How many entries for "hang around in parent's basement playing Everquest" does anybody really need?
Just proves that most free software is copied from ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ err.. "inspired by" commercial software./yeah, trolling.//still not wrong.
Yeah, but if you read the fine print that is only black to white transition. How long is black to green? Or white back to black? A hell of a lot longer, and that's why you still get "tails" and they suck ass for gaming.
That being said, I would love to have a good LCD for work because they do reduce my eye strain after 8 hours of staring at screens.
Ummm.... without R'ing the entire FA, I was under the impression that was how this particular DRM scheme worked. Setting some bit in the copy which would not allow a 3rd generation copy to be made.
But I still don't trust it and even moreso, I don't like my CD's to be crippled in any way, even backups. What if I lose the original, and can't backup my backup. Ugh. My head hurts.
Well, I guess it depends on how many copies you can make from the original. In every sane scenario that I know of, you copy the original, store it safely, and then use the copy. Hence the terms "master" and "working copy". If you lose the original and still have the copy, look at is as a lesson that cost you a few bucks to learn but really taught you something useful.
Nope, not at all. See my other reply above. I basically wonder why a company that out-lawyered the Justice Department needs Groklaw, or whether Groklaw is part of IBM's strategy.
No, I wasn't trolling, I was commenting on the overall tone of the writing on Groklaw. I know SCO doesn't have a case, but with the amount of crippling blows that they have been dealt they should have dried up and blown away long ago.
Groklaw *is* factual, and I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that PJ's commentary and explanations of those facts leave no question which side she is on. There is nothing wrong with that either.
Mostly I was wondering why she is on that side, and how she got there. If MOG's info is correct, she is far outside the Liunx enthusiast demographic that I had imagined. A Westchester paralegal taking up the grass-roots torch to defend IBM seems a bit to contrived to me. Maybe I'm just cynical.
I'd say she'd be discredited if she was actually paid by IBM, but just living in the same city? Give me a fucking break.
Well, how about this... She is a paralegal working for some number of years in an area where 90% of the jobs are tied to IBM in some way. Suddenly, when the SCO/IBM case hits she appears with a website and a fully formed opinion of the ethics of open vs. closed source. A couple of mentions around the web (including/.), and Groklaw becomes a pretty popular place to get info.
Not too bad for a 61-year old paralegal/journalist with a blog, no? Since Groklaw must take quite a bit of time to keep up she may be retired as well, and it might be interesting to know if she collects a pension and from whom.
Reading MOG's article shouldn't have influenced anybody's opinion about Groklaw or PJ in the slightest. It has always been obvious that they had an agenda of taking down SCO wherever they were. SCO's problems are always reported as crippling flaws, IBM's problems are "setbacks". It's a very nice PR job, and they do it very well. Is it being paid for, or somebody hurting SCO on their own time? I have no idea.
And just to be clear, MOG's article was nauseating. The potential for harassment and even injury by publishing phone numbers and addresses is unforgivable. Bringing to light who PJ is would have been fine in a broad sense, but stalker level detail is scary.
Groklaw = Site run by PJ. pro-linux, OSS, free software site. Particularly anti-SCO as well.
Maureen O'Gara = Journalist who is either a paid shill for SCO or just amazingly sensationalistic.
Apparently there was some mystery about exactly who PJ is and what her credentials are since Groklaw is such an influential site in the SCO/IBM case. O'Gara found out who she is, and definitely overstepped the bounds of decency by publishing street addresses for her and her son.
People were pissed, so O'Gara's articles have been pulled off some web sites. Apparently the publisher's sense of moral outrage only kicked in when facing advertising boycotts.
Tempest in a teacup, but interesting none the less.
Probably to stop every good feature of Solaris from being ripped out and shoved into the next release of other OSes. Why is it impossible for people to understand that it is the ability to pay talented people that drives the development of these features?
While you revisited it, the most important thing is the fact that apparently BitKeeper *is* a delicate piece of software. Regardless of what it _should_ be. It should have been Linus' responsibility to move it to something open and stable, but apparently he didn't make it a priority and is now paying for it.
If Tridge's client had introduced some wide-spread corruption, or somebody less talented tweaks the client to do something bad, who has the responsibility to fix it? It can't be BitKeeper since it isn't their client that broke it.
BitKeeper can't allow just any client to connect to the databases simply as a matter of common sense. They have to believe (to a reasonable degree) that the clients can not introduce corruption.
