I've never been able to figure out why people are so intent on "protecting" people from porn, smut, obscenity, etc. etc. I've never seen anything in my life that I would consider inherently harmful to anyone. Sexually explicit yes, distastful sometimes, disturbing every so often, but harmful? I didn't get it when I was a child, I didn't get it when I was a teenager, and at 28 I still don't get it.
I've come to the conclusion that this "protect the children from things we don't like" mentality is simply one of the ways in which our society is irrational. None of us are completely rational and neither is any society. In some places women are treated as property and even sexually mutilated due to some twisted custom. That doesn't mean the society which does that is as a whole without merit, its simply a little nuts in a few areas, just like every other culture.
Here in america we're afraid of sex and terrified of any little thing that might happen to our children. (We might want to thank the crowd that promotes the idea we're products of our environment for that.) We're afraid to the point that we think simply seeing sex or hearing about it will somehow harm our young. That's pretty messed up but there you have it. There are other examples of ways in which our culture, or one of our subcultures, is pretty messed up. Neo-Liberals (socialists) are some of the looniest people I've ever met, as are many from the right wing. Its no suprise these groups don't understand each other, I can't make sense of either one. Luckily the US government was intentionally designed to keep rival interest groups fighting with each other. The "gridlock" that your double digit IQ types complain about is there for a reason.
There is a good rule of thumb to remember when you encounter one of these areas of irrationality: If something seems crazy, it probably is.
Imagine if the legal sharks out there stopped pursuing lawsuits that are based upon dubious claims and wholly intended to make their clients a fast buck? What if they suddenly became ethical and just flat out refused to work for companies like Rambus? What if socialists who are busy in some cities suing firearms companies, for supposed damages because hood rats are using guns to kill each other, just couldn't find a lawyer worth snot to pursue the case for them?
Guess what, it ain't gonna happen so why waste time wondering about it?
The publishing industry got into a lot of trouble a few years back over this kind of thing. I don't remember the details or the outcome exactly. I think the industry lost though...
You can't protect consumer choice by extracting half-hearted "promises" from executive types. Come on, these people give lawyers a run for their money in the scumbag department. It will be interesting to see just how quickly they violate the spirit of those promises if not letter of them.
The only way to protect consumer choice is by promoting competition.
While the job of revamping Macintosh and Windows obviously belongs to their respective stewards, the same can't be said for the upstart Linux system. Nobody owns this Unix-based operating system built around the code first created by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds.
Uhhmmm, actually Linux is owned. Different portions of it are owned by different people. Linus Torvalds owns parts of the kernel, as does Alan Cox and many other people. The GNU utilities are probably owned by the FSF rather than the individual coders who created them. The fact that all of these pieces of code have been licensed under the GPL in no way nullifies anyone's ownership of them.
So many people confuse the GPL with something being in the public domain. If a piece of code was in the public domain, the GPL would be unenforcable. It is only because individuals do own and hold the rights to the code they have created that the GPL has any meaning at all.
Something that a lot of people don't realize is that code licensed under the GPL can be licensed by its creator under other licensing terms which are incompatible with the GPL. Users of that code, who use it under the GPL, do not have such rights, but the copyright holder does. So the next time someone tries to tell you that you can't license your own code to anyone else once you placed it under the GPL, tell them to go study copyright law just a little before they start running their mouth.
I absolutely love the idea of everyone on earth being able to speak a common language. That language would not necessarily be the speaker's first language, but it would be one in which they were fluent. At this point in time English looks like the best bet to fill this role. It is the language of international business first of all. The elites in many countries around the globe send their children to schools where they are taught english. I know, I work in a university where 80% of our student workers come from the elite classes of other countries, they all speak english fluently. Not like what you'll find at McDonalds. Is there some kind of corporate policy there which requires that anyone working the front counter cannot speak english?
As internet use increases around the globe, a universal language will eventually come into being. I doubt very seriously that it will be pure english, or pure anything. More likely it will be an amalgamation of many languages.
This is exactly what happens when two or more languages are mixed together due to the geographic merger of speakers of those languages.
English itself did not always have the form it does today. Take a look at middle english, or old english sometime, they're truly foreign to speakers of modern english. After the norman conquest of england, words from french slowly seeped into the language to the point that today English, while germanic in origin, could almost be considered a romance language.
So as time goes by the internet itself will foster the creation of a new language, derived from old, that anyone online will be able to use.
