Alarms. I need at least three for my usual
days, more occasionally. The one on my cheap
digital has been set to 2:17pm for five years now (to get the kids from school)
It's a plain old link, there just isn't any text between the <a> and </a> tags, so the user doesn't see anything. Heck, check out my website and see for yourself - it's on every page.
What I do is have a hidden link at the top of every page that links to a specially-named missing HTML file in that directory. The missing file handler checks for this special name and, if found, adds the client's IP to the.htaccess deny list. The access denied handler checks the.htaccess list and, if their IP is found, explains the acceptable use policy to them. A cron job expires the.htaccess entries quickly once they stop trying to bulk download.
My dad works on a tugboat, and they're trying to
get the company to buy them an auto-aimed sat
TV dish (you don't get cable on a boat, and
RF reception is spotty in the middle of the ocean).
The units exist; they're $5,000 each.
No, the information content of an event is the difference between the information you have before the event (probabilities) and the information you have after the event (actualities). If the event can be predicted with certainty, it adds no information. Look up Claude Shannon for a history of the work in this field.
I mod'd my players to fit through the doors,
so you might have to use noclip mode. Sorry,
no furniture.
We have no jewelry, money, or anything worth putting in a fire safety box, and I'm always home.
Make sure you get the right house, as most of our
neighbors have shotguns (ex-military/police).
I use q3radiant for all my 3-D designs.
Scale: 1 unit = 1 inch for large items (house,
shed), 1 unit = 1/8 inch for furniture. I've
got scans of various woods, plus scans for the colors we use (paint, carpet) and a photo of our
fireplace for the house model. I even have a perl script to produce a "cut list" for certain types of furniture projects.
No, you're right. The GPL allows you to do whatever you please in the privacy of your own computer. However, in the context of this article, what is said is that such private modifications can't be distributed and thus simply don't factor into anything. If nobody ever sees them, it doesn't matter if they exist or not.
Correct: the tools and sim are GPL, but the only way to obtain them is to purchase the full kit from Sony. Once you buy it, you can distribute the GPL parts, but I doubt that will happen, nor that it will be useful. Using a sim to learn a platform is like using a list of DNA sequences to learn psychology.
The real power of the GPL in this case is not the distribution terms, but having the source, which gives the licensed developers a much wider range of debugging and optimizing options (which means cooler games, faster to market:)
This is somewhat off-topic, so I'll keep it short. I joined Cygnus last July (Cygnus is 10 years old). I work on Cygwin and other NT-hosted projects. delorie.com has nothing to do with Cygnus, and DJGPP development will not be affected. I offered to do the/. post because I've been around this scene for a while and have a pretty good idea about what stuff you folks like;-)
The simulator is part of of gdb, so it must be GPL. In fact, the GPL on the sim is very important to developers - if they have a thorny debug problem, they can always edit the simulator to trigger a breakpoint under bizarre conditions. Try doing that with a proprietary simulator!
The simulator and tools alone aren't enough to create games for the NGPS. You will also need additional non-GPL stuff from SCEI. However, the compiler and simulator will be GPL, which is good for game developers (imagine the debugging possibilities when you can put debug code in the simulator!)
You are never forced to give away anything you develop. However, if you take someone else's sources and modify them, you must comply with their terms, which may require giving away your changes to *their* code.
This article was so full of factual errors and misconceptions that I think the author didn't do any research at all, and is completely ignorant of the topic he writes about.
The business case for Linux and its open source software cousins is based on two fundamentals: the software is free or nearly so, and the availability of the source code attracts a large number of debuggers - again for free or nearly so.
No, the business case for Linux and OSS is based on these two fundamentals: it performs better than its proprietary counterparts, and it fails less often. The author goes to great lengths to describe how total cost of ownership is a key factor in buying decisions, yet fails to realize that TCO is influenced most by unit failure rate, and studies have shown that unit failure rate for Linux is far less then for Windows. Thus, TCO should be far less for Linux simply because you don't need support as often.
... the failure rate for the utilities on the freely distributed Linux version of Unix was... 9 percent... Unix has more than 10 million lines of code, while Linux has only 1.5 million. So the Unix defect rate could have been as high as 60 percent and still paralleled that of Linux.
This is a simple math bug. The failure rate for Linux is 9 percent. If the size of Linux were ten times its current size, the failure rate would probably still be 9 percent. That's what percents are - ratios. His "defect density" sounds to me like exactly the statistics he is refuting (thus, the defect rate of Linux is 9%, compared to 15-43% for other Unix), since density is a ratio. 60% of 10 million sounds like a lot more than 9% of 1.5 million.
"Linux, once again, has had over 1,000 people submit patches, bug fixes, etc. and has had over 200 individuals directly contribute code to the kernel.... Microsoft's core development team consists of 400 full-time program-mers and 250 testers... When compared to the size of the Windows NT effort, Linux is woefully undersupported.