In the end, Tridge didn't do anything illegal, immoral, or unethical. It was just unwise.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but hat should still be good, right? A machine with N processors is not N-times faster than it's single processor equivalent. I thought there was a rule that every time you double the number of processors you can increase the performance by 50%. Something to do with shared resources limiting operations.
Of course I'm not a hardware engineer, and I could be completely wrong.
If you're recommending to a non-geek, the appropriate recommendation is whichever machine is going to work best for their application, not the one _you_ think is the coolest.
I think the problem here is the definition of "journalist". Just because this will be posted on/. doesn't make me a journalist, and neither does it make anybody who can put some crap up on a web site. (Bloggers are not journalists)
I tend to side with Apple on this one because it's obvious that the information was obtained through unethical means _and_ has absolutely no value to society as a whole. It was simply done for the personal glory of the "journalist" and has no other value.
Still, I don't think that sources should have to be revealed. I think there can be a choice between revealing the source, and a hefty monetary penalty for knowingly publishing information obtained illegally.
"I would say in a Military organization there is a difference in the way speech is interpreted as it is more than speaking,"
OK, but before that Hitler was just some guy, you know? (apologies to Douglas Adams).
Seriously, I understand your example for military action but I think there are still enough exceptions to the "military" definition.
Leaders of dubious clans, so called "militia" groups, etc. Jim Jones is still responsible for the Jonestown Kool-Aid in my opinion. David Koresh (sp?) and the Waco, Texas incident is another example. People preyed on others and caused those others to commit violent or grevious acts. The people who led the group, regardless of their personal crimes (defined by: did they pull the trigger) are still responsible. They used their influence to direct the actions of others.
IMLAO (LA = Lame Ass), it's like pointing a car with no brakes down a hill. I don't think it's correct to claim any injury in that case as "accidental" and hold nobody responsible. I know that a car has no free will, etc.... but I've always been amazed at what people can be talked into too.
Anyway, thanks for the counterpoint and the politeness in which you presented your views.
"I think all speech should be free and allowed, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, people should be held accountable by their actions not what sounds are made from their mouths..."
I had a longer example, but I'll just Godwin and leave...
By your logic, Hitler was blameless for any deaths in WWII unless he personally pulled the trigger. He gave orders that killed millions of people, but those were just words and the full blame fell on those who carried out those orders.
I don't feel that can be right even if it means that there have to be limits on what you can call "free" speech.
Free speech is an inalienable human right, not a matter of law.
Just because something is physically possible does not make it an inalienable right. Are death threats free speech?
What you are really allowed to say is already a matter of law. "Hate" speech is already illegal in some instances, and I think it is illegal in Canada to deny the Holocaust happened. Regardless of the overwhelming physical evidence, isn't that just free speech? If I can incite a bunch of racists or homophobes to the point of murder, should I be held unaccountable if all I did was talk?
Americans have the freedom to associate with organizations in the religious and commercial sphere that don't respect that right
And they also have the right not to. However, once they voluntarily associate with those organizations they should be bound by the wishes/conventions of the society. It's a simple matter of not biting the hand that feeds you. If you want to bite, you should expect (and maybe deserve) to go hungry.
But Linux isn't particularly designed for Intel processors. In fact, it's probably the most multiplatform operating system in existence.
True. My thought, and probably not expressed too clearly, was that it is the power of commodity x86 hardware that makes Linux possible.
Linux on Sparc or Risc would only have be of academic interest since there were already other capable OSes available for those platforms. And in those cases (Sparc stations, RS6000) the cost of the OS was negligible compared to the hardware you were running it on. (Although, in an amazing way, that is still true with Linux.)
So why not have the people working on Hurd work on something new instead, or work on improving Linux? Competition can also hurt, by splitting up the resources into many small parts...
I agree completely. All these HURD and Linux developers should quit and start working on Solaris 10. Makes perfect sense.
In a way Linux owes it's entire existence to Microsoft, and not just because of the anti-monopoly/anti-corporation backlash.
In reality, it has been the demands of Microsoft operating systems that have pushed the x86 architecture so hard that it is now possible to actually do some decent work with them. Solaris on Sparc, AIX on RISC, etc., all of them would still be the faster machines, and if you needed to run x86 BSD would have been fine.
