Minitel was simply a copy of Prestel, but with one addition which gave it staying power - French telecoms decided to use it to completely replace the telephone directory and directory enquiries, and issued a standard terminal to just about everyone. This is what gave it the market penetration which made it popular.
I used to run a stall at UKUUG conferences (admittedly not an international event) selling Linux CDs and stuff. Because I wanted to listen to the talks I would leave the stand unattended at times. I regularly came back to find collections of piles of money on the table from people who'd served themselves.
The first line says the same as you but the two paragraphs following that line modify it and clarify that it is only to those who have gotten a copy of the binary (and accompanying written offer) that you must provide the source.
You can't modify a software licence by putting up a separate web page talking about it, and in any case I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of those paragraphs. They are clarifying that the intention is that even those who have received the code and offer indirectly are entitled to make use of the after-the-event source provision mechanism. However what the licence *says* (GPLv2) is that any third party is entitled to use the mechanism.
The relevant section changes in GPLv3 and then only those holding the binaries are entitled to request the source, but the piece of software under discussion we are told is GPLv2.
Not sure where confidence comes into it - I made it perfectly clear I was the same person, just not using the same computer. Had I pretended to be someone else then you might have had a point.
Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first?
I don't know, why do you?
I did in fact re-read both versions of the text to check my recollection (which was correct) before posting.
Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it.
Wrong.
Err, no. In the context of the point under discussion entirely correct.
You have to do one of two things. Distribute the source with the binaries, OR provide a written offer of sourse to anyone who requests it. From the GPL FAQ (bold mine):
"If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later."
If you bothered to read the thread before posting you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
The issue under discussion is the obligations which you put yourself under by distributing binaries without source. The earlier (incorrect) assertion was that you only need to offer source to those to whom you have given binaries. Under the GPLv2, you need to make the offer to everyone, and under v3, to anyone who has got the binaries.
Yes, if you distribute them both together in the first place then you don't have either obligation, but that wasn't the issue.
You are only legally required to provide the source code to parties you have sent binaries to.
Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first? Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it. (Actually, v3 restricts it to people who've managed to get the object code, but they don't have to have got it from you.)
Microsoft must take a lot of the blame for the confusion in the public mind between "The Internet" and "The World Wide Web". By calling their web browser "Internet Explorer" they misled a lot of people right from the start. Yes, you can use it to access stuff other than web sites, but for most beginners, the fact that the tool was called Internet Explorer meant it was obvious that "The Internet" was the thing they were browsing.
and I have see moron drivers IN the roundabout yield to incoming traffic ( picture it; everyone in the roundabout is stopped while this moron waves someone else in ).
When they first introduced roundabouts to France, this was the default priority - traffic in the roundabout had to give way to traffic entering the roundabout. Apparently they were trying to make it work like their archaic "priorite a droite" (sorry, can't do the accents) rule. They quickly realised how stupid it was and now just about every roundabout sports "Vous n'avez pas la priorite" signs on the approach roads.
You still have to be very careful when driving in France, in case you hit one of the few isolated spots where "Priorite a droite" still applies. Usually this is right in the very centre of a town, or else out in the depths of the countryside. It's almost got worse now it's so rare, precisely because it is rare. Peasant on a tractor pulling out onto a road in front of a speeding lorry and pleading "Priorite a droite" anyone?
Can you provide an actual example of Debian fans complaining in the way you indicate, or is it all in your imagination?
Debian tends to be the way it is because Debian users (and builders) like it that way. Of course they do end up being rather smug as well, but complaints about those who choose to use lesser distributions are notably absent.
My favourite Walkman - and I've still got one - is the one which is exactly the same size as a compact cassette case. It uses just a single AA battery and is an utter masterpiece of miniaturisation. There is a slight trick to how they get all the guts and motors of a cassette player within the size of a standard case, but it's still very clever.
Linux users have less respect the concept of intellectual property than as most computer users
That sentence is so mangled it's hard to be sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds like an assertion that Linux users have less respect for intellectual property than others. If that is indeed what you're saying, then the following part is a total non-sequitur.
IME, Linux users tend to have rather *more* respect for intellectual property than your average computer user, which is why they stick to using open source software rather than stealing commercial software. I've lost track of the number of times when I've had an average Windows-user-in-the-street asking me for a bootleg copy of Office, Photoshop or indeed Windows itself. Most of them are gobsmacked by the idea that there's something wrong with just copying them.
I use Open Source software because I respect the rights of creators of software - including their right to make it freely available.
That's always a fun one to explain to students. There are various ways of trying to convince them, but the one I particularly like is to ask them to subtract 4.999999... from 5 and tell me what the answer is.
My wife is taking calculus right now at a local college. Her professor takes points off if she solves a problem using intuition or innovative thinking rather than following the procedure he outlines in class. She gets the right answers, but gets marked "wrong" for not doing it the way HE knows it works.
In marking her down, he could be doing the wrong thing or he could be doing the right thing. It depends on what you been by "using intuition".
On a recent Maths Olympiad paper there was a question which involved working out the shaded area on a diagram which consisted of a rectangle with several diagonal lines across it. Three areas were given (1, 2 and 3 units each) and you were asked to work out the size of a shaded area.