Microsoft has only two times the core programmers, but they have 6 times as many lines of code to work on, and Linux is the one that's undersupported? Sounds like Linux has three times as many programmers per line of code than Microsoft.
Already, Apache is losing the performance battle against Microsoft's IIS.
Didn't he see the recent article by ZDNet showing that Apache outperformed IIS by a wide margin?
Even the opensource community admits to this weak-ness: "The biggest roadblock for open source software projects is dealing with exponential growth and management costs as a project is scaled up in terms of innovation and size" (http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html).
He quotes a Microsoft source saying Linux is in trouble, then attributes it to the Linux community. Of course Microsoft is going to put Linux down. When taken in the correct context with the correct attributions, this statement loses his purpose.
So we can rule out any scenario in which Microsoft takes over Linux.
The GPL would prevent this anyway. Even if Microsoft tried to "absorb and extend", they'd never be able to do it without violating copyright laws, because any extending they did would have to be released as soon as they shipped it to any customer. Even if they try to tie applications to "their" Linux, any work they'd done to make it "their" Linux would have to be released under the GPL, and could be replicated in other Linux variants.
A third scenario is most likely: Linux will turn commercial
Linux is commercial. What do you think Cygnus, Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, and Pacific HiTech are doing with it? They certainly aren't charities - they're out for profit.
To make a lasting impression, software developers still must cope with absorb-and-extend and other techniques of the strong. To do so, they will have to retain a certain amount of proprietary code in their products and charge for their intellectual property, one way or the other.
First off, as stated before, absorb and extend just won't work with GPL'd code. It can't. Any work Microsoft puts into enhancing Linux (sans applications, which are effectively independent of Linux itself) becomes part of Linux, which only improves it for everyone else too. Any support Microsoft puts into Linux would only help the Linux community. Second, Linux's "intellectual property" isn't the code, it's the people behind it. Companies like Cygnus, Red Hat, and Caldera make lots of money off OSS by having the right people and services, not by having proprietary code. Microsoft can't duplicate that without a significant investment in people and time.
Cygnus *does* provide immediate support
on
Rumours
·
· Score: 1
Much of what we do is time-critical, and with all forms of free software, immediate support cannot be guaranteed.
Um, Cygnus does exactly that - it guarantees immediate support for GNU development tools if you have a support contract with us. We've got some pretty major companies as customers, too.
The free software Bazaar isn't enough of a solution, me thinks. It needs to support the other side of the equation also. It needs a way for developers to list the projects they'd like to work on, and let people offer money to help. The current system relies on the person with the money knowing what they want, but what if they don't know they want it yet? I think people with money to donate would be more willing to pool their funds on a project when they know someone is interested in working on it.
Slashdot Mirror
So why do people still buy watches?
Alarms. I need at least three for my usual days, more occasionally. The one on my cheap digital has been set to 2:17pm for five years now (to get the kids from school)
It's a plain old link, there just isn't any text
between the <a> and </a> tags, so the user doesn't
see anything. Heck, check out my website and
see for yourself - it's on every page.
What I do is have a hidden link at the top of every page that links to a specially-named missing HTML file in that directory. The missing file handler checks for this special name and, if found, adds the client's IP to the .htaccess deny list. The access denied handler checks the .htaccess list and, if their IP is found, explains the acceptable use policy to them. A cron job expires the .htaccess entries quickly once they stop trying to bulk download.
My dad works on a tugboat, and they're trying to get the company to buy them an auto-aimed sat TV dish (you don't get cable on a boat, and RF reception is spotty in the middle of the ocean). The units exist; they're $5,000 each.
No, the information content of an event is the difference between the information you have before the event (probabilities) and the information you have after the event (actualities). If the event can be predicted with certainty, it adds no information. Look up Claude Shannon for a history of the work in this field.
A quantum mechanic can park his car in the garage without opening the door.
I mod'd my players to fit through the doors, so you might have to use noclip mode. Sorry, no furniture.
We have no jewelry, money, or anything worth putting in a fire safety box, and I'm always home. Make sure you get the right house, as most of our neighbors have shotguns (ex-military/police).
I use q3radiant for all my 3-D designs. Scale: 1 unit = 1 inch for large items (house, shed), 1 unit = 1/8 inch for furniture. I've got scans of various woods, plus scans for the colors we use (paint, carpet) and a photo of our fireplace for the house model. I even have a perl script to produce a "cut list" for certain types of furniture projects.
then choose a cursor that's blank as the default. Or substitute a cursor font that's nothing but blanks.
How is this different from The Free Software Bazaar ? I mean, aside from the pretty graphics :-)
No, you're right. The GPL allows you to do whatever you please in the privacy of your own computer. However, in the context of this article, what is said is that such private modifications can't be distributed and thus simply don't factor into anything. If nobody ever sees them, it doesn't matter if they exist or not.