Not to say that there wouldn't have been processor improvement, of course. But the whole industry was driven by the MS/Intel machine.
same why everybody jumps down Nvidia's throat for not open sourcing their video drivers while completely ignoring that they can't due to the legal actions brough against them by SGI
Slashdot Mirror
How many entries for "hang around in parent's basement playing Everquest" does anybody really need?
/yeah, trolling. //still not wrong.
Just proves that most free software is copied from ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ err.. "inspired by" commercial software.
Yeah, but if you read the fine print that is only black to white transition. How long is black to green? Or white back to black? A hell of a lot longer, and that's why you still get "tails" and they suck ass for gaming.
That being said, I would love to have a good LCD for work because they do reduce my eye strain after 8 hours of staring at screens.
Ummm.... without R'ing the entire FA, I was under the impression that was how this particular DRM scheme worked. Setting some bit in the copy which would not allow a 3rd generation copy to be made.
But I still don't trust it and even moreso, I don't like my CD's to be crippled in any way, even backups. What if I lose the original, and can't backup my backup. Ugh. My head hurts.
Well, I guess it depends on how many copies you can make from the original. In every sane scenario that I know of, you copy the original, store it safely, and then use the copy. Hence the terms "master" and "working copy". If you lose the original and still have the copy, look at is as a lesson that cost you a few bucks to learn but really taught you something useful.
It really isn't that hard. While you're playing the "won't somebody think of the children" angle pretty well, it just doesn't cut it.
300 people on a plane or a couple of thousand on the ground is an ugly decision, but not a hard one at all.
I dunno... Are you aware of any prior art where two strings can be compared? And what if the program *did* something if the strings were the same?
Yeah, I can't think of any either.
Nope, not at all. See my other reply above. I basically wonder why a company that out-lawyered the Justice Department needs Groklaw, or whether Groklaw is part of IBM's strategy.
No, I wasn't trolling, I was commenting on the overall tone of the writing on Groklaw. I know SCO doesn't have a case, but with the amount of crippling blows that they have been dealt they should have dried up and blown away long ago.
Groklaw *is* factual, and I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that PJ's commentary and explanations of those facts leave no question which side she is on. There is nothing wrong with that either.
Mostly I was wondering why she is on that side, and how she got there. If MOG's info is correct, she is far outside the Liunx enthusiast demographic that I had imagined. A Westchester paralegal taking up the grass-roots torch to defend IBM seems a bit to contrived to me. Maybe I'm just cynical.
Well, how about this... She is a paralegal working for some number of years in an area where 90% of the jobs are tied to IBM in some way. Suddenly, when the SCO/IBM case hits she appears with a website and a fully formed opinion of the ethics of open vs. closed source. A couple of mentions around the web (including /.), and Groklaw becomes a pretty popular place to get info.
Not too bad for a 61-year old paralegal/journalist with a blog, no? Since Groklaw must take quite a bit of time to keep up she may be retired as well, and it might be interesting to know if she collects a pension and from whom.
Reading MOG's article shouldn't have influenced anybody's opinion about Groklaw or PJ in the slightest. It has always been obvious that they had an agenda of taking down SCO wherever they were. SCO's problems are always reported as crippling flaws, IBM's problems are "setbacks". It's a very nice PR job, and they do it very well. Is it being paid for, or somebody hurting SCO on their own time? I have no idea.
And just to be clear, MOG's article was nauseating. The potential for harassment and even injury by publishing phone numbers and addresses is unforgivable. Bringing to light who PJ is would have been fine in a broad sense, but stalker level detail is scary.
summary, mostly unbiased....
Groklaw = Site run by PJ. pro-linux, OSS, free software site. Particularly anti-SCO as well.
Maureen O'Gara = Journalist who is either a paid shill for SCO or just amazingly sensationalistic.
Apparently there was some mystery about exactly who PJ is and what her credentials are since Groklaw is such an influential site in the SCO/IBM case. O'Gara found out who she is, and definitely overstepped the bounds of decency by publishing street addresses for her and her son.
People were pissed, so O'Gara's articles have been pulled off some web sites. Apparently the publisher's sense of moral outrage only kicked in when facing advertising boycotts.
Tempest in a teacup, but interesting none the less.
Why are they limiting themselves in this fashion?
Probably to stop every good feature of Solaris from being ripped out and shoved into the next release of other OSes. Why is it impossible for people to understand that it is the ability to pay talented people that drives the development of these features?
