GPL allows linking (dynamic and static) to libraries that are not GPL compliant if they are considered a part of the OS.
Define OS. This is a weakness in the GPL. Linking to anything from GPLed code should be allowed. IMHO linking anything dynamically to GPLed code should be allowed as well; a library simply provides the implementation of an API. Should a proprietary app be prevented from calling a GPLed ls?
So, for instance, I take work "myprog.o" and add "libqt.a" and create work "myprog". "myprog" is a derivative work of a GPL'd work "myprog.o" and a non-GPL'd work "libqt.a".
That is one opinion. IMHO it is incorrect. I've always thought that the whole linking issue has been viewed incorrectly. It comes from looking not at source code, but at executable files. The important thing is that GPLed code remain GPLed. The executables are generated by the compiler. What if an OS-provided compiler is used which links in a propietary library without which the program cannot run? It is insane to say that this is wrong. If the GPL does disallow this, then it should be modified.
I doubt that it really does disallow it. As has been pointed out before, Stallman himself has written code which had to link in proprietary libraries.
The LGPL is currently needed, but the reason is that the solution of simply including source to statically-linked GPL libraries is not satisfactory; it is not possible to replace them. Dynamically linking, OTOH, solves this problem. The GPL should be modified to allow dynamic linking with distribution of source and static linking with distribution of source on platforms which still do not have dynamic linking. Then we can get rid of the GPL.
IMHO, the idea of `derived work' has been taken too far. A program is not a derived work of a library; otherwise I would have to pay Apple for every program I write on a Mac, or M$ for every program I write on Windows. A library provides the other end of an API.
The GPL does not prohibit deriving GPLed works from proprietary object code. Otherwise every single older FSF project would be GPL-incompatible.
The GPL restricts distribution of a GPL program unless you can provide the entire source of the program down to virtually the OS level, including libraries and everything needed to make the program work, under terms no less restricive than the GPL, with the exception of components that are part of the operating system.
Wrong. The GPL prevents redistribution of a program unless you provide the entire source of the program. Period. As has been pointed out before, GPLed software can be written for any platform (where platform = hardware + OS + libraries). Even granted your mistaken belief, I challenge you to define `operating system.' Acc. to the strict and proper definition, the OS is only the bit which deals with resource allocation--it's not the shells, not the libraries, not the graphics systems, not the window managers, not the desktop environment; it's none of those. And yet GPLed software has been written under those circumstances. The license hasn't changed. Thus, if that GPLed software were legal (one hopes so, since that family includes emacs and gcc), then your phrase `operating system' is equivalent to my `platform,' and Qt, being a library, fits into that category. Ergo, GPLed programs may be linked against Qt.
This reminds me of the FUD spread by the anti-GPL folks, that software compiled with gcc could only legally be itself GPLed.
So, for your wrapup, that's essentially what KDE does when it takes other peoples GPL code, ports it to the old-style-licensed Qt, and then distribute it. Someone's property, made semi-proprietary through dependencies. That is the reason people have been rather upset.
It takes GPLed code, modifies it and releases those modifications under the GPL, as it is required to do. No law has been broken; the GPL has been followed. So where is the cause for complaint? That someone has modified one's code? Is that not one of the reasons for the GPL to begin with? It is no more semi-proprietary than code written against Motif or on a proprietary OS is.
Did you even read the article? If you did I am forced to wonder if your brain is functioning properly.
There is nothing illegal with linking GPLed code to non-GPL libraries!
As the article states, people were writing GPLed software against the uber-proprietary Motif libraries for years. Emacs made system calls on non-free OSes. There is nothing illegal about writing GPLed code which uses the Qt API and libraries.
One keeps seeing this, and it is wrong. It is pure FUD spread by some zealots--GNOME users? GPL fanatics? who knows.
Disclosure: I dislike KDE, but agree that Qt is much more attractive than GTK. I like the GPL and support it. Doesn't mean that I support fanatics in their zealotry or their lies.
I'm well aware that the poor have a rotten life. I also tend to give them quite a few handouts quite willingly, through my volunteer work and my charitable donations. I have seen first-hand that they do not have a free ride.
But to a government they look as though they do. A government takes money from the rich, gives some to the poor and pockets the rest. If it reduces the number of the poor, it can keep more. Every additional kid at $10 a month adds up to hundreds of millions over the country. And each one of those has a certain likelihood of growing up to be poor. A government wishes to eradicate its poor in order that it have more money to spend on, say, campaign contributors.
