What you say is simply false. It isn't possible for a random arbitrary website to connect to your machine and demand the serial number. It's not even possible for a website that you connect to to demand the serial number, unless you're running a browser that can be conned into reporting it. The control of the system is still software.
Re:Those "inflexible minds" were born to rule.
on
Master Of Your Domain
·
· Score: 1
Assuming you're the same troll as in the other thread (if not disregard), you most definitely need to spend a few more weeks studying Rand's philosophy if you think there's some kind of a problem with pornography. And you need to study some corporate records if you think it isn't economically viable.
Atlas Shrugged is vaguely interesting, though The Fountainhead is a better philosophical work. You have not read the "greatest work of philosophy since Aristotle". Think. Whatever that is, it's almost certainly buried in an obscure library somewhere.
First of all, neither.rpm nor.deb is comparable to a.tgz. A tgz can't be made to do what either of those can, period. Second, neither of those formats are proprietary in any way whatsoever. Third, rpm2cpio (included with the rpm distribution) will convert any rpm into a standard cpio archive, which can then be extracted with GNU cpio. I don't know much about.deb but I believe it can be easily extracted with tar. When administering a real system (meaning, one which may potentially at some present or future date be administered by someone, even yourself, who doesn't remember every single command that's been typed on the system so far) package management is essential, and it's fortunate that we've been given two useful, open formats to do it with. Build an RPM sometime and you'll understand.
Consider yourself fortunate, I still can't get the damn Xfree4 betas to compile. I'm not inept at it but I have no clue whatsoever what I'm doing wrong. Maybe I've got funky include file conflicts...
Yes, but the standard copyright has NO permissions to distribute, so you would lose all of those. And the GPL places no restrictions on use, so you wouldn't gain anything. This would be true if say the Microsoft EULA, which imposes lots of restrictions on use, was declared invalid, but it isn't relevant with the GPL.
Nah. The binary is considered "output" from gcc and the FSF does not keep the copyright. _Many_ commercial, proprietary products have been compiled with gcc.
Not exactly; should be "to people who you have distributed the binaries to" It doesn't matter whether they've paid or not, obviously. Further you can't restrict their freedom to redistribute the source to someone else, which tends to make things "freely available" generally.
These modern "digital data storage" mechanisms just can't match the analog data warmth of LP. Dataophiles everywhere know that LP gives the best-flowing data anywhere.
Sorry bub, this would be classified as "Misinformation". Daniel Linz and Neil Malamuth, 1993, _Pornography_ Apparently when the legal restrictions on the sale of porn were dropped in Denmark, the incidence of sexual crimes did not rise and in fact dropped sharply. There have been studies that showed that violent porn can cause violence, however since most porn is harmless we can conclude that it is in fact the violence itself that's harmful.
Well, Linus has never made a practice of making sure a development kernel even compiles before sending it out. If it doesn't compile, he'll be sent a fix; there's no reason for him to try to debug each development release himself.
Brett, give up. Every single line of code that has been licensed under the GPL has been licensed as such because the AUTHOR OF THE CODE WANTED IT THAT WAY. This is an important point that you seem to not understand. Programmers have the right to decide what should be done with their work. In the real, adult world that isn't the playground, sharing is a voluntary activity that is engaged in because it makes sense. If you want to use a line of someone else's code in an application you're writing, believe it or not that's actually FINE. You are NOT required to release your software under the GPL if you don't release the software at all, and in the real world, much software isn't distributed. If you want to DISTRIBUTE even a SINGLE line of someone else's code, you have to have their permission. Anything else is a clear violation of their rights as a programmer. The GPL is a sort of "you have my permission to do specifically this". However if I wanted to use a line or module from a GPL'd app and distribute it under something else, I'm fully free to CONTACT the author and ASK his permission; and if what I'm doing doesn't violate what HE SPECIFICALLY AS A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL wants, then he'll allow me to do it. Brett, your points simply have no merit, and stem from a need to hate things which are successful. Hatred is just too easy; try something else.
Why are you asking us to pretend that open-source is the only viable software model? Open-source happens to be EXTREMELY appropriate for a certain class of tasks (for example, the early authors of Apache would have been plainly stupid to use any other model) but none of the open-source advocates pretend that all software should be open-source. Particularly Torvalds has said (for years) that commercial, proprietary software is often more polished and that there is _definitely_ a place for it. That's the specific answer to Metcalfe, but I think Bruce is right in saying that the bitterness in his column is a tad strange.
Slashdot Mirror
How YOU feel, you mean. Rob Malda needs to know how _you_ feel. I'd suggest emailing him.
What you say is simply false. It isn't possible for a random arbitrary website to connect to your machine and demand the serial number. It's not even possible for a website that you connect to to demand the serial number, unless you're running a browser that can be conned into reporting it. The control of the system is still software.