While you revisited it, the most important thing is the fact that apparently BitKeeper *is* a delicate piece of software. Regardless of what it _should_ be. It should have been Linus' responsibility to move it to something open and stable, but apparently he didn't make it a priority and is now paying for it.
If Tridge's client had introduced some wide-spread corruption, or somebody less talented tweaks the client to do something bad, who has the responsibility to fix it? It can't be BitKeeper since it isn't their client that broke it.
BitKeeper can't allow just any client to connect to the databases simply as a matter of common sense. They have to believe (to a reasonable degree) that the clients can not introduce corruption.
In the end, Tridge didn't do anything illegal, immoral, or unethical. It was just unwise.
So does that make it hurt more or less that he's right?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but hat should still be good, right? A machine with N processors is not N-times faster than it's single processor equivalent. I thought there was a rule that every time you double the number of processors you can increase the performance by 50%. Something to do with shared resources limiting operations.
Of course I'm not a hardware engineer, and I could be completely wrong.
If you're recommending to a non-geek, the appropriate recommendation is whichever machine is going to work best for their application, not the one _you_ think is the coolest.
which was sweet revenge for when Apple stole it from Xerox....
I think the problem here is the definition of "journalist". Just because this will be posted on /. doesn't make me a journalist, and neither does it make anybody who can put some crap up on a web site. (Bloggers are not journalists)
I tend to side with Apple on this one because it's obvious that the information was obtained through unethical means _and_ has absolutely no value to society as a whole. It was simply done for the personal glory of the "journalist" and has no other value.
Still, I don't think that sources should have to be revealed. I think there can be a choice between revealing the source, and a hefty monetary penalty for knowingly publishing information obtained illegally.
Probably much more like: /* well, Bill is still a douchebag, so here goes the "extended" standard crap */
/* Instead of doing this right, we'll just keep doing it our way */
/* let's see those Open Source assholes figure this one out */
or
and don't forget
"I would say in a Military organization there is a difference in the way speech is interpreted as it is more than speaking,"
OK, but before that Hitler was just some guy, you know? (apologies to Douglas Adams).
Seriously, I understand your example for military action but I think there are still enough exceptions to the "military" definition.
Leaders of dubious clans, so called "militia" groups, etc. Jim Jones is still responsible for the Jonestown Kool-Aid in my opinion. David Koresh (sp?) and the Waco, Texas incident is another example. People preyed on others and caused those others to commit violent or grevious acts. The people who led the group, regardless of their personal crimes (defined by: did they pull the trigger) are still responsible. They used their influence to direct the actions of others.
IMLAO (LA = Lame Ass), it's like pointing a car with no brakes down a hill. I don't think it's correct to claim any injury in that case as "accidental" and hold nobody responsible. I know that a car has no free will, etc.... but I've always been amazed at what people can be talked into too.
Anyway, thanks for the counterpoint and the politeness in which you presented your views.
"I think all speech should be free and allowed, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, people should be held accountable by their actions not what sounds are made from their mouths..."
I had a longer example, but I'll just Godwin and leave...
By your logic, Hitler was blameless for any deaths in WWII unless he personally pulled the trigger. He gave orders that killed millions of people, but those were just words and the full blame fell on those who carried out those orders.
I don't feel that can be right even if it means that there have to be limits on what you can call "free" speech.
True. My thought, and probably not expressed too clearly, was that it is the power of commodity x86 hardware that makes Linux possible.
Linux on Sparc or Risc would only have be of academic interest since there were already other capable OSes available for those platforms. And in those cases (Sparc stations, RS6000) the cost of the OS was negligible compared to the hardware you were running it on. (Although, in an amazing way, that is still true with Linux.)
In a way Linux owes it's entire existence to Microsoft, and not just because of the anti-monopoly/anti-corporation backlash.
In reality, it has been the demands of Microsoft operating systems that have pushed the x86 architecture so hard that it is now possible to actually do some decent work with them. Solaris on Sparc, AIX on RISC, etc., all of them would still be the faster machines, and if you needed to run x86 BSD would have been fine.
Not to say that there wouldn't have been processor improvement, of course. But the whole industry was driven by the MS/Intel machine.
nobody brings that up because this is /.
corporations = evil
software communism = good
same why everybody jumps down Nvidia's throat for not open sourcing their video drivers while completely ignoring that they can't due to the legal actions brough against them by SGI