Criminals tend to be averse to going to the local hospital for health care.
Doctor: Now tell me again how you got burned by ammonium nitrate when you live in an apartment?
Terrorist: Someone set us up the bomb.
Doctor: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Trolltech then nicely decided to agree to let people use the GPL3 - but they didn't have to. And when the GPL4 comes along, we'll have to hope that Nokia decides to allow it.
Do they have a track record of "doing the wrong thing" that they've only deviated from a time or two? Why assume it's going to get much worse now?
When you're Red Hat, you don't want to build your OS in a way that lets another corporation control a critical aspect of it.
Kind of like how they're no longer using the GPLv2-only Linux kernel. Gotcha.
I never have understood why QT is always held to a different standard than other software. Even though it's GPLv2 + GPLv3 + closed if you wanna pay for it, that just doesn't please some people.
Of course, this risk with KDE basing itself on Qt was obvious all the time due to the licensing model there.
As others have pointed out, QT is available under the GPL. I seem to be feeling a little dense today. Could you please explain to me and others why building one GPLed project on another GPLed project is a risky venture?
But Google's support of Domain Parking profits clearly has a significant drag on worldwide innovation. For instance, how many people have searched for a meaningful domain for their site just to find it serving Google ads? How many great ideas were lost because it was difficult to find them at myreallydifficulttorememberdomain.com?
Oh noes! Someone will have to get creative with their site name! Meanwhile, myreallydifficulttorememberdomain.com will get just as indexed as example.com, so if their content is good it won't be any harder to find.
So what is the societal cost of Google's policy? I'd say it has a greater negative effect on the world than the single Yahoo action mentioned. Thus, I would deem it as more Evil.
I'm not one for name calling. It's silly and childish. Having said that, you're an f'in moron for thinking for an instant that those slight inconveniences are more awful than the likely family destruction, torture, and execution that Chinese dissidents face. Go listen to some emo, kid, and revel in middle class suburban angst all you want. In the real world, only idiots think that Google ads are as bad as getting dragged screaming from your house.
By the way, in Philosophy 101 they'll explain why Utilitarianism was largely rejected as a good basis for judging behavior. Pay close attention.
Does this software have an dependencies on other GPL code? Did it ever? If so then the author needs to call a whaaambulance and shut up about the whole idea before he gets sued for copyright violation.
"inthishouseweobeythelawsofthermodynamics" is cute when someone's bragging about their perpetual motion machine. It makes you look ignorant when the story is about someone converting one form of energy to another in an incrementally more efficient way than before. News flash: it's obvious that current production methods can be improved upon. What part of that smacks of breaking the laws of physics?
The idea that many marketers (and others) had is that not only would owning such domains get you more traffic, but it would also begin to associate the very idea of _noun_ on the web with your particular brand of _noun_.
For anyone doubting, consider how many times you'd see "AOL KEYWORD: GOATS" on TV and print advertising up until fairly recently. That was functionally identical to registering keyword domains for a very large percentage of online people.
If you code does this:
incdlue($_GET['module']."/index.php");
...then you should be dragged out and shot. And shame on PHP devs for allowing that in the default install. I mean, how often has anyone really wanted to run code off a remote server? It's like Active-X on crack.
You can use fail2ban, but SSH can be protected very nicely with Netfilter/IPTABLES
...or you just turn off the damn password authentication and watch attackers try to brute-force a 2048 bit RSA key. Honestly, people, it's not that hard!
Because the first thing that would be posted on/. is "That's just a bypass of how it should have been programmed. Look at all that wasted space, almost everyone in the world has a P3 processor, and 8GB of HDD space. No one has the space for 2 OS's on their hard drive.
Those people would be (correctly) smacked down. See, you already have multiple OSes installed inside Vista. The only difference is that in the current setup they're tucked away inside the API and only exposed when the OS thinks they need to be. From a programming point of view, I'm almost certain that the overhead of keeping both lines of code intact and working together is far higher than just splitting them out and maintaining them separately.
Like someone else said, earlier versions of windows simply had no security whatsoever, and thus apps were written with that in mind, and now they're stuck having to support such apps.
But again, why couldn't you run those inside a VirtualPC VM that's visually integrated into the desktop? Even DOS apps could run inside something like DOSBox without too much hassle.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, if Microsoft abandoned backward compatibility, they'd lose most corporate users and many home users as well. You don't need an MBA to see why that is not a promising idea.
Or why not take the Mac approach: run win32 apps inside a "Classic" mode that's really an XP installation. MS already owns VirtualPC so they could embed a copy inside Vista without being dependent on a third party. Then they could have Vista as clean and slim and legacy-free as they wish without affecting old apps at all. State from the beginning that they'll support "Windows Classic" for, say, 5 years and then be done with it.
Similarly (and much more impressively), IBM has managed nearly perfect backward compatibility alongside new systems for over 40 years. Why can't Microsoft?
I'm in Australia, and as far as I'm aware it is illegal in Aus to copy music you own at all.
Ouch. Point taken. In America, it is completely legal to format-shift your music, yet a lot of people here think that the music labels "allow" us to do it.