OTOH, private citizens tend to wish to eliminate poverty by raising the lot of the poor, by giving them a hand up. Not that everyone will ever be well-off; someone, after all, must do all the nasty jobs the world has but does not reward: toilet cleaners, janitors, farm labourers &c. But allowing people to better themselves can help keep this number at its minimum, while keeping them down with handouts--however small--can only hurt in the long run. Look at the old Eastern Bloc; how well off were they under socialism? Look at Sweden, for that matter.
Socialism is a Bad Idea which leads to all sorts of inhumanity (the Communists were socialists, the Nazis were socialists, the Fascists were socialists &c. &c. &c.). It tends to do rotten things to individuals for the sake of the multitude. A free market may do rotten things to multitudes, but is kind to any individual.
I'm an individual, not a multitude. Which path do you think I'll take?
Therefore socialized, rich countries have a lower birth rate. It's a fact.
Rich countries have lower birth rates. Most countries are socialist. Ethiopia is socialist. Tanzania (or whatever it's calling itself this week) is socialist. Haiti is, AFAIK, socialist. So are England, Germany and France. So, unfortunately, is the US. Socialism has little to do with birth rate; look to wealth.
Of course, socialism does tend to bleed the wealth of a nation. Look at Sweden if you want to know what Europe will look like in fifty years to a century.
Poor populations are especially bad; they cost far more than they put in.
Prove it. Troll.
Simple enough: the poor receive money from the government. They do not put as much money into the state. Ergo, they cost the government more than they profit it.
My point is not that they cost us (although that could be argued, perh.). It is that a government will attempt to limit population when that population costs it, and attempt to increase population when that populations profits it. It's only natural. And now that governments find that citizens, esp. the least-well-off, cost it, it becomes natural to look at said citizens as a drag.
Which is why socialism is bad for the poor; the government will try to limit their ranks and breed them out of existence. Why do you think that Sanger passed out birth control info to the poor? Why do you think that `population activists' are always complaining about brown babies but not about white? They're a bunch of racists and classists who want to eradicate those who are not of their own kind, and do it under the guise of compassion.
Were welfare not to exist, the poor would be able to determine the appropriate tradeoff point between more children as a retirement policy in the future and more children as mouths to feed now. Moreover, they would also have to live with the consequences of that decision. As it is now, they have all sorts of strange incentives. They get paid more money for more children. Or maybe not; maybe they lose money with more children, even though they may need them, opr in a fair world would realise a benefit due to them. We are unable to accurately foresee all results of economic actions. Meddle not in the affairs of the free market, for it is complex and prone to anger.
That's the beauty of a market. For the most part people have one kid at a time; they have eveyr opportunity to decide how many they can afford. If they have too many, well that is their problem. No skin off my nose; I don't pay for them.
Except that I do: school taxes, welfare payments, social benefits all through life. We need to get rid of these things; then people can have however many children they want. It's a problem which fixes itself. If people want to have too many kids, let 'em. They'll pay for them.
In a modern socialised government population is a detriment, not a benefit. Poor populations are especially bad; they cost far more than they put in. So these governments naturally try to reduce their populations. In a sane government, population is a good thing; even poor people input something into the economy. We need to stop handing out money to people. That is not the function of the State. Were we to stop, then we could honour the rights of the populace and be making economically sound decisions. The best of both worlds.
I posted that because a lot of people seem to see the justice system as the opponent. It's not; it is the means for defeating our opponents. Yes, it does make mistakes. But for the most part it works.
I'm quite libertarian myself, but I've noticed a disturbing anarchist streak among some. One must have some structure in order for us to preserve our rights. If there were no copyright and copyleft were the rule of the day, then software would merely be released under licenses agreeing to certain terms. At least copyright expires 70 years after the owner's death; those licenses would prob. never expire.
We need to learn to use the tools with which we are provided. The court system can be an effective weapon against proprietary software houses which steal our code. Let them release their proprietary software; over time we will exceed their capabilities and in the long run they will go out of business. But if they infringe on our territory, we should be merciless. Can you say punitive damages?
Once again, I believe that the point was that atm it is damn difficult to port a JFS to Linux. How can one use the familiar one if the familiar one does not exist on our platform?
That's the whole point of the GPL: it says not to do anything bad. You see, if the software is in the public domain, then anyone can use it, modify it, repackage it &c. Were Linux PD, M$ could release change the source in a few places, release M$ Linux and charge $100 for it, all while ensuring that their proprietary changes break ordinary Linux kernels. suits would love this: `M$ Linux--see, it has to be better than that weird RodHut, um RidHot, um RedHat thingy!'
The GPL can be a nuisance sometimes, it's true. But so can anything else. The GPL serves its purpose admirably well: to ensure that ones code remains free and unfettered. It does not exist to make programmer's lives easier. The BSD makes a programmer's life easier, but it does not preserve the freedom of the software-as-a-whole (obviously the original software remains free). One chooses the license which one wants.
