So, you think a person's right to privacy depends on how much money he makes? What about other basic rights? Only if you can afford to pay for them? What a sad, sad place you live in. You call that a democracy?
Well, that too fits nicely into M$' agenda. "See how source availability is a security risk? OSS, full disclosure, they are threats to american business! Now, buy that safe, proprietary product from uncle Bill and you'll be a lot better."
The hardware is managed by the kernel, and the same kernel is available to all distros. If distros make modifications, they must be GPLed or they are illegal. Distros supplying their own closed source drivers don't exist to my knowledge; most seem to fear (and rightly so) that they would become the risee of the linux community.
Userland software that doesn't manage the system as a whole, shouldn't depend on any particular distribution. If it does, it's badly written, as simple as that.
A properly written application runs on any unix. If you can't make your app run on any version of linux, with the same API for crying out loud, you're one hell of a lousy programmer.
So, next time, instead of saying, yes, compaq, I'll buy Redhat, compaq, next time express your distaste of their product if it only works on Redhat.
Well, the kernel guys have a point in that such things should run in userspace, simply because they can.
If X can run in user space, so can a simple set of high resolution graphics-based virtual terminals.
Personally I think the whole terminal/console handling should be in userspace. Sure, if the vt process dies, you're screwed, but it's easier managed and restarted if it lives outside the kernel. The net risks of having to cycle your box may actually be lower, and support for new frame buffers could move a lot faster than kernel development.
But it is. The same goes for books, music or anything else.
It's/copy/right, not/use/right. And transient copies (i.e. to RAM) are exempted in lots of jurisdictions (don't know about the US, but ISTR even there).
Well, the real strength of PNG is that it is a binary string, so all the available tools for dealing with and processing data consisting of 1's and 0's can be used to generate PNG documents.
The implications of this are slowly beginning to be understood.
Imagine how many binary data processing devices could use this. Anything from business documents (graphs, etc), to medical records (graphically showing the timeline of a patient's medical operations, for example) can utilize these techniques.
The coolest example I can point you to is this. A program, expressed as a binary string (!) is used to transform any arbitrary image definition into a.png image. Beyond cool.
(Note for the exceedingly stupid: I'm/not/ advocating the use of bitmaps over vectors here).
Sure, just use a transformation so that only the subset of printable ASCII allowed in HTML is used.
I'm willing to assert the hexadecimal encoding, which doubles the size of the binary and uses only characters 0-9 and A-F, is more efficient than XML for such purposes.
XML is neither efficient for computers to read or write, nor efficient for humans to read or write. It's the worst of both worlds.
The only thing going for it is that you can define a computer readable structure specification and have a computer verify the structure of the XML document against it. Woohoo.
True, of course you need discipline in life. But not/just/ discipline. That was my point.
Someone who has great discipline but lacks empathy, distrusts everyone including himself, because his parents tell him over and over again that without their excessive guarding and fencing, he would be totally messed up, is always fearful of being punished, will most likely have a less fruitfuil life in terms of contributing to others' lives than someone who doesn't fear himself and others.
Discipline is valuable, but I'd rather have someone who's prepared to take on life, reflect on his own actions by his own moral standards, tries to understand what his actions mean to others, and lacks a little discipline, than someone who can only control or be controlled, but has great discipline.
But again, those are my values. They may not be yours.
You want to nail them if they lie. You can't do that without information.
You are a sick person in actively trying to catch their lies.
You'll find enough behaviour to comment on and/or have a serious talk about without actively trying to find faults.
They will live in fear because they don't know what you know, and you act upon things they haven't explicitly shown to you. They will quickly conclude you are spying on them, and from that point onward, they will grow a healthy dose of paranoia.
Healthy, indeed, because they need a bit of shielding from a parent like you in order to develop sensibly.
Open-source users, however, aren't quite so overflowing with praise, he said. "We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better." Tipp argued that it is more a case of sheer frustration with licensing and Microsoft's poor relationship with its customers over the last few years -- or simply the perceived cost benefits of open source -- driving users to migrate.
He doesn't get it. I happen to choose FOSS because it puts me in control. It gives me the most control available, whereas most Microsoft software gives me least. In how I work with it, in the procedures to deploy and fix it.
