Cable modem? You know, just about every cable modem provider works fine under Linux -- if your's does then you're probably getting shafted, or are just confused. Check out the HowTo.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, because... uh... it's so easy to Open Source hardware. Seriously, how the heck do you apply open source to a space-shuttle? I don't understand what everyone's obsession is with tacking the words "Open Source" onto everything... It's the same thing here as it was with the Iridium satellites: You can't "Open Source" something that isn't "source" to begin with.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Keep telling yourself that, if you like, but it won't make it the truth. Apple still sells their OS. And not in the same sense as RedHat. You can't get a copy of MacOSX for free. They're just giving away Darwin, which is the base system of MacOSX, not the GUI or any of the really cool tools that come with new Macs.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I don't want to suggest anything that might be uncomfortable to you, but uh... ever think of buying a bigger hard drive? Seriously, drives are pretty cheap nowadays;)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
MS is not offering to release the source to Windows. AFAIK, although this was reported on a number of sites, a spokesman for Bill Gates denied that Gates had said anything to this matter, and insisted that the media had misunderstood his original remark.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No, Apple didn't steal it; The iMac is a rather innovative design for the consumer-market personal computer. Companies like eMachines aren't just making a product that's similar -- they're making a product that is deceptively similar. It looks like an iMac. It feels like an iMac. It's $300 cheaper. Oh, and it has shoddy parts too, but that's another issue. The real point is that it's not an iMac, but eMachines is hoping that consumers won't know the difference, because they really weren't paying all that much attention to the commercial in the first place: they just remember Jeff Goldblum's voiceovers.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
When the public sees an iMac-esque computer, what do they think of? Apple's iMacs, that's what. It's not that I feel Apple should be able to control who uses what cases, I just think that companies like eMachines that are blatently stealing Apple's designs... well, I think they're theives. Am I wrong?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Text here since site will be /.ed
on
Rack An iMac
·
· Score: 2
Hey, does the word "copyright" mean anything to you? Seriously, there's a reason that Slashdot doesn't mirror everything automatically. Don't be a dick.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You're right, it wasn't against religion. It was more like an observation that religion is not accustomed to being the basis for monetary rewards. Most people do not associate god with getting a million dollars.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Is it just me or is that a real lot of money? I mean, in todays world of internet IPOs it's not a tremendous amount, but how often do you see people awarded anything in the vicinity of $940,000? Especially for Religion:)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, well they aren't running Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT, or 2000 on it, so how can you possibly compare the X-box to those? Look at WinCE -- I've never seen a WinCE system crash, and I'll bet you won't see the X-box crash any more than the PSX or the N64 did (which did occasionally happen, although I'd blame it on the game). The bottom line is that this isn't going to be running a desktop operating system with hundreds of processes. It will be a fairly small OS that will probably do very little more than provide memory management, multitasking, and a DirectX compatibility layer.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, it was sarcasm and I was laying it on kinda thick. So now that you've thought about it "longer", why the heck would both companies be better off? I mean, we can assume that SCO would be better off because they certainly couldn't be worse off. But what do the FreeBSD and BSD/OS people have to gain from SCO? They're certainly not going to merge with Unixware... they might pick up some of SCO's keener proprietary stuff, but I don't know how receptive SCO's existing customer base is going to be towards converting everything to BSD. They're more likely to jump onto the Linux train, 'cause it's sooo much hotter right now.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Yeah, 'cause there's nothing like a little rubbing of salt into fresh wounds to make a mature company feel better about itself:) Seriously, that's a good idea -- why don't you send a proposal to the CFO over at Walnut Creek and see if he agrees with your ever-so financially sound argument for the buyout.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I don't know how to break this to you, but BSDI has already been merged with the fellas over at Walnut Creek. As of FreeBSD 5.0, BSD/OS won't exist anymore.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I don't quite see how you figure that. The means by which something is stored is largely irrelevant to legal proceedings, provided that means can be understood (otherwise, where's the case?). What you're talking about is *hiding* the DeCSS code. While hiding the code may made the MPAA's job harder, it doesn't make the distribution of such code any more legal. I could just as easily take the DeCSS code and tar it, then gzip it, then encrypt it with GPG, and finally name it "wordpad.exe". That would make it pretty hard for anybody (other than the intended recipient) to use the file, but that still doesn't make it "not DeCSS".
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
No no, don't misunderstand me - I didn't say I'd like a company to give back changes. I just said that they'd have to give back changes on the LGPL side. I feel that if a developer wants to allow commercial applications to use his code, he might as well release it under BSD. Why? Because LGPL creates added trickery in linking and such. With the BSD there is no worries about whether or not something is being used correctly (except for the old advertisement issue). I guess it's just a matter of opinion though.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Well it's not like they'd need to lie about it. This code is LGPL'ed, so they could easily use it in a linked form, as long as they contributed back any changes that they made to it. I don't particularly care for the LGPL, in this sense - I'd just as soon people used the BSD license if they're intending to allow use in commercial apps.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Slashdot Mirror
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."