That would be woefully misleading and has great potential for intellectual damage. While the justice system can and does make many mistakes, we must still abide under it, for without it there is no order at all. Without a justice system, we could not sue for violations of the GPL. That would be a Bad Thing. Almost every contract states that if some provisions are ruled unlawful then the balance still is binding; this is SOP.
Your obtuseness is truly profound. Let me explain again, in small steps so you might understand.
There are two types of information transfers: official and personal. Personal transfers are the business of the concerned parties, and hence not our concern. But official--business, gov't, educational &c.--transfers are. The purpose of these transfers is to exchange data in a usable form. It is not to be pretty or attractive. One does not dress up 30GB of atmospheric data with pictures of clouds.
The problem is that these transfers have not been computerised. Open, well-thought out formats should be proposed and used so that this information might be transferred in a comprehensible and portable fashion. Comprehensible, because if one cannot understand information, then it is garbage. Portable, because oen never knows what tomorrow may bring and what the requirements then will be.
It just so happens that we have the perfect format for data exchange of text: text. A purchase order should either be sent over a special Purchase Order Protocol ('cept POP's already taken), or sent as text. A paper--which needs formatting--should be encoded in such a way that presentation is seperated from content. A discussion among colleagues concerning the purchase of a new web server should be conducted over email, in text. Why add the useless overhead of Word? It slows things down, fills up disk space and is in many other ways sub-optimal.
Text can be made attractive as well as expressive: I can set my mail reader to use any font I desire; I can attach images in the appropriate places; I can use the ASCII notations for emphasis and the rest. But, unfortunately, that requires that my brain be engaged.
I handle the whole MS Word problem by silently throwing away Word documents I receive in my personal mail. When I send documents, they are either plain text or marked-up text; either is perfectly legible to the casual reader. Sometimes I use image files (PostScript, PDF, JPEG or PNG), if that is nec.
BTW, charts and diagrams should be images, in formats readable by anyone, or if important, they should be in the form of data, which can be easily interpreted by the user as he wishes. One of the things I hate is just getting a chart. I want the data, so I can look at it, analyse it and generate my own charts. You'd be surprised at how easy it can be to make a chart lie...
I believe that he meant not leveraging one over the other, but leveraging the benefits of a JFS on Linux over other, less-capable OSes. What does one do in a predominantly Linux environment? The ideal, after all, is world domination:-)
Well, not all weddings. I know that in Orthodox weddings the bride & groom walk up the aisle together. Western Christian weddings, and weddings influenced by them, do have the father give the bride away.
Granted, in this case it is a Western wedding, and therefore that's her father (or some other relative) alongside her.
They didn't make a mistake; they took a gamble. They won that gamble, and as a result lived (at least until the Aytollah took voer and killed most of 'em anyway).
It's like the example of one's root password. That is information which must remain privileged. Same with spies, military plans &c.
From a user perspective, printer independent printing can't be done on Unix in any practical sense.
That's odd, since for years the computer world exchanged, on Unix systems (and others), documents in a true printer-independent format: PostScript. Remember the days when we cursed our personal computers because we could just cat doc.ps >/dev/lpr? And for those of us with non-PS printers, there were all sorts of transparent filters. We were able to transfer documents, with layout and everything, exactly as written, if we needed to. Which was precious seldom...
Does anyone use any formats other than.doc universally? No.
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. Dan, show our contestant the consolation prize...
There is one format which is universally used, which everyone connected to the Internet can read. That format is text. Over the last thirty years the text format has grown to encompass conventions for the enclosure of every form of content imaginable. Most users have multiple text readers on their machines: cat, less, more, Notepad, SimpleText, Eudora, MailSmith, Emailer, Netscape, IE, Opera, slrn, strn, NewsWatcher &c. ad infinitum.
There is no question that there is a benefit to a universal document exchange format that everyone understands.
You're right. We had one: text. It was used to exchange information--you know: data, useful stuff, what is needed. Now we have.doc, which is used for the interchange of data covered in dressing, gravy and all the fixins. Why? What is added by allowing every second-rate secretary to use seven fonts in a purchase order?
to the tune of Oh Give Me a Home... Oh give me the days Of the ASCII term haze Where seldom was heard A proprietary word And the data flew swiftly all day!
But in Word they are combined. You are thinking of things such as LaTeX in which presentation is separated from content. You can take the same LaTeX document and present it in any number of ways, simply by changing the style files you use it with. Most people who use Word do not use styles, and even if they did they view their documents with those styles applied; AFAIK there is no `view as plain text' option. One should not be concerned with the look of a document; mark it up properly and use a well-written set of styles; this guarantees excellent output.