Nothing takes away determinism from computing the way Windows does. It simply insists you follow best practice instead of what appears to be possible, never mind why, as things may just simlpy not work otherwise. It may appears you can configure things, but often this is so badly thought out that it's not worth the hassle. Toolbars spring to mind.
Granted, FOSS isn't the only alternative; some proprietary software, most notable the 'nixes, already give you much more control than Windows, and even MacOS (even the pre-X versions!) does so, as it's more user-centered. Mac software makes an effort to/serve/. Unix is easily coerced into submission. Microsoft's products, however, always retain that stubborn bad character they came with. They want to rule, not serve.
And nothing brings back control in the hands of the computer's owner than FOSS. In the passive sense, because you can ultimately always verify/why/ something behaves as it does, but also in the active sense, that you may even fix broken behaviour or have someone else do it.
It's this sense of power over the computer, other than the other way around, that makes me choose FOSS. It's psychologically impossible for me to accept a computer that has a CPU that I can understand down to the instruction level (and simple ones even down to the logical gate level), that I would not be able to fully understand or control.
Other users may not have such an attitude, and view the computer as a tool that can perform certain actions as apparent from its interface or the manual.
But in both cases it comes down to the same thing. Computers should serve their users, not the other way around.
Mircosoft doesn't see computing as serving the user. Microsoft sees computing as a tool to force the user to pay.
Its monopoly has made it loose its incentive to serve and make its products serve.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you think a person's right to privacy depends on how much money he makes? What about other basic rights? Only if you can afford to pay for them? What a sad, sad place you live in. You call that a democracy?
Well, that too fits nicely into M$' agenda. "See how source availability is a security risk? OSS, full disclosure, they are threats to american business! Now, buy that safe, proprietary product from uncle Bill and you'll be a lot better."
How can I create a derivative work of GPLed code without sharing my code?
By not distributing the derivative work.
You may use it in your own business to your heart's content though.
See also The IPv6 Mess by Dan J. Bernstein of Qmail/DJBDNS fame.
That was excellent black humour. It's so sad, so true, and still, so funny -- your post that is. Cheers :)
Great, so no EULAs either then? Good riddance!
I'm sure you mean Giskard's? Brin describes that all very nicely.
Which means, terminate program and return to DOS.
However, they are free to buy laws that control you, me (and I'm not even a USian!) and everyone else, hence we care.
Hi Russell, good to know you're still alive, well, and plugging SELinux as always ;-)
The point is, especially closed drivers should work on any distro's kernel, as they are only allowed to use the public kernel API.
So, it can then only be a shoddy installation procedure that prevents the driver from working on any distro.
The hardware is managed by the kernel, and the same kernel is available to all distros. If distros make modifications, they must be GPLed or they are illegal. Distros supplying their own closed source drivers don't exist to my knowledge; most seem to fear (and rightly so) that they would become the risee of the linux community.
Userland software that doesn't manage the system as a whole, shouldn't depend on any particular distribution. If it does, it's badly written, as simple as that.
A properly written application runs on any unix. If you can't make your app run on any version of linux, with the same API for crying out loud, you're one hell of a lousy programmer.
So, next time, instead of saying, yes, compaq, I'll buy Redhat, compaq, next time express your distaste of their product if it only works on Redhat.
Well, the kernel guys have a point in that such things should run in userspace, simply because they can.
If X can run in user space, so can a simple set of high resolution graphics-based virtual terminals.
Personally I think the whole terminal/console handling should be in userspace. Sure, if the vt process dies, you're screwed, but it's easier managed and restarted if it lives outside the kernel. The net risks of having to cycle your box may actually be lower, and support for new frame buffers could move a lot faster than kernel development.
But it is. The same goes for books, music or anything else.
/copy/right, not /use/right. And transient copies (i.e. to RAM) are exempted in lots of jurisdictions (don't know about the US, but ISTR even there).
It's
Cheers,
Emile.
AFAIR Paul doesn't tell women to submit to men (in general), he tells them to submit to /their own/ men.
It doesn't say anywhere that women should have a subservient position in society.
At least have the courtesy to spell the name right of such an important man.
Hari Seldon was the name.
Cheers,
Emile.