If you buy an album on CD, you have a license to use THAT CD and that CD only.
Don't repeat the industry's BS. If you buy an album on CD, you own that album and are ethically, morally, and legally entitled to do anything you want with it short of distributing copies. You don't "license" books, and you don't "license" CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there anyone (sane) who wouldn't? That's not like Barney Fife's come a-callin'.
Wait, I'm confused. Are you arguing that this is bad or good?
Criminals tend to be averse to going to the local hospital for health care.
Doctor: Now tell me again how you got burned by ammonium nitrate when you live in an apartment?
Terrorist: Someone set us up the bomb.
Doctor: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Not in Omaha.
Do they have a track record of "doing the wrong thing" that they've only deviated from a time or two? Why assume it's going to get much worse now?
When you're Red Hat, you don't want to build your OS in a way that lets another corporation control a critical aspect of it.Kind of like how they're no longer using the GPLv2-only Linux kernel. Gotcha.
I never have understood why QT is always held to a different standard than other software. Even though it's GPLv2 + GPLv3 + closed if you wanna pay for it, that just doesn't please some people.
As others have pointed out, QT is available under the GPL. I seem to be feeling a little dense today. Could you please explain to me and others why building one GPLed project on another GPLed project is a risky venture?
Or perhaps it was 7.10 because it came out in the 10th month of 2007?
Hint: yes.
ME was the future at one point, too. Did you feel compelled to rush out and buy that one?
That is still not true for the author, who may or may not distribute anything he wants.
So, will this be a "real" service pack, or is it aimed at all the companies that said they wouldn't switch to Vista until SP1 came out?
Oh noes! Someone will have to get creative with their site name! Meanwhile, myreallydifficulttorememberdomain.com will get just as indexed as example.com, so if their content is good it won't be any harder to find.
So what is the societal cost of Google's policy? I'd say it has a greater negative effect on the world than the single Yahoo action mentioned. Thus, I would deem it as more Evil.I'm not one for name calling. It's silly and childish. Having said that, you're an f'in moron for thinking for an instant that those slight inconveniences are more awful than the likely family destruction, torture, and execution that Chinese dissidents face. Go listen to some emo, kid, and revel in middle class suburban angst all you want. In the real world, only idiots think that Google ads are as bad as getting dragged screaming from your house.
By the way, in Philosophy 101 they'll explain why Utilitarianism was largely rejected as a good basis for judging behavior. Pay close attention.
It looks and acts identical on Firefox and Konqueror for me on Ubuntu 7.10, which is good because i hardly ever load Firefox.
Does this software have an dependencies on other GPL code? Did it ever? If so then the author needs to call a whaaambulance and shut up about the whole idea before he gets sued for copyright violation.
I actually like the funny ones. It's just the ones that manage to be sarcastic and wrong at the same time that annoy me. :-)
No kidding. Mr. "Inkling", I'd like you to meet my old friend, Mr. XFree86. You two should have a lot to talk about.
"inthishouseweobeythelawsofthermodynamics" is cute when someone's bragging about their perpetual motion machine. It makes you look ignorant when the story is about someone converting one form of energy to another in an incrementally more efficient way than before. News flash: it's obvious that current production methods can be improved upon. What part of that smacks of breaking the laws of physics?
For anyone doubting, consider how many times you'd see "AOL KEYWORD: GOATS" on TV and print advertising up until fairly recently. That was functionally identical to registering keyword domains for a very large percentage of online people.
...then you should be dragged out and shot. And shame on PHP devs for allowing that in the default install. I mean, how often has anyone really wanted to run code off a remote server? It's like Active-X on crack.
...or you just turn off the damn password authentication and watch attackers try to brute-force a 2048 bit RSA key. Honestly, people, it's not that hard!
Slower than the reality of what we have today?
They could even put a marketing spin on it: "Office 2009! Optimized for Vista!"
Those people would be (correctly) smacked down. See, you already have multiple OSes installed inside Vista. The only difference is that in the current setup they're tucked away inside the API and only exposed when the OS thinks they need to be. From a programming point of view, I'm almost certain that the overhead of keeping both lines of code intact and working together is far higher than just splitting them out and maintaining them separately.
But again, why couldn't you run those inside a VirtualPC VM that's visually integrated into the desktop? Even DOS apps could run inside something like DOSBox without too much hassle.
Or why not take the Mac approach: run win32 apps inside a "Classic" mode that's really an XP installation. MS already owns VirtualPC so they could embed a copy inside Vista without being dependent on a third party. Then they could have Vista as clean and slim and legacy-free as they wish without affecting old apps at all. State from the beginning that they'll support "Windows Classic" for, say, 5 years and then be done with it.
Similarly (and much more impressively), IBM has managed nearly perfect backward compatibility alongside new systems for over 40 years. Why can't Microsoft?
Ouch. Point taken. In America, it is completely legal to format-shift your music, yet a lot of people here think that the music labels "allow" us to do it.
Don't repeat the industry's BS. If you buy an album on CD, you own that album and are ethically, morally, and legally entitled to do anything you want with it short of distributing copies. You don't "license" books, and you don't "license" CDs.