Autoformat
Embedding
Underlining of misspelled words
Master document
Why do we need autoformatting? We convert plain text to...plain text.
Embedding? Why should a document need anything but pictures in it? Like it or not, the vast majority of documents will be printed, not viewed on-screen. If they are to be viewed on-screen, then use a computer-specific tool, not something which was designed to output printed text. Use the right tool for the right job.
Spell checker? This is the greatest nuisance in Word. I happen to use the (correct) British spellings for most words, and since the versions of Word at work do not have the International English dictionaries I am stuck. I turn it off. Spelling is not something which everyone agrees on; that's fine and IMHO as it should be. The idea that spellings should be standardised is very modern, dating as recently as the introduction of the printing press.
Master document? Most every text layout program I know of allows one to include other files within the main one.
Your problem is that you are looking for personal computer, WYSIWYG-type software when Unix has something far, far better, and has had for quite some time now.
I used LaTeX for all my papers my final year of college, and I noted that my grades were rather significantly better. People appreciate well-laid out text, not the ugly stuff spat out by Word.
It's less a ripoff of Everything and more a ripoff of Project Glactic Guide. Been around since 1991, a long time before Everything was a glint in the milkman's eye. But PGG is honest that it rips off HGTTG, so it all works out in the end.
GnuCash no longer uses Motif; in fact, this is not even an option anymore. It is now entirely GTK. Personally, I preferred Motif, not for looks but for speed and the ability to override everything easily (when will GTK respect.Xdefaults?).
I have been using GnuCash for about nine months and am quite pleased with it. It works very well and gets better with each release. Its documentation has been written with the aid of real accountants; I have actually gotten a good feel for my financial situation, something wh. IMHO Quicken does a rather poor job of, for some reason. I really enjoy using GnuCash. Now if only they would get it to start up faster...
Could it be that clueless newbies are confusing the loading of cached copies by IE as "faster loading"?
What's the difference? Yes, to you and me there is one, but users care about how fast pages load, period. If IE has better caching technology, Mozilla should adopt it. And then improve on it. No sense standing by saying `well, it's really just as fast, you just don't notice.' Perception is sometimes more important than fact...
Re:this would save me seconds a week!
on
Linux BIOS
·
· Score: 2
What is your problem with it? People pay for electricity; they are not given it for free. Those fees pay for the power plants, pay for the engineers, pay for the secretaries and everything else. If anything, electricity rates are too high due to the power monopolies. Or perhaps you are bitter because Americans have enough disposable income to pay for electricity...
Regarding having jury trial, I don't think that any plain speeding ticket even CAN ever get a jury. It's just too minor to clog up the court system with.
In the US, the Constitution guarantees a jury trial for matters of more than $20, so if the ticket is more than that (and all are), you can get one if you ask. If it is denied, you don't have to pay a cent. Of course, $20 used to be a lot more, but it's the government's fault for allowing inflation instead of fixing the dollar.
Re:Sorry, but I don't see that this is very useful
on
Berlin 0.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2
You make two points: utility of transparency (or the lack thereof) and utility of non-pixel dimensions. I would like to address both.
I think that Apple's Aqua--as bad as I think it is on some points--demonstrates the utility of transaprency and translucency in a GUI. It cna be used to give the user the feeling of being immersed--almost a 2 1/2D experience. Transparency is not the most useful of features IMHO, but translucency can be used to great effect. There is no good reason that a window should not very faintly show up behind another. It gives the user more information, in a controlled fashion. This is a Good Thing.
It can also be used to make an interface more attractive. This is not as immediately useful, but it is a fact that we are more comfortable with attractive things than with those which are, shall we say, ugly. Why is it that every few years every GUI gets some sort of facelift? Because people want an attractive interface. It's the same reason that car interiors change. It's Style.
As far as pixel-based vs. measurement-based systems go, I think that it is pretty unarguable that measurement-based systems are superior. The only reason for being pixel-based is that it removes a layer of processing. But wiht more powerful computers, this is not such an issue. It just makes more sense. Granted, individual pixels are still visible (at least on screen; try seeing one dot in a 600 dpi printout), but this will not be so forever. Resolution-independence is a Good Thing because it simplifies printing, because it simplifies changes in monitors and monitor parameters and because it uses a scheme which is familiar to users (whether that scheme be inches or centimetres, we've grown accustomed to using them). In addition this solves the problem of screwy fonts (can you say Windows?). Fonts are defined in points, which are 1/72 of an inch; with a measurement-based system, fonts will display perfectly, and at the exact size specified, both on-screen and printed.
BTW, for those who hate metric and those who hate English units, I imagine that any display scheme is going to use its own internal measurements, translating to the user's preference. So the rest of the world need not worry about font sizes measured in old-fashioned points screwing up their displays, and I don't need to try to think in millimetres. This way we're all happy and all compatible. What a thought!
