If anyone files a clam against apple at any time they can force you to remove all copies from your machine and prohobit further distribution but it does not prevent apple from continuing to distrubute it.
This means they are allowed to leech off the opensource community then at any time they can pull the rug out from under us. This is clearly not "Open Source" I prefer the term Free Software anywa.y..
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement ("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Sections 9.1 and/or 13.6(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
the topic says it all, anyone who says 2.2.1 is stable is just getting lucky. I know at least 5 people personally who have had it crash their machines multiple times.
Uhh no, I have been running unstable for months, with 2.0.36, and the 2.2.0-pre series was fine, then I installed 2.2.1 and it crashed at least 3 times on me. Somehow I dont think it's crashing cause i run the unstable tree. Btw, it's not called unstable because of stability, it's called that because it is always a moving target.
anoyne running glibc2.1 in their *stable* tree right now is a flaming moron. I also heard stampede is shipping kernel 2.2.1 as stable also... that's all i needed to here. 2.2.1 is the most unstable piece of crap I've ever used and they call it stable?! stampede is the windows95 of linux as far as stability,
I agree that redhat is more free than some of the others. But redhat does ship non-free stuff on their cds. Netscape comes to mind. So debian is and probably always will be the most-free distribution there is. The Social Contract gaurantees that.
1.3? man, that is like really old. That's like me going and getting a dos 2.11 install and saying NT4.0 sucks because of it. There is that much difference... well nearly Give 2.1 a try, its really good.
No fucking shit you idiot, are you redhat users to stupd to read? I said the only reason they invested in them is because they are a company. Not because there dist is the best.
I don't know why im taking the time to respond to fools like you. But the only reason IBM doesnt invest in redhat is there is no commercial backing. If that is not apparent to you then you are just too stupid for words.
Duh, they are trying to create brand loyalty. If redhat used the debian packaging system that would imply that debian did something but noooo! we cant have that, redhat must get the credit for everything.
Well, I agree they dropped KDE because they didn't control it. But there is also valid legal reasons for them doing this to.
Did you read Bob Young's essay just recently posted here? Redhat wants brand loyalty, and you certainly can't have that using someone elses package manager. Makes you wonder...
Oh wow, 3 months! geeze. You are clearly an expert on this matter.
Redhat is for cloobies like yourself so i can see why you like it. But within a few more months you will come crawling to debian once you realize its superiority.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't have said it better myself. All this non-free crap should go away, the sooner the better too.
Read section 12.1 "Termination"
If anyone files a clam against apple at any time they can force you to remove all copies from your machine and prohobit further distribution but it does not prevent apple from continuing to distrubute it.
This means they are allowed to leech off the opensource community then at any time they can pull the rug out from under us. This is clearly not "Open Source" I prefer the term Free Software anywa.y..
9.1 Infringement. If any of the Original Code becomes the subject of a claim of infringement
("Affected Original Code"), Apple may, at its sole discretion and option: (a) attempt to procure
the rights necessary for You to continue using the Affected Original Code; (b) modify the
Affected Original Code so that it is no longer infringing; or (c) terminate Your rights to use the
Affected Original Code, effective immediately upon Apple's posting of a notice to such effect on
the Apple web site that is used for implementation of this License.
12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate:
(a) automatically without notice from Apple if You fail to comply with any term(s) of this
License and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of such breach;
(b) immediately in the event of the circumstances described in Sections 9.1 and/or
13.6(b); or
(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this
License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple.
the topic says it all, anyone who says 2.2.1 is stable is just getting lucky. I know at least 5 people personally who have had it crash their machines multiple times.
Umm, i'm a newbie cause i wont run redhat? there is some good reasoning
I have a hard time believing that "it broke apt". How about posting the exact error message here?
Uhh no, I have been running unstable for months, with 2.0.36, and the 2.2.0-pre series was fine, then I installed 2.2.1 and it crashed at least 3 times on me. Somehow I dont think it's crashing cause i run the unstable tree. Btw, it's not called unstable because of stability, it's called that because it is always a moving target.
Uhh
deb http://www.debian.org/~jules/gnome-stage-2 unstable main
put that in your sources.list, and if you have to force anything after that then you are a MORON.
Yes, you have to be running potato..
I would rather kill myself than use redhat.
anoyne running glibc2.1 in their *stable* tree right now is a flaming moron. I also heard stampede is shipping kernel 2.2.1 as stable also... that's all i needed to here. 2.2.1 is the most unstable piece of crap I've ever used and they call it stable?! stampede is the windows95 of linux as far as stability,
That's exactly what I was thinking...
Uhh, I'm sorry, you mistakenly thought I cared. The point is, it is not "free" so therefore debian is more free than redhat.
I agree that redhat is more free than some of the others. But redhat does ship non-free stuff on their cds. Netscape comes to mind. So debian is and probably always will be the most-free distribution there is. The Social Contract gaurantees that.
1.3? man, that is like really old. That's like me going and getting a dos 2.11 install and saying NT4.0 sucks because of it. There is that much difference... well nearly Give 2.1 a try, its really good.
No fucking shit you idiot, are you redhat users to stupd to read? I said the only reason they invested in them is because they are a company. Not because there dist is the best.
I don't know why im taking the time to respond to fools like you. But the only reason IBM doesnt invest in redhat is there is no commercial backing. If that is not apparent to you then you are just too stupid for words.
Come on, you know there is nothing like that. Quit confusing people with trick questions ;)
maybe if you werent such a fucking moron you could figure out how to compile it.
go back to windows, its obviously where you belong
huh? apt will not die, it is the future.
you rpm fanatics only wish you had something half as good as it.
Duh, they are trying to create brand loyalty. If redhat used the debian packaging system that would imply that debian did something but noooo! we cant have that, redhat must get the credit for everything.
But of course, people will never believe this because they think redhat is the greatest company to ever live. "That linux 5.2 thing is really cool!"
Well, I agree they dropped KDE because they didn't control it. But there is also valid legal reasons for them doing this to.
Did you read Bob Young's essay just recently posted here? Redhat wants brand loyalty, and you certainly can't have that using someone elses package manager. Makes you wonder...
Oh wow, 3 months! geeze. You are clearly an expert on this matter.
Redhat is for cloobies like yourself so i can see why you like it. But within a few more months you will come crawling to debian once you realize its superiority.
I'd just like to say this now. But you will be eating your words in a few days.
I think you got it backwards there bud.
At least debian doesn't release buggy products like some others i know of. *cough*redhat*cough*
Well I take back what i said
but you obciously havent used debian before have you?
contrary to what you may believe, redhat is not the end-all be-all of linux, if it is then we are in serious trouble