused any dependency problems with me, and if you prefer tar.gz sources, just go to www.gnome.org and download the lot from their website.
If you're using RPMs and you've got dependency problems with Gnome, then RedHat is your problem.
Even that's not good enough. Section 6 of the GPL says that he can't impose additional restrictions on the distribution of the software, which he is doing.
Absolutely - I was just being goofy. On a more serious note though, it's unfortunate that people out there try to pull this kind of thing. What's worse is that he attempts to disguise his ploy as being good for the community.
As for his claim that the majority of people out there are demanding the source code to an application have no intention of making bugfixes/improvements, that's simply ludicrous at best. There are a ton of people volunteering a ton of their time to write great software out there - look at almost any open source project. Look at the FSF, Debian, Apache, XMMS... I could go on for a couple gazillion pages.
Fundamentally, if his goal was to incite more people to get into the spirit of the GPL, it would have made more sense to lead by example. Somehow I get the impression that his real intention has nothing to do with helping out... call me a skeptic.
Since the response from Slade claims that he is not restricting access to the code, he's just licensing the bandwidth, maybe someone would care to mirror the source? Or perhaps he doesn't have the bandwidth for that one transfer?
Hmmm, perhaps he'd be open to us sending him a self-addressed, stamped envelope, a ream of paper and some toner and asking for a printout?
Geez, it's hard to believe people are dumb enough to try stuff like this. Makes you wonder whether he ever bothered to read the GPL before making such a lame attempt at circumventing it...
Not to put a damper on your complaint, but I hope you're not a (GASP!) vegetarian! Remember, they're alive too. As the Arrogant Worms (a fine band) once put it:
I've heard the screams of the Vegetables (scream scream scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (Having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed without mercy (Burning off calories)
How do you think that feels? (Bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot Juice Constitutes Murder (And that's a real crime)
Greenhouses, prisons for slaves (Let my vegetables grow)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's as dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)
Save the veggies -- eat a cow!