Don't forget that there are more than a few people who browse with JavaScript and other DHTML stuff always off. It is more than a little annoying to have to sqitch it on for any app.
IMHO the switch to browser interfaces was due to laziness and `acceptable level of mediocrity'-style thinking. Far far better in terms of UI, ease-of-use, attractiveness and speed IMHO is the binary client. I understand from others (never done it myself, so I will not preach it as true) that it is not too difficult to abstract away platform-specific GUI code and leave the internal logic of the app intact. I admit that I am a bit sceptical, as some platforms (e.g. Mac OS) are inherently different even in re. very high-level concepts of control flow.
But please, in the name of all that is holy, please do not use a JavaScript/Java browser monstrosity. Blecchh.
Slashdot Mirror
GPL allows linking (dynamic and static) to libraries that are not GPL compliant if they are considered a part of the OS.
Define OS. This is a weakness in the GPL. Linking to anything from GPLed code should be allowed. IMHO linking anything dynamically to GPLed code should be allowed as well; a library simply provides the implementation of an API. Should a proprietary app be prevented from calling a GPLed ls?
So, for instance, I take work "myprog.o" and add "libqt.a" and create work "myprog". "myprog" is a derivative work of a GPL'd work "myprog.o" and a non-GPL'd work "libqt.a".
That is one opinion. IMHO it is incorrect. I've always thought that the whole linking issue has been viewed incorrectly. It comes from looking not at source code, but at executable files. The important thing is that GPLed code remain GPLed. The executables are generated by the compiler. What if an OS-provided compiler is used which links in a propietary library without which the program cannot run? It is insane to say that this is wrong. If the GPL does disallow this, then it should be modified.
I doubt that it really does disallow it. As has been pointed out before, Stallman himself has written code which had to link in proprietary libraries.
The LGPL is currently needed, but the reason is that the solution of simply including source to statically-linked GPL libraries is not satisfactory; it is not possible to replace them. Dynamically linking, OTOH, solves this problem. The GPL should be modified to allow dynamic linking with distribution of source and static linking with distribution of source on platforms which still do not have dynamic linking. Then we can get rid of the GPL.
IMHO, the idea of `derived work' has been taken too far. A program is not a derived work of a library; otherwise I would have to pay Apple for every program I write on a Mac, or M$ for every program I write on Windows. A library provides the other end of an API.
The GPL does not prohibit deriving GPLed works from proprietary object code. Otherwise every single older FSF project would be GPL-incompatible.
The GPL restricts distribution of a GPL program unless you can provide the entire source of the program down to virtually the OS level, including libraries and everything needed to make the program work, under terms no less restricive than the GPL, with the exception of components that are part of the operating system.
Wrong. The GPL prevents redistribution of a program unless you provide the entire source of the program. Period. As has been pointed out before, GPLed software can be written for any platform (where platform = hardware + OS + libraries). Even granted your mistaken belief, I challenge you to define `operating system.' Acc. to the strict and proper definition, the OS is only the bit which deals with resource allocation--it's not the shells, not the libraries, not the graphics systems, not the window managers, not the desktop environment; it's none of those. And yet GPLed software has been written under those circumstances. The license hasn't changed. Thus, if that GPLed software were legal (one hopes so, since that family includes emacs and gcc), then your phrase `operating system' is equivalent to my `platform,' and Qt, being a library, fits into that category. Ergo, GPLed programs may be linked against Qt.
This reminds me of the FUD spread by the anti-GPL folks, that software compiled with gcc could only legally be itself GPLed.
So, for your wrapup, that's essentially what KDE does when it takes other peoples GPL code, ports it to the old-style-licensed Qt, and then distribute it. Someone's property, made semi-proprietary through dependencies. That is the reason people have been rather upset.
It takes GPLed code, modifies it and releases those modifications under the GPL, as it is required to do. No law has been broken; the GPL has been followed. So where is the cause for complaint? That someone has modified one's code? Is that not one of the reasons for the GPL to begin with? It is no more semi-proprietary than code written against Motif or on a proprietary OS is.
There is nothing illegal with linking GPLed code to non-GPL libraries!
As the article states, people were writing GPLed software against the uber-proprietary Motif libraries for years. Emacs made system calls on non-free OSes. There is nothing illegal about writing GPLed code which uses the Qt API and libraries.
One keeps seeing this, and it is wrong. It is pure FUD spread by some zealots--GNOME users? GPL fanatics? who knows.
Disclosure: I dislike KDE, but agree that Qt is much more attractive than GTK. I like the GPL and support it. Doesn't mean that I support fanatics in their zealotry or their lies.
