Well, gamers don't really need bandwidth so much as they need low latency. Generally 10Mb is more than sufficient; the only real advantage is that 100Mb cards potentially can deliver the (small) packets a bit faster. It is true that game companies may start using much more bandwidth, when it's available, but I don't see that happening much anytime soon because they also want Internet gaming to be possible, and over the net it's not really common to get 100Mb. Businesses can start playing around with stuff like videoconferencing I guess.
I want somebody to make a logo that says "Sued by the RIAA". I was thinking along the lines of something circular, with "SUED" along the top, "BY THE" along the bottom, and "RIAA" across the middle. Then we can encourage all the mp3 sites to display it prominently as a badge of honor.
Exactly. It's very simple. Unix is a *design*, and will be around as long as the type of systems it was designed to run on still exist. Be, NT, etc are mere mortal operating systems, ready to be thrown into irrelevance by the next thing to come around.
I may be wrong, but I see Unix in general, and Linux specifically, as one huge development environment. This merger might make sense if essential stuff like a C compiler were missing, but it isn't. And the Unix development environment is basically what most Unix developers want to use, isn't it? I don't know how much Borland can add to the C/C++ tools, and I doubt there's room for another scripting language. Is Delphi all they have? I think something like Delphi would be nice to see, though I can't see myself using it much. And it's hard to justify buying an entire corporation by the potential of one tool even if it's a very useful one. So does anyone have any clue what the real purpose behind this is?
There are actually some versions of NT (earlier ones perhaps?) that will just crash during bootup if booted from at least some versions of LILO. This doesn't seem to be an issue anymore (likely either NT or LILO was fixed in some way) but it used to be a major hassle.
Ignore him, there are some people on/. who think everything they don't like to see is a troll. Anyway, I imagine it was almost certainly the ez-drive thing that caused most of the problem. On an NT machine, putting LILO on the boot partition instead of the MBR isn't really necessary, and requires additional configuration that is not trivial. BTW, ez-drive itself should generally not be necessary unless you're running an older version of DOS, and I would avoid using such things as much as possible. And to be fair to RH's installer, NT's boot process is ridiculously fragile, and the "recovery disk" is usually utterly useless. NT _should_ be better about this. But in conclusion, yes, installing an OS is _always_ going to be dangerous. It is wise of you to have had a backup handy. The RH installer works fine for most people (even most people who have NT). For the record, that's why you were flamed: by some idiots who had successfully installed on an NT machine before, who thus assumed it would always work fine.
If I have a copy of a GPL'd work, I can use it in any way I can imagine. I can compile it under any OS, I can run it under Windows, or Linux, or FreeBSD, or BeOS. I can figure out how it works. If I want to distribute it (or, give the right of usage to someone else) I have to abide by the license. If I have a DVD, the rules are actually generally the same. The license on most DVDs is written in such a way that it allows playback via DeCSS. However the MPAA (which owns no DVD copyrights) is trying to make DeCSS illegal, not via any means of copyright or license (because use of DeCSS doesn't violate any copyright or license in and of itself) but by using the DMCA, since they can claim that using it to break copyright is possible. Their intent is to make it impossible to VIEW dvd's on anything other than an "approved" player. THIS is what is being railed against, NOT the concept of copyright, or licenses. Whether these things are good or not is an open issue, but the entire DeCSS fiasco has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or license violation; if there were a copyright violation, the plantiff would be the specific studio that owned the copyright, and the defendant would be the person who violated that specific copyright, not the person who developed the software which was used. This is an important distinction, because this is very directly not a copyright issue, it's a usage issue. So in my opinion, the GPL really has nothing to do with this discussion.
The errors: "Linux is POSIX certified implementation" : should be "a POSIX certified implementation" and should say what it's an implementation of "the source code for the Linux operating systems freely available to everyone": should obviously be "system is freely" That's two major errors, in one paragraph. Though I don't see an actual _spelling_ error, these are at least as bad.