In post after post I see stuff about the jocks doing this and the jocks doing that. It sounds like something out of a revenge of the nerds movie. I can't ever remember a case of a jock doing anything to anyone other than another jock when I was in school. It wasn't all that long ago either, I graduated in 92. Issues and problems were between people, not groups or cliques. The groups which were different from each other simply didn't bother one another for the most part.
I'm not saying that athletic types are saints and that they never ever do anything to anyone, I just think I'm seeing a tendency to single them out as a group and demonize them here. That sort of a witch hunt isn't much different from a geek/nerd type being persecuted by his school.
Get xfstt, use xfree 4.0. There are at least two ways that you can get usable true type font support on your system. I've been able to use true type fonts from windows under linux for over two years now. Anti-aliased they are not, but even aliased true-type fonts look a thousand times better than rasterized fonts.
So you're telling me that a group having a monopoly on information and its interpretation is a good thing?
An understanding of the bible by the people helped lead directly to the protestant reformation. This fragmentation of the catholic church's power was very important to the social and scientific advances of the past few centuries. Democracy and theocracy are mutually exclusive. Imagine a western world similar to that of islamic countries where the church and the state are one and the same and everyone is brainwashed by religion. One where demonstrable reality takes a back seat to what some priest says is the truth based on the beliefs of a mid-eastern culture from ancient antiquity. For all practical purposes you might as well be living in the soviet union. But luckily we don't have to live like that. We live in a world where what can be seen and what can be proven is the basis for the interpretation of reality. One where each of us has the freedom to speak our mind without fear of imprisonment and tortue.
The typeface was damned near unreadable, but it looked an awful lot like latin to me.
Talk about a perfect way to brush up on the latin you learned in high school or college and have since then forgotten.
If I remember right the catholic church was not happy about the printing press, especially the printing of bibles. The last thing they wanted was for the common man to study and understand the bible his or herself. After all, the bastion of religion is ignorance.
Lee Reynolds
This is yet another reason not to buy Microsoft's products. This all goes back to the personality of Bill Gates himself. Some people would be more than happy to be as rich as he is and to have such a powerful position within the computer industry. But not Bill, not he wants to have control over your desktop system, and your server as well. Now you can say he's not in charge at M$ anymore, but I don't believe that. Isn't he supposed to be working on long-term plans, being the visionary within the company? You can't do that if you have to play mother may I.
This reminds me of the slow and steady encroachment of a totalitarian regime. One which slowly but continuously works to undermine the rights and freedoms of the citizens, all the while denying that it is doing so and claiming to be working to preserve freedom.
Now of course the software industry is different, but isn't the freedom to choose which software packages and drivers you use on your system your right? How is it any of Microsoft's business what you do? They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I refuse to run an operating system which refuses to execute the code I give it on arbitrary grounds. I'll use star-office and make do long before I'll submit to the will of the Furher in Redmond.
Copyright is about copying, not about listening or reading. If you buy a book and read it, then give it to your friend to read, neither of you has broken any law nor done anything immoral or unethical. The media companies are trying to warp copyright into a pay-per-view style system, but that isn't what it is about. When you buy an album you're buying a copy of a work. You own that copy. You can do any damn thing you want with it, let as many people listen to it as you'd like. The one thing you can't do is distribute copies of it yourself. Why? Because you don't hold the copyright on it.
Get it?
Lee Reynolds
The GPL was created so that works could be placed under it by its authors. It does nothing to defeat copyright law in any way. It makes use of copyright law, but not in any guerilla sense and not to circumvent copyright law. The copyright laws were created to protect intellectual property rights, which is exactly what the GPL does as well.
Shouldn't someone explain to this fan that the grateful dead doesn't tour anymore? That they've been more or less disbanded since Garcia died? There are no more concerts for this fan to tape.
Sure, when issuses of constitutionality were involved. To call use of naptster a constitutional issue is stretching things just a wee bit. I doubt the court would even hear the case.
Then how come I can't buy cuban cigars from my friendly canadian importers?
To be fair, I used this as an example without knowing all of the details involved. My understanding of the situation with cuba, based on reading a magazine article about it, is that the concept of "trading with the enemy" is the foundation of the law against it. That it is not illegal to go to cuba, only illegal to spend any money there as strange as that sounds.
The US has had a highly effective trade embargo against Cuba since Kennedy was president. Go there and you will find cars from the 1950's which people somehow miraculously keep running, probably though black market parts. But you'll find no new cars and I expect the situation is similar for other US produced goods as well. I suspect that Japan doesn't trade with Cuba because we would quickly raise our own tarriffs if they did, which explains why there aren't any new cars from that island country there either.