I'm well aware that the poor have a rotten life. I also tend to give them quite a few handouts quite willingly, through my volunteer work and my charitable donations. I have seen first-hand that they do not have a free ride.
But to a government they look as though they do. A government takes money from the rich, gives some to the poor and pockets the rest. If it reduces the number of the poor, it can keep more. Every additional kid at $10 a month adds up to hundreds of millions over the country. And each one of those has a certain likelihood of growing up to be poor. A government wishes to eradicate its poor in order that it have more money to spend on, say, campaign contributors.
OTOH, private citizens tend to wish to eliminate poverty by raising the lot of the poor, by giving them a hand up. Not that everyone will ever be well-off; someone, after all, must do all the nasty jobs the world has but does not reward: toilet cleaners, janitors, farm labourers &c. But allowing people to better themselves can help keep this number at its minimum, while keeping them down with handouts--however small--can only hurt in the long run. Look at the old Eastern Bloc; how well off were they under socialism? Look at Sweden, for that matter.
Socialism is a Bad Idea which leads to all sorts of inhumanity (the Communists were socialists, the Nazis were socialists, the Fascists were socialists &c. &c. &c.). It tends to do rotten things to individuals for the sake of the multitude. A free market may do rotten things to multitudes, but is kind to any individual.
I'm an individual, not a multitude. Which path do you think I'll take?
Therefore socialized, rich countries have a lower birth rate. It's a fact.
Rich countries have lower birth rates. Most countries are socialist. Ethiopia is socialist. Tanzania (or whatever it's calling itself this week) is socialist. Haiti is, AFAIK, socialist. So are England, Germany and France. So, unfortunately, is the US. Socialism has little to do with birth rate; look to wealth.
Of course, socialism does tend to bleed the wealth of a nation. Look at Sweden if you want to know what Europe will look like in fifty years to a century.
Simple enough: the poor receive money from the government. They do not put as much money into the state. Ergo, they cost the government more than they profit it.
My point is not that they cost us (although that could be argued, perh.). It is that a government will attempt to limit population when that population costs it, and attempt to increase population when that populations profits it. It's only natural. And now that governments find that citizens, esp. the least-well-off, cost it, it becomes natural to look at said citizens as a drag.
Which is why socialism is bad for the poor; the government will try to limit their ranks and breed them out of existence. Why do you think that Sanger passed out birth control info to the poor? Why do you think that `population activists' are always complaining about brown babies but not about white? They're a bunch of racists and classists who want to eradicate those who are not of their own kind, and do it under the guise of compassion.
Were welfare not to exist, the poor would be able to determine the appropriate tradeoff point between more children as a retirement policy in the future and more children as mouths to feed now. Moreover, they would also have to live with the consequences of that decision. As it is now, they have all sorts of strange incentives. They get paid more money for more children. Or maybe not; maybe they lose money with more children, even though they may need them, opr in a fair world would realise a benefit due to them. We are unable to accurately foresee all results of economic actions. Meddle not in the affairs of the free market, for it is complex and prone to anger.
Except that I do: school taxes, welfare payments, social benefits all through life. We need to get rid of these things; then people can have however many children they want. It's a problem which fixes itself. If people want to have too many kids, let 'em. They'll pay for them.
In a modern socialised government population is a detriment, not a benefit. Poor populations are especially bad; they cost far more than they put in. So these governments naturally try to reduce their populations. In a sane government, population is a good thing; even poor people input something into the economy. We need to stop handing out money to people. That is not the function of the State. Were we to stop, then we could honour the rights of the populace and be making economically sound decisions. The best of both worlds.
I'm quite libertarian myself, but I've noticed a disturbing anarchist streak among some. One must have some structure in order for us to preserve our rights. If there were no copyright and copyleft were the rule of the day, then software would merely be released under licenses agreeing to certain terms. At least copyright expires 70 years after the owner's death; those licenses would prob. never expire.
We need to learn to use the tools with which we are provided. The court system can be an effective weapon against proprietary software houses which steal our code. Let them release their proprietary software; over time we will exceed their capabilities and in the long run they will go out of business. But if they infringe on our territory, we should be merciless. Can you say punitive damages?
Once again, I believe that the point was that atm it is damn difficult to port a JFS to Linux. How can one use the familiar one if the familiar one does not exist on our platform?
That's the whole point of the GPL: it says not to do anything bad. You see, if the software is in the public domain, then anyone can use it, modify it, repackage it &c. Were Linux PD, M$ could release change the source in a few places, release M$ Linux and charge $100 for it, all while ensuring that their proprietary changes break ordinary Linux kernels. suits would love this: `M$ Linux--see, it has to be better than that weird RodHut, um RidHot, um RedHat thingy!'