The real power of the GPL in this case is not the distribution terms, but having the source, which gives the licensed developers a much wider range of debugging and optimizing options (which means cooler games, faster to market :)
This is somewhat off-topic, so I'll keep it short. I joined Cygnus last July (Cygnus is 10 years old). I work on Cygwin and other NT-hosted projects. delorie.com has nothing to do with Cygnus, and DJGPP development will not be affected. I offered to do the /. post because I've been around this scene for a while and have a pretty good idea about what stuff you folks like ;-)
The simulator is part of of gdb, so it must be GPL. In fact, the GPL on the sim is very important to developers - if they have a thorny debug problem, they can always edit the simulator to trigger a breakpoint under bizarre conditions. Try doing that with a proprietary simulator!
The simulator and tools alone aren't enough to create games for the NGPS. You will also need additional non-GPL stuff from SCEI. However, the compiler and simulator will be GPL, which is good for game developers (imagine the debugging possibilities when you can put debug code in the simulator!)
You are never forced to give away anything you develop. However, if you take someone else's sources and modify them, you must comply with their terms, which may require giving away your changes to *their* code.
This article was so full of factual errors and misconceptions that I think the author didn't do any research at all, and is completely ignorant of the topic he writes about.
The business case for Linux and its open source software cousins is based on two fundamentals: the software is free or nearly so, and the availability of the source code attracts a large number of debuggers - again for free or nearly so.
No, the business case for Linux and OSS is based on these two fundamentals: it performs better than its proprietary counterparts, and it fails less often. The author goes to great lengths to describe how total cost of ownership is a key factor in buying decisions, yet fails to realize that TCO is influenced most by unit failure rate, and studies have shown that unit failure rate for Linux is far less then for Windows. Thus, TCO should be far less for Linux simply because you don't need support as often.
This is a simple math bug. The failure rate for Linux is 9 percent. If the size of Linux were ten times its current size, the failure rate would probably still be 9 percent. That's what percents are - ratios. His "defect density" sounds to me like exactly the statistics he is refuting (thus, the defect rate of Linux is 9%, compared to 15-43% for other Unix), since density is a ratio. 60% of 10 million sounds like a lot more than 9% of 1.5 million.
"Linux, once again, has had over 1,000 people submit patches, bug fixes, etc. and has had over 200 individuals directly contribute code to the kernel. ... Microsoft's core development team consists of 400 full-time program-mers and 250 testers... When compared to the size of the Windows NT effort, Linux is woefully undersupported.
Microsoft has only two times the core programmers, but they have 6 times as many lines of code to work on, and Linux is the one that's undersupported? Sounds like Linux has three times as many programmers per line of code than Microsoft.
Already, Apache is losing the performance battle against Microsoft's IIS.
Didn't he see the recent article by ZDNet showing that Apache outperformed IIS by a wide margin?
Even the opensource community admits to this weak-ness: "The biggest roadblock for open source software projects is dealing with exponential growth and management costs as a project is scaled up in terms of innovation and size" (http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html).
He quotes a Microsoft source saying Linux is in trouble, then attributes it to the Linux community. Of course Microsoft is going to put Linux down. When taken in the correct context with the correct attributions, this statement loses his purpose.
So we can rule out any scenario in which Microsoft takes over Linux.
The GPL would prevent this anyway. Even if Microsoft tried to "absorb and extend", they'd never be able to do it without violating copyright laws, because any extending they did would have to be released as soon as they shipped it to any customer. Even if they try to tie applications to "their" Linux, any work they'd done to make it "their" Linux would have to be released under the GPL, and could be replicated in other Linux variants.
A third scenario is most likely: Linux will turn commercial
Linux is commercial. What do you think Cygnus, Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, and Pacific HiTech are doing with it? They certainly aren't charities - they're out for profit.
To make a lasting impression, software developers still must cope with absorb-and-extend and other techniques of the strong. To do so, they will have to retain a certain amount of proprietary code in their products and charge for their intellectual property, one way or the other.
First off, as stated before, absorb and extend just won't work with GPL'd code. It can't. Any work Microsoft puts into enhancing Linux (sans applications, which are effectively independent of Linux itself) becomes part of Linux, which only improves it for everyone else too. Any support Microsoft puts into Linux would only help the Linux community. Second, Linux's "intellectual property" isn't the code, it's the people behind it. Companies like Cygnus, Red Hat, and Caldera make lots of money off OSS by having the right people and services, not by having proprietary code. Microsoft can't duplicate that without a significant investment in people and time.
Um, Cygnus does exactly that - it guarantees immediate support for GNU development tools if you have a support contract with us. We've got some pretty major companies as customers, too.
The free software Bazaar isn't enough of a solution, me thinks. It needs to support the other side of the equation also. It needs a way for developers to list the projects they'd like to work on, and let people offer money to help. The current system relies on the person with the money knowing what they want, but what if they don't know they want it yet? I think people with money to donate would be more willing to pool their funds on a project when they know someone is interested in working on it.