Assuming you're the same troll as in the other thread (if not disregard), you most definitely need to spend a few more weeks studying Rand's philosophy if you think there's some kind of a problem with pornography. And you need to study some corporate records if you think it isn't economically viable.
Atlas Shrugged is vaguely interesting, though The Fountainhead is a better philosophical work. You have not read the "greatest work of philosophy since Aristotle". Think. Whatever that is, it's almost certainly buried in an obscure library somewhere.
First of all, neither .rpm nor .deb is comparable to a .tgz. A tgz can't be made to do what either of those can, period. .deb but I believe it can be easily extracted with tar.
Second, neither of those formats are proprietary in any way whatsoever.
Third, rpm2cpio (included with the rpm distribution) will convert any rpm into a standard cpio archive, which can then be extracted with GNU cpio. I don't know much about
When administering a real system (meaning, one which may potentially at some present or future date be administered by someone, even yourself, who doesn't remember every single command that's been typed on the system so far) package management is essential, and it's fortunate that we've been given two useful, open formats to do it with.
Build an RPM sometime and you'll understand.
The Palm sync port is actually just an RS232 serial.
So is pookmookieuh
But what if "monolithic", "microkernel", and "what Linux is becoming" are at the three points of an equilateral triangle?
2.3.47 was never posted on /., or at least, I don't see it
That's not standard C++ anymore, GCC will give a warning now.
Consider yourself fortunate, I still can't get the damn Xfree4 betas to compile. I'm not inept at it but I have no clue whatsoever what I'm doing wrong. Maybe I've got funky include file conflicts...
Yes, yes, JWZ is an arrogant bastard, we know, that's why we pay attention to him, duh.
Yes, but the standard copyright has NO permissions to distribute, so you would lose all of those. And the GPL places no restrictions on use, so you wouldn't gain anything.
This would be true if say the Microsoft EULA, which imposes lots of restrictions on use, was declared invalid, but it isn't relevant with the GPL.
Nah. The binary is considered "output" from gcc and the FSF does not keep the copyright.
_Many_ commercial, proprietary products have been compiled with gcc.
Read the sentence doofus. It would indeed be permissible for him to NOT distribute the BINARIES.
Not exactly; should be "to people who you have distributed the binaries to"
It doesn't matter whether they've paid or not, obviously.
Further you can't restrict their freedom to redistribute the source to someone else, which tends to make things "freely available" generally.
Try one of those old bargain-bin CDs of Microsoft Golf...
makes a tremendously loud noise
These modern "digital data storage" mechanisms just can't match the analog data warmth of LP. Dataophiles everywhere know that LP gives the best-flowing data anywhere.
The rule in our system is, if you don't care enough to vote, you Don't Care.
The earlier MS Natural keyboards did in fact have the little legs in the front, but apparently customer demand required that they be in back.
Sorry bub, this would be classified as "Misinformation".
Daniel Linz and Neil Malamuth, 1993, _Pornography_
Apparently when the legal restrictions on the sale of porn were dropped in Denmark, the incidence of sexual crimes did not rise and in fact dropped sharply.
There have been studies that showed that violent porn can cause violence, however since most porn is harmless we can conclude that it is in fact the violence itself that's harmful.
He was of course talking about glib. As opposed to glibc.
Well, Linus has never made a practice of making sure a development kernel even compiles before sending it out. If it doesn't compile, he'll be sent a fix; there's no reason for him to try to debug each development release himself.
Brett, give up.
Every single line of code that has been licensed under the GPL has been licensed as such because the AUTHOR OF THE CODE WANTED IT THAT WAY.
This is an important point that you seem to not understand. Programmers have the right to decide what should be done with their work. In the real, adult world that isn't the playground, sharing is a voluntary activity that is engaged in because it makes sense.
If you want to use a line of someone else's code in an application you're writing, believe it or not that's actually FINE. You are NOT required to release your software under the GPL if you don't release the software at all, and in the real world, much software isn't distributed.
If you want to DISTRIBUTE even a SINGLE line of someone else's code, you have to have their permission. Anything else is a clear violation of their rights as a programmer.
The GPL is a sort of "you have my permission to do specifically this". However if I wanted to use a line or module from a GPL'd app and distribute it under something else, I'm fully free to CONTACT the author and ASK his permission; and if what I'm doing doesn't violate what HE SPECIFICALLY AS A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL wants, then he'll allow me to do it.
Brett, your points simply have no merit, and stem from a need to hate things which are successful. Hatred is just too easy; try something else.
Why are you asking us to pretend that open-source is the only viable software model?
Open-source happens to be EXTREMELY appropriate for a certain class of tasks (for example, the early authors of Apache would have been plainly stupid to use any other model) but none of the open-source advocates pretend that all software should be open-source.
Particularly Torvalds has said (for years) that commercial, proprietary software is often more polished and that there is _definitely_ a place for it.
That's the specific answer to Metcalfe, but I think Bruce is right in saying that the bitterness in his column is a tad strange.