The GPL can be a nuisance sometimes, it's true. But so can anything else. The GPL serves its purpose admirably well: to ensure that ones code remains free and unfettered. It does not exist to make programmer's lives easier. The BSD makes a programmer's life easier, but it does not preserve the freedom of the software-as-a-whole (obviously the original software remains free). One chooses the license which one wants.
That would be woefully misleading and has great potential for intellectual damage. While the justice system can and does make many mistakes, we must still abide under it, for without it there is no order at all. Without a justice system, we could not sue for violations of the GPL. That would be a Bad Thing. Almost every contract states that if some provisions are ruled unlawful then the balance still is binding; this is SOP.
There are two types of information transfers: official and personal. Personal transfers are the business of the concerned parties, and hence not our concern. But official--business, gov't, educational &c.--transfers are. The purpose of these transfers is to exchange data in a usable form. It is not to be pretty or attractive. One does not dress up 30GB of atmospheric data with pictures of clouds.
The problem is that these transfers have not been computerised. Open, well-thought out formats should be proposed and used so that this information might be transferred in a comprehensible and portable fashion. Comprehensible, because if one cannot understand information, then it is garbage. Portable, because oen never knows what tomorrow may bring and what the requirements then will be.
It just so happens that we have the perfect format for data exchange of text: text. A purchase order should either be sent over a special Purchase Order Protocol ('cept POP's already taken), or sent as text. A paper--which needs formatting--should be encoded in such a way that presentation is seperated from content. A discussion among colleagues concerning the purchase of a new web server should be conducted over email, in text. Why add the useless overhead of Word? It slows things down, fills up disk space and is in many other ways sub-optimal.
Text can be made attractive as well as expressive: I can set my mail reader to use any font I desire; I can attach images in the appropriate places; I can use the ASCII notations for emphasis and the rest. But, unfortunately, that requires that my brain be engaged.
I handle the whole MS Word problem by silently throwing away Word documents I receive in my personal mail. When I send documents, they are either plain text or marked-up text; either is perfectly legible to the casual reader. Sometimes I use image files (PostScript, PDF, JPEG or PNG), if that is nec.
BTW, charts and diagrams should be images, in formats readable by anyone, or if important, they should be in the form of data, which can be easily interpreted by the user as he wishes. One of the things I hate is just getting a chart. I want the data, so I can look at it, analyse it and generate my own charts. You'd be surprised at how easy it can be to make a chart lie...
I believe that he meant not leveraging one over the other, but leveraging the benefits of a JFS on Linux over other, less-capable OSes. What does one do in a predominantly Linux environment? The ideal, after all, is world domination:-)
Granted, in this case it is a Western wedding, and therefore that's her father (or some other relative) alongside her.
It's like the example of one's root password. That is information which must remain privileged. Same with spies, military plans &c.
From a user perspective, printer independent printing can't be done on Unix in any practical sense.
That's odd, since for years the computer world exchanged, on Unix systems (and others), documents in a true printer-independent format: PostScript. Remember the days when we cursed our personal computers because we could just cat doc.ps > /dev/lpr? And for those of us with non-PS printers, there were all sorts of transparent filters. We were able to transfer documents, with layout and everything, exactly as written, if we needed to. Which was precious seldom...
Does anyone use any formats other than .doc universally? No.
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. Dan, show our contestant the consolation prize...
There is one format which is universally used, which everyone connected to the Internet can read. That format is text. Over the last thirty years the text format has grown to encompass conventions for the enclosure of every form of content imaginable. Most users have multiple text readers on their machines: cat, less, more, Notepad, SimpleText, Eudora, MailSmith, Emailer, Netscape, IE, Opera, slrn, strn, NewsWatcher &c. ad infinitum.
There is no question that there is a benefit to a universal document exchange format that everyone understands.
You're right. We had one: text. It was used to exchange information--you know: data, useful stuff, what is needed. Now we have .doc, which is used for the interchange of data covered in dressing, gravy and all the fixins. Why? What is added by allowing every second-rate secretary to use seven fonts in a purchase order?
to the tune of Oh Give Me a Home... Oh give me the days
Of the ASCII term haze
Where seldom was heard
A proprietary word
And the data flew swiftly all day!
Presentation should be separate from content.
But in Word they are combined. You are thinking of things such as LaTeX in which presentation is separated from content. You can take the same LaTeX document and present it in any number of ways, simply by changing the style files you use it with. Most people who use Word do not use styles, and even if they did they view their documents with those styles applied; AFAIK there is no `view as plain text' option. One should not be concerned with the look of a document; mark it up properly and use a well-written set of styles; this guarantees excellent output.