One large hole in this reasoning is that the MPAA is NOT the copyright holder of ANY dvd's. The authorization to view a DVD can only be given by the copyright holder, and the MPAA has nothing to do with this. For example, the Matrix DVD says "For sale or rental for private home use in the USA and Canada only." So, using DeCSS to watch a DVD on Linux with my home computer is not a violation of the Warner Bros. copyright. The MPAA can scream all they want, they've got nothing to do with this. So your argument is entirely invalid, and misses the point.
Well... it's too late for them to increase the strength of the encryption with DVD, because they'd have to release a whole new set of DVD players to read the new, differently-encrypted disks, and people generally won't stand for that sort of thing.
Actually, I thought of a better analogy the other day. Let's say a company began to sell an effective OCR-to-speech system, that was able to read a book aloud. This would (perhaps) be a big boon for blind people, because they'd be able to read books that hadn't been printed in Braille. (this is hypothetical, don't think too much) If the printed publishers wanted to pretend they were the MPAA for a day, instead of being glad that their books were open to new markets, they'd sue this company, claiming that the only use of this tech was to illegally encode books into mp3 and pirate them over the Internet. Obviously, we know that it's possible to copy books without such a thing. Obviously blind people have a right to read books, even if they want to read them in a manner that many book manufacturers consider inappropriate. Sure, it's not a perfect analogy, but it gets people thinking the right way.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gamers don't really need bandwidth so much as they need low latency. Generally 10Mb is more than sufficient; the only real advantage is that 100Mb cards potentially can deliver the (small) packets a bit faster.
It is true that game companies may start using much more bandwidth, when it's available, but I don't see that happening much anytime soon because they also want Internet gaming to be possible, and over the net it's not really common to get 100Mb.
Businesses can start playing around with stuff like videoconferencing I guess.
Why?
I want somebody to make a logo that says "Sued by the RIAA". I was thinking along the lines of something circular, with "SUED" along the top, "BY THE" along the bottom, and "RIAA" across the middle. Then we can encourage all the mp3 sites to display it prominently as a badge of honor.
Exactly. It's very simple. Unix is a *design*, and will be around as long as the type of systems it was designed to run on still exist. Be, NT, etc are mere mortal operating systems, ready to be thrown into irrelevance by the next thing to come around.
I didn't say it was. I'm quite aware that it isn't.
I may be wrong, but I see Unix in general, and Linux specifically, as one huge development environment. This merger might make sense if essential stuff like a C compiler were missing, but it isn't. And the Unix development environment is basically what most Unix developers want to use, isn't it?
I don't know how much Borland can add to the C/C++ tools, and I doubt there's room for another scripting language. Is Delphi all they have? I think something like Delphi would be nice to see, though I can't see myself using it much.
And it's hard to justify buying an entire corporation by the potential of one tool even if it's a very useful one.
So does anyone have any clue what the real purpose behind this is?
Well... I think in this case, it would have helped if the moderator had read the _comment_...
There are actually some versions of NT (earlier ones perhaps?) that will just crash during bootup if booted from at least some versions of LILO. This doesn't seem to be an issue anymore (likely either NT or LILO was fixed in some way) but it used to be a major hassle.
Ignore him, there are some people on /. who think everything they don't like to see is a troll.
Anyway, I imagine it was almost certainly the ez-drive thing that caused most of the problem. On an NT machine, putting LILO on the boot partition instead of the MBR isn't really necessary, and requires additional configuration that is not trivial.
BTW, ez-drive itself should generally not be necessary unless you're running an older version of DOS, and I would avoid using such things as much as possible. And to be fair to RH's installer, NT's boot process is ridiculously fragile, and the "recovery disk" is usually utterly useless. NT _should_ be better about this.
But in conclusion, yes, installing an OS is _always_ going to be dangerous. It is wise of you to have had a backup handy. The RH installer works fine for most people (even most people who have NT).