Personally, I think the whole business with Cuba is quite silly today. There is no missle crisis, there is no Soviet Union to prop them up. If we had half an excuse to, we could overrun them almost overnight. By refusing to trade with them, we're only hurting the Cuban pepople themselves, some of whom desperately try to flee to the US. It's a bad situation all around.
Copyrights on US works are not easily enforcable in these places. But why on earth would anyone assume that simply setting up a server in such a country would completely evade US law?
I would think that something like overseas napster would certainly fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government as it affects both interstate and international commerce. How quickly do you think a law would be drafted and passed to regulate and even prevent us from accessing napster? Not that these laws by themselves would ammount to much, people would simply route around them, and might even have fun doing so. But the penalties for breaking this law might be severe for those who got caught. Ever hear of a little country called Cuba? Guess what, its illegal to trade with them. Has been for decades. I don't know exactly what the penalties are for doing so, or even if they are routinely enforced. But I do know it is illegal because it is considered "trading with the enemy." Kind of like trading with old Saddam during the Gulf War. I can't imagine the penalties are nice, even if I can't recall them being enforced recently.
This whole "I put my server in Rangoon, so now you can't touch me!" attitude smacks of juvenile cluelessness. It reminds me of some kid trying to use rules designed to govern/suppress him or her against the authority figures who created them in the first place. I'm sorry, but the rules are written for the benefit of those who create them and will be revised when they are found lacking in this regard. Ultimately they are little more than an agreed upon ritual dictating the methods which must be used in the exercise of power.
Free software is limited by one important issue, who is going to do the coding and who is going to use the product coded? The vast majority of free software is created by people because they use it themselves. But there are also other areas where the people who have the talent to write the code have no interest in using the end product. Here proprietary solutions will continue to dominate.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care whether my word processor is freeware or commercial. I want the underlying operating system to be free, or at least have all its specs published in full. Linux is great not so much because it is free of charge, but because there aren't any secrets about it. With windows there are lots of secrets. With the MacOS there are even more. But with Linux everything is right there on the table and its got a complete development environment included to boot! Talk about a hackers (!cracker) dream come true!
In short, the open source/free software model is one that works in some areas. It does not work for all. Therefore it is not going to take over the world. Twenty years from now commercial software will be just as prevalent as it is right now, if not more prevalent. There is every chance that free software might not be successful in the long run. There is also every chance that it will be successful. But there is nearly zero chance that it will overtake every other development model.
I personally think wine is the greatest thing since Linux itself. Imagine a terminal server type system based off wine? M$'s own terminal server is severly limited by the poor multi-user performance of NT. Unlike Linux and virtually any other version of Unix, it is very easy for a single user to eat up all the resources and lock out everyone else. This is a serious problem, but one that wine does not share. It wouldn't be too hard to make wine into one kick ass terminal server/citrix metaframe style system.
I'm looking forward to bigger and better things from wine.
What is a very good way for M$ to stop wine, or at least discourage people from working on it? Create a situation where they can feasibly claim that code in it just might be stolen or that the people who wrote it had access to Windows source code. Whether they did or not is irrelevant, the fact that you can cause legal problems for them simply based on the idea that they might have is what matters. If I were a ruthless organization bent on world domination (like microsoft or $cientology), this is exactly what I would do.
Expect to see legal roadblocks in the future for wine.
I'm quite sure. My certainty comes from having been there to see them when they were new. I've owned both a Commodore 64 and an Atari 65XE and they were not the same system. I personally liked the Atari systems better, especially the original 800 model. It had the best keyboard of any of them. The 800 and its descendents were based off the 6502 processor. This cpu was used in many different systems back then including the Commodore Pet, Vic20, Apple II+/IIe/IIc, BBC Acorn, OSI Challenger I/II/III, etc. etc. The Commodore 64 used the 6510 which was a derivative of the 6502. I don't really know what exactly the difference were architecture wise. I don't know of any other system which used the 6510.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never been able to figure out why people are so intent on "protecting" people from porn, smut, obscenity, etc. etc. I've never seen anything in my life that I would consider inherently harmful to anyone. Sexually explicit yes, distastful sometimes, disturbing every so often, but harmful? I didn't get it when I was a child, I didn't get it when I was a teenager, and at 28 I still don't get it.
I've come to the conclusion that this "protect the children from things we don't like" mentality is simply one of the ways in which our society is irrational. None of us are completely rational and neither is any society. In some places women are treated as property and even sexually mutilated due to some twisted custom. That doesn't mean the society which does that is as a whole without merit, its simply a little nuts in a few areas, just like every other culture.