Well, the real strength of PNG is that it is a binary string, so all the available tools for dealing with and processing data consisting of 1's and 0's can be used to generate PNG documents.
.png image. Beyond cool.
/not/ advocating the use of bitmaps over vectors here).
The implications of this are slowly beginning to be understood.
Imagine how many binary data processing devices could use this. Anything from business documents (graphs, etc), to medical records (graphically showing the timeline of a patient's medical operations, for example) can utilize these techniques.
The coolest example I can point you to is this. A program, expressed as a binary string (!) is used to transform any arbitrary image definition into a
(Note for the exceedingly stupid: I'm
Sure, just use a transformation so that only the subset of printable ASCII allowed in HTML is used.
I'm willing to assert the hexadecimal encoding, which doubles the size
of the binary and uses only characters 0-9 and A-F, is more efficient
than XML for such purposes.
XML is neither efficient for computers to read or write, nor efficient for humans to read or write. It's the worst of both worlds.
The only thing going for it is that you can define a computer readable structure specification and have a computer verify the structure of the XML document against it. Woohoo.
One small difference is that a microwave oven emits continuous wave RF, whereas WiFi has lots LF components.
Because water will demodulate the RF, cavities in cells or tissue containing small water drops could be very well excited in the LF rythm.
If you don't believe something like that could possibly have any effect, take a fresh look at how your inkjet printer works.
True, of course you need discipline in life. But not /just/ discipline. That was my point.
Someone who has great discipline but lacks empathy, distrusts everyone including himself, because his parents tell him over and over again that without their excessive guarding and fencing, he would be totally messed up, is always fearful of being punished, will most likely have a less fruitfuil life in terms of contributing to others' lives than someone who doesn't fear himself and others.
Discipline is valuable, but I'd rather have someone who's prepared to take on life, reflect on his own actions by his own moral standards, tries to understand what his actions mean to others, and lacks a little discipline, than someone who can only control or be controlled, but has great discipline.
But again, those are my values. They may not be yours.
Yeah, into a milquetoast idiot who has no discipline.
Of course, it all depends on your values.
I'd consider my parenthood a total failure if my kids would end up not being fit for anything but the army.
You may not share this view.
You want to nail them if they lie. You can't do that without information.
You are a sick person in actively trying to catch their lies.
You'll find enough behaviour to comment on and/or have a serious talk about without actively trying to find faults.
They will live in fear because they don't know what you know, and you act upon things they haven't explicitly shown to you. They will quickly conclude you are spying on them, and from that point onward, they will grow a healthy dose of paranoia.
Healthy, indeed, because they need a bit of shielding from a parent like you in order to develop sensibly.
s/loose/lose
He doesn't get it. I happen to choose FOSS because it puts me in control. It gives me the most control available, whereas most Microsoft software gives me least. In how I work with it, in the procedures to deploy and fix it.
Nothing takes away determinism from computing the way Windows does. It simply insists you follow best practice instead of what appears to be possible, never mind why, as things may just simlpy not work otherwise. It may appears you can configure things, but often this is so badly thought out that it's not worth the hassle. Toolbars spring to mind.
Granted, FOSS isn't the only alternative; some proprietary software, most notable the 'nixes, already give you much more control than Windows, and even MacOS (even the pre-X versions!) does so, as it's more user-centered. Mac software makes an effort to
And nothing brings back control in the hands of the computer's owner than FOSS. In the passive sense, because you can ultimately always verify
It's this sense of power over the computer, other than the other way around, that makes me choose FOSS. It's psychologically impossible for me to accept a computer that has a CPU that I can understand down to the instruction level (and simple ones even down to the logical gate level), that I would not be able to fully understand or control.
Other users may not have such an attitude, and view the computer as a tool that can perform certain actions as apparent from its interface or the manual.
But in both cases it comes down to the same thing. Computers should serve their users, not the other way around.
Mircosoft doesn't see computing as serving the user.
Microsoft sees computing as a tool to force the user to pay.
Its monopoly has made it loose its incentive to serve and make its products serve.
December 5 is when the Dutch celebrate Sinterklaas, which is when they unwrap their presents (instead of on Christmas).
Lets hope the show will be a nice sinterklaascadeau.