For the record, that's why you were flamed: by some idiots who had successfully installed on an NT machine before, who thus assumed it would always work fine.
Uhm... deja only tracks Usenet; anything posted on Usenet is already public. I'd assume that you were joking but it's possible that you aren't.
There is no such clause on the license of any dvd I have ever seen. Read the back of a DVD, I have 5 in front of me and none say any such thing.
If I have a copy of a GPL'd work, I can use it in any way I can imagine. I can compile it under any OS, I can run it under Windows, or Linux, or FreeBSD, or BeOS. I can figure out how it works. If I want to distribute it (or, give the right of usage to someone else) I have to abide by the license.
If I have a DVD, the rules are actually generally the same. The license on most DVDs is written in such a way that it allows playback via DeCSS.
However the MPAA (which owns no DVD copyrights) is trying to make DeCSS illegal, not via any means of copyright or license (because use of DeCSS doesn't violate any copyright or license in and of itself) but by using the DMCA, since they can claim that using it to break copyright is possible. Their intent is to make it impossible to VIEW dvd's on anything other than an "approved" player.
THIS is what is being railed against, NOT the concept of copyright, or licenses. Whether these things are good or not is an open issue, but the entire DeCSS fiasco has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or license violation; if there were a copyright violation, the plantiff would be the specific studio that owned the copyright, and the defendant would be the person who violated that specific copyright, not the person who developed the software which was used.
This is an important distinction, because this is very directly not a copyright issue, it's a usage issue. So in my opinion, the GPL really has nothing to do with this discussion.
Actually the GPL makes no restrictions whatsoever on how you can USE the material. Only distribution, which is the point.
Note that I didn't make any statement to the effect of how much I gave a damn whether he cared or not.
Muah.
Yes, please do. Explain particularly why we should really give a damn whether you care or not.
He forgot the troll, and amazingly enough, gets flamed for NOT trolling.
I think that was rather ingenious.
The errors:
"Linux is POSIX certified implementation" : should be "a POSIX certified implementation" and should say what it's an implementation of
"the source code for the Linux operating systems freely available to everyone": should obviously be "system is freely"
That's two major errors, in one paragraph. Though I don't see an actual _spelling_ error, these are at least as bad.
One large hole in this reasoning is that the MPAA is NOT the copyright holder of ANY dvd's. The authorization to view a DVD can only be given by the copyright holder, and the MPAA has nothing to do with this.
For example, the Matrix DVD says "For sale or rental for private home use in the USA and Canada only." So, using DeCSS to watch a DVD on Linux with my home computer is not a violation of the Warner Bros. copyright. The MPAA can scream all they want, they've got nothing to do with this.
So your argument is entirely invalid, and misses the point.
"some mistakes (you really should proof read)"
that's beautiful man, I'm going to steal that line.
The Internet.
There's an 8-inch drive and some 8-inch floppies within a few feet of me...
So I don't see your point.
Well... it's too late for them to increase the strength of the encryption with DVD, because they'd have to release a whole new set of DVD players to read the new, differently-encrypted disks, and people generally won't stand for that sort of thing.
Actually, I thought of a better analogy the other day.
Let's say a company began to sell an effective OCR-to-speech system, that was able to read a book aloud. This would (perhaps) be a big boon for blind people, because they'd be able to read books that hadn't been printed in Braille. (this is hypothetical, don't think too much)
If the printed publishers wanted to pretend they were the MPAA for a day, instead of being glad that their books were open to new markets, they'd sue this company, claiming that the only use of this tech was to illegally encode books into mp3 and pirate them over the Internet.
Obviously, we know that it's possible to copy books without such a thing. Obviously blind people have a right to read books, even if they want to read them in a manner that many book manufacturers consider inappropriate.
Sure, it's not a perfect analogy, but it gets people thinking the right way.
is "tao" pronounced with a t sound or a d sound?
You are of course correct, the word "deadlock" has been in use for over 200 years.