Here in america we're afraid of sex and terrified of any little thing that might happen to our children. (We might want to thank the crowd that promotes the idea we're products of our environment for that.) We're afraid to the point that we think simply seeing sex or hearing about it will somehow harm our young. That's pretty messed up but there you have it. There are other examples of ways in which our culture, or one of our subcultures, is pretty messed up. Neo-Liberals (socialists) are some of the looniest people I've ever met, as are many from the right wing. Its no suprise these groups don't understand each other, I can't make sense of either one. Luckily the US government was intentionally designed to keep rival interest groups fighting with each other. The "gridlock" that your double digit IQ types complain about is there for a reason.
There is a good rule of thumb to remember when you encounter one of these areas of irrationality: If something seems crazy, it probably is.
GO PEACEFIRE!!
Lee Reynolds
I'm just kidding of course. Well actually I'm not but I don't expect a real answer and for all I know she's old enough to be my mom.
Lee Reynolds
What if lawyers suddenly became honest?
Imagine if the legal sharks out there stopped pursuing lawsuits that are based upon dubious claims and wholly intended to make their clients a fast buck? What if they suddenly became ethical and just flat out refused to work for companies like Rambus? What if socialists who are busy in some cities suing firearms companies, for supposed damages because hood rats are using guns to kill each other, just couldn't find a lawyer worth snot to pursue the case for them?
Guess what, it ain't gonna happen so why waste time wondering about it?
Or how about this, what if D-O-G spelled cat?
Lee Reynolds
The publishing industry got into a lot of trouble a few years back over this kind of thing. I don't remember the details or the outcome exactly. I think the industry lost though...
Lee
You can't protect consumer choice by extracting half-hearted "promises" from executive types. Come on, these people give lawyers a run for their money in the scumbag department. It will be interesting to see just how quickly they violate the spirit of those promises if not letter of them.
The only way to protect consumer choice is by promoting competition.
Lee Reynolds
While the job of revamping Macintosh and Windows obviously belongs to their respective stewards, the same can't be said for the upstart Linux system. Nobody owns this Unix-based operating system built around the code first created by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds.
Uhhmmm, actually Linux is owned. Different portions of it are owned by different people. Linus Torvalds owns parts of the kernel, as does Alan Cox and many other people. The GNU utilities are probably owned by the FSF rather than the individual coders who created them. The fact that all of these pieces of code have been licensed under the GPL in no way nullifies anyone's ownership of them.
So many people confuse the GPL with something being in the public domain. If a piece of code was in the public domain, the GPL would be unenforcable. It is only because individuals do own and hold the rights to the code they have created that the GPL has any meaning at all.
Something that a lot of people don't realize is that code licensed under the GPL can be licensed by its creator under other licensing terms which are incompatible with the GPL. Users of that code, who use it under the GPL, do not have such rights, but the copyright holder does. So the next time someone tries to tell you that you can't license your own code to anyone else once you placed it under the GPL, tell them to go study copyright law just a little before they start running their mouth.
Lee Reynolds
Why are you afraid of cookies? Is Big Brother(tm) watching you?
(Big Brother is a registered trademark of Microsoft corporation and is used without consent.)
Lee
I absolutely love the idea of everyone on earth being able to speak a common language. That language would not necessarily be the speaker's first language, but it would be one in which they were fluent. At this point in time English looks like the best bet to fill this role. It is the language of international business first of all. The elites in many countries around the globe send their children to schools where they are taught english. I know, I work in a university where 80% of our student workers come from the elite classes of other countries, they all speak english fluently. Not like what you'll find at McDonalds. Is there some kind of corporate policy there which requires that anyone working the front counter cannot speak english?
As internet use increases around the globe, a universal language will eventually come into being. I doubt very seriously that it will be pure english, or pure anything. More likely it will be an amalgamation of many languages.
This is exactly what happens when two or more languages are mixed together due to the geographic merger of speakers of those languages.
English itself did not always have the form it does today. Take a look at middle english, or old english sometime, they're truly foreign to speakers of modern english. After the norman conquest of england, words from french slowly seeped into the language to the point that today English, while germanic in origin, could almost be considered a romance language.
So as time goes by the internet itself will foster the creation of a new language, derived from old, that anyone online will be able to use.
The sooner this happens the better.