Why do we need autoformatting? We convert plain text to...plain text.
Embedding? Why should a document need anything but pictures in it? Like it or not, the vast majority of documents will be printed, not viewed on-screen. If they are to be viewed on-screen, then use a computer-specific tool, not something which was designed to output printed text. Use the right tool for the right job.
Spell checker? This is the greatest nuisance in Word. I happen to use the (correct) British spellings for most words, and since the versions of Word at work do not have the International English dictionaries I am stuck. I turn it off. Spelling is not something which everyone agrees on; that's fine and IMHO as it should be. The idea that spellings should be standardised is very modern, dating as recently as the introduction of the printing press.
Master document? Most every text layout program I know of allows one to include other files within the main one.
Your problem is that you are looking for personal computer, WYSIWYG-type software when Unix has something far, far better, and has had for quite some time now.
I used LaTeX for all my papers my final year of college, and I noted that my grades were rather significantly better. People appreciate well-laid out text, not the ugly stuff spat out by Word.
It's less a ripoff of Everything and more a ripoff of Project Glactic Guide. Been around since 1991, a long time before Everything was a glint in the milkman's eye. But PGG is honest that it rips off HGTTG, so it all works out in the end.
I have been using GnuCash for about nine months and am quite pleased with it. It works very well and gets better with each release. Its documentation has been written with the aid of real accountants; I have actually gotten a good feel for my financial situation, something wh. IMHO Quicken does a rather poor job of, for some reason. I really enjoy using GnuCash. Now if only they would get it to start up faster...
I'd do it but I haven't the time.
What's the difference? Yes, to you and me there is one, but users care about how fast pages load, period. If IE has better caching technology, Mozilla should adopt it. And then improve on it. No sense standing by saying `well, it's really just as fast, you just don't notice.' Perception is sometimes more important than fact...
What is your problem with it? People pay for electricity; they are not given it for free. Those fees pay for the power plants, pay for the engineers, pay for the secretaries and everything else. If anything, electricity rates are too high due to the power monopolies. Or perhaps you are bitter because Americans have enough disposable income to pay for electricity...
In the US, the Constitution guarantees a jury trial for matters of more than $20, so if the ticket is more than that (and all are), you can get one if you ask. If it is denied, you don't have to pay a cent. Of course, $20 used to be a lot more, but it's the government's fault for allowing inflation instead of fixing the dollar.
I think that Apple's Aqua--as bad as I think it is on some points--demonstrates the utility of transaprency and translucency in a GUI. It cna be used to give the user the feeling of being immersed--almost a 2 1/2D experience. Transparency is not the most useful of features IMHO, but translucency can be used to great effect. There is no good reason that a window should not very faintly show up behind another. It gives the user more information, in a controlled fashion. This is a Good Thing.
It can also be used to make an interface more attractive. This is not as immediately useful, but it is a fact that we are more comfortable with attractive things than with those which are, shall we say, ugly. Why is it that every few years every GUI gets some sort of facelift? Because people want an attractive interface. It's the same reason that car interiors change. It's Style.
As far as pixel-based vs. measurement-based systems go, I think that it is pretty unarguable that measurement-based systems are superior. The only reason for being pixel-based is that it removes a layer of processing. But wiht more powerful computers, this is not such an issue. It just makes more sense. Granted, individual pixels are still visible (at least on screen; try seeing one dot in a 600 dpi printout), but this will not be so forever. Resolution-independence is a Good Thing because it simplifies printing, because it simplifies changes in monitors and monitor parameters and because it uses a scheme which is familiar to users (whether that scheme be inches or centimetres, we've grown accustomed to using them). In addition this solves the problem of screwy fonts (can you say Windows?). Fonts are defined in points, which are 1/72 of an inch; with a measurement-based system, fonts will display perfectly, and at the exact size specified, both on-screen and printed.
BTW, for those who hate metric and those who hate English units, I imagine that any display scheme is going to use its own internal measurements, translating to the user's preference. So the rest of the world need not worry about font sizes measured in old-fashioned points screwing up their displays, and I don't need to try to think in millimetres. This way we're all happy and all compatible. What a thought!
IMHO the switch to browser interfaces was due to laziness and `acceptable level of mediocrity'-style thinking. Far far better in terms of UI, ease-of-use, attractiveness and speed IMHO is the binary client. I understand from others (never done it myself, so I will not preach it as true) that it is not too difficult to abstract away platform-specific GUI code and leave the internal logic of the app intact. I admit that I am a bit sceptical, as some platforms (e.g. Mac OS) are inherently different even in re. very high-level concepts of control flow.
But please, in the name of all that is holy, please do not use a JavaScript/Java browser monstrosity. Blecchh.