Lee Reynolds
In post after post I see stuff about the jocks doing this and the jocks doing that. It sounds like something out of a revenge of the nerds movie. I can't ever remember a case of a jock doing anything to anyone other than another jock when I was in school. It wasn't all that long ago either, I graduated in 92. Issues and problems were between people, not groups or cliques. The groups which were different from each other simply didn't bother one another for the most part.
I'm not saying that athletic types are saints and that they never ever do anything to anyone, I just think I'm seeing a tendency to single them out as a group and demonize them here. That sort of a witch hunt isn't much different from a geek/nerd type being persecuted by his school.
Lee
Get xfstt, use xfree 4.0. There are at least two ways that you can get usable true type font support on your system. I've been able to use true type fonts from windows under linux for over two years now. Anti-aliased they are not, but even aliased true-type fonts look a thousand times better than rasterized fonts.
Lee
So you're telling me that a group having a monopoly on information and its interpretation is a good thing?
An understanding of the bible by the people helped lead directly to the protestant reformation. This fragmentation of the catholic church's power was very important to the social and scientific advances of the past few centuries. Democracy and theocracy are mutually exclusive. Imagine a western world similar to that of islamic countries where the church and the state are one and the same and everyone is brainwashed by religion. One where demonstrable reality takes a back seat to what some priest says is the truth based on the beliefs of a mid-eastern culture from ancient antiquity. For all practical purposes you might as well be living in the soviet union. But luckily we don't have to live like that. We live in a world where what can be seen and what can be proven is the basis for the interpretation of reality. One where each of us has the freedom to speak our mind without fear of imprisonment and tortue.
The typeface was damned near unreadable, but it looked an awful lot like latin to me. Talk about a perfect way to brush up on the latin you learned in high school or college and have since then forgotten. If I remember right the catholic church was not happy about the printing press, especially the printing of bibles. The last thing they wanted was for the common man to study and understand the bible his or herself. After all, the bastion of religion is ignorance. Lee Reynolds
This is yet another reason not to buy Microsoft's products. This all goes back to the personality of Bill Gates himself. Some people would be more than happy to be as rich as he is and to have such a powerful position within the computer industry. But not Bill, not he wants to have control over your desktop system, and your server as well. Now you can say he's not in charge at M$ anymore, but I don't believe that. Isn't he supposed to be working on long-term plans, being the visionary within the company? You can't do that if you have to play mother may I.
This reminds me of the slow and steady encroachment of a totalitarian regime. One which slowly but continuously works to undermine the rights and freedoms of the citizens, all the while denying that it is doing so and claiming to be working to preserve freedom.
Now of course the software industry is different, but isn't the freedom to choose which software packages and drivers you use on your system your right? How is it any of Microsoft's business what you do? They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
I refuse to run an operating system which refuses to execute the code I give it on arbitrary grounds. I'll use star-office and make do long before I'll submit to the will of the Furher in Redmond.
This whole business just really pisses me off.
Lee Reynolds
Copyright is about copying, not about listening or reading. If you buy a book and read it, then give it to your friend to read, neither of you has broken any law nor done anything immoral or unethical. The media companies are trying to warp copyright into a pay-per-view style system, but that isn't what it is about. When you buy an album you're buying a copy of a work. You own that copy. You can do any damn thing you want with it, let as many people listen to it as you'd like. The one thing you can't do is distribute copies of it yourself. Why? Because you don't hold the copyright on it. Get it? Lee Reynolds
The GPL was created so that works could be placed under it by its authors. It does nothing to defeat copyright law in any way. It makes use of copyright law, but not in any guerilla sense and not to circumvent copyright law. The copyright laws were created to protect intellectual property rights, which is exactly what the GPL does as well.
Lee Reynolds
Shouldn't someone explain to this fan that the grateful dead doesn't tour anymore? That they've been more or less disbanded since Garcia died? There are no more concerts for this fan to tape.
Lee Reynolds
Sure, when issuses of constitutionality were involved. To call use of naptster a constitutional issue is stretching things just a wee bit. I doubt the court would even hear the case.
Lee Reynolds
Then how come I can't buy cuban cigars from my friendly canadian importers?
To be fair, I used this as an example without knowing all of the details involved. My understanding of the situation with cuba, based on reading a magazine article about it, is that the concept of "trading with the enemy" is the foundation of the law against it. That it is not illegal to go to cuba, only illegal to spend any money there as strange as that sounds.
The US has had a highly effective trade embargo against Cuba since Kennedy was president. Go there and you will find cars from the 1950's which people somehow miraculously keep running, probably though black market parts. But you'll find no new cars and I expect the situation is similar for other US produced goods as well. I suspect that Japan doesn't trade with Cuba because we would quickly raise our own tarriffs if they did, which explains why there aren't any new cars from that island country there either.
Personally, I think the whole business with Cuba is quite silly today. There is no missle crisis, there is no Soviet Union to prop them up. If we had half an excuse to, we could overrun them almost overnight. By refusing to trade with them, we're only hurting the Cuban pepople themselves, some of whom desperately try to flee to the US. It's a bad situation all around.
Lee Reynolds
Copyrights on US works are not easily enforcable in these places. But why on earth would anyone assume that simply setting up a server in such a country would completely evade US law?
I would think that something like overseas napster would certainly fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government as it affects both interstate and international commerce. How quickly do you think a law would be drafted and passed to regulate and even prevent us from accessing napster? Not that these laws by themselves would ammount to much, people would simply route around them, and might even have fun doing so. But the penalties for breaking this law might be severe for those who got caught. Ever hear of a little country called Cuba? Guess what, its illegal to trade with them. Has been for decades. I don't know exactly what the penalties are for doing so, or even if they are routinely enforced. But I do know it is illegal because it is considered "trading with the enemy." Kind of like trading with old Saddam during the Gulf War. I can't imagine the penalties are nice, even if I can't recall them being enforced recently.
This whole "I put my server in Rangoon, so now you can't touch me!" attitude smacks of juvenile cluelessness. It reminds me of some kid trying to use rules designed to govern/suppress him or her against the authority figures who created them in the first place. I'm sorry, but the rules are written for the benefit of those who create them and will be revised when they are found lacking in this regard. Ultimately they are little more than an agreed upon ritual dictating the methods which must be used in the exercise of power.
So please, don't be so naive.
Lee Reynolds
Free software is limited by one important issue, who is going to do the coding and who is going to use the product coded? The vast majority of free software is created by people because they use it themselves. But there are also other areas where the people who have the talent to write the code have no interest in using the end product. Here proprietary solutions will continue to dominate.
/citrix metaframe style system.
I don't know about you, but I really don't care whether my word processor is freeware or commercial. I want the underlying operating system to be free, or at least have all its specs published in full. Linux is great not so much because it is free of charge, but because there aren't any secrets about it. With windows there are lots of secrets. With the MacOS there are even more. But with Linux everything is right there on the table and its got a complete development environment included to boot! Talk about a hackers (!cracker) dream come true!
In short, the open source/free software model is one that works in some areas. It does not work for all. Therefore it is not going to take over the world. Twenty years from now commercial software will be just as prevalent as it is right now, if not more prevalent. There is every chance that free software might not be successful in the long run. There is also every chance that it will be successful. But there is nearly zero chance that it will overtake every other development model.
I personally think wine is the greatest thing since Linux itself. Imagine a terminal server type system based off wine? M$'s own terminal server is severly limited by the poor multi-user performance of NT. Unlike Linux and virtually any other version of Unix, it is very easy for a single user to eat up all the resources and lock out everyone else. This is a serious problem, but one that wine does not share. It wouldn't be too hard to make wine into one kick ass terminal server
I'm looking forward to bigger and better things from wine.
Lee
Is that supposed to be sarcastic?
.sig ya clam
Try reading my
What is a very good way for M$ to stop wine, or at least discourage people from working on it? Create a situation where they can feasibly claim that code in it just might be stolen or that the people who wrote it had access to Windows source code. Whether they did or not is irrelevant, the fact that you can cause legal problems for them simply based on the idea that they might have is what matters. If I were a ruthless organization bent on world domination (like microsoft or $cientology), this is exactly what I would do.
Expect to see legal roadblocks in the future for wine.
Lee
I'm quite sure. My certainty comes from having been there to see them when they were new. I've owned both a Commodore 64 and an Atari 65XE and they were not the same system. I personally liked the Atari systems better, especially the original 800 model. It had the best keyboard of any of them. The 800 and its descendents were based off the 6502 processor. This cpu was used in many different systems back then including the Commodore Pet, Vic20, Apple II+/IIe/IIc, BBC Acorn, OSI Challenger I/II/III, etc. etc. The Commodore 64 used the 6510 which was a derivative of the 6502. I don't really know what exactly the difference were architecture wise. I don't know of any other system which used the 6510.
Lee
Lock and load.
The Atari 800 predates the Commodore 64. The 65 and 130 XE computers were simply the last in the series.
Lee