Just by looking at the diagram and having a feel for the type of question I was pretty certain that the answer was 6 units, but for some time I couldn't produce a valid bit of reasoning to explain it. Eventually I showed it to a particularly bright A-level student and asked him to give me a pointer. He pointed out that pairs of the diagonal lines were forming triangles, and the reasoning was then obvious.
Had I just written down an answer of 6, gained by intuition, I would quite rightly have been given no marks for the question.
If on the other hand your wife produces valid derivations of her results and her professor marks her down then he should be sacked.
The whole thing is a misunderstanding of operator precedence, that's all.
Not true unfortunately. I teach maths and come across a lot of students who fully understand precedence but who don't understand the equals sign.
I believe it comes down to the way it's taught in primary school. Precedence is talked about a lot, with BIDMAS being a topic in its own right and a lot of work is done on it. Children arrive at secondary school fully versed in precedence and BIDMAS.
The equals sign on the other hand doesn't seem to be explained at all; it's simply used and students try to guess what it means. The usual guess is that it means "the answer is", and so frequently you'll see someone write:
= 22
or similar all in its own. Similarly you get:
7 + 2 = 9 x 3 = 27 + 2 = 29
in each case the equals sign is being used to signify, "The answer to the bit on the left is..."
It's a major omission in primary school maths teaching at present. Interesting to hear that the problem is the same in the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
Minitel was simply a copy of Prestel, but with one addition which gave it staying power - French telecoms decided to use it to completely replace the telephone directory and directory enquiries, and issued a standard terminal to just about everyone. This is what gave it the market penetration which made it popular.
graphics will be triple-buffered for extra smoothness
Sounds like a coffee advertisement.
I used to run a stall at UKUUG conferences (admittedly not an international event) selling Linux CDs and stuff. Because I wanted to listen to the talks I would leave the stand unattended at times. I regularly came back to find collections of piles of money on the table from people who'd served themselves.
It makes a lot more sense with the word "sails" in place then it does after it's been removed.
The first line says the same as you but the two paragraphs following that line modify it and clarify that it is only to those who have gotten a copy of the binary (and accompanying written offer) that you must provide the source.
You can't modify a software licence by putting up a separate web page talking about it, and in any case I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of those paragraphs. They are clarifying that the intention is that even those who have received the code and offer indirectly are entitled to make use of the after-the-event source provision mechanism. However what the licence *says* (GPLv2) is that any third party is entitled to use the mechanism.
The relevant section changes in GPLv3 and then only those holding the binaries are entitled to request the source, but the piece of software under discussion we are told is GPLv2.
Not sure where confidence comes into it - I made it perfectly clear I was the same person, just not using the same computer. Had I pretended to be someone else then you might have had a point.
Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first?
I don't know, why do you?
I did in fact re-read both versions of the text to check my recollection (which was correct) before posting.
Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it.
Wrong.
Err, no. In the context of the point under discussion entirely correct.
You have to do one of two things. Distribute the source with the binaries, OR provide a written offer of sourse to anyone who requests it. From the GPL FAQ (bold mine):
"If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later."
If you bothered to read the thread before posting you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
The issue under discussion is the obligations which you put yourself under by distributing binaries without source. The earlier (incorrect) assertion was that you only need to offer source to those to whom you have given binaries. Under the GPLv2, you need to make the offer to everyone, and under v3, to anyone who has got the binaries.
Yes, if you distribute them both together in the first place then you don't have either obligation, but that wasn't the issue.
HTH
You are only legally required to provide the source code to parties you have sent binaries to.
Why is it that so many people pontificate on the GPL without bothering to read it first? Both v2 and v3 of the GPL make it very clear that you must offer the source code to anyone who asks for it. (Actually, v3 restricts it to people who've managed to get the object code, but they don't have to have got it from you.)
Microsoft must take a lot of the blame for the confusion in the public mind between "The Internet" and "The World Wide Web". By calling their web browser "Internet Explorer" they misled a lot of people right from the start. Yes, you can use it to access stuff other than web sites, but for most beginners, the fact that the tool was called Internet Explorer meant it was obvious that "The Internet" was the thing they were browsing.
and I have see moron drivers IN the roundabout yield to incoming traffic ( picture it; everyone in the roundabout is stopped while this moron waves someone else in ).
When they first introduced roundabouts to France, this was the default priority - traffic in the roundabout had to give way to traffic entering the roundabout. Apparently they were trying to make it work like their archaic "priorite a droite" (sorry, can't do the accents) rule. They quickly realised how stupid it was and now just about every roundabout sports "Vous n'avez pas la priorite" signs on the approach roads.
You still have to be very careful when driving in France, in case you hit one of the few isolated spots where "Priorite a droite" still applies. Usually this is right in the very centre of a town, or else out in the depths of the countryside. It's almost got worse now it's so rare, precisely because it is rare. Peasant on a tractor pulling out onto a road in front of a speeding lorry and pleading "Priorite a droite" anyone?
Speaking of which... what are people recommending for actually dealing with this sort of stuff...?
http://www.debian.org/
A real, mechanical 'off' switch, on the front of the machine
For it to be a real, mechanical 'off' switch it needs to be on the right hand side of the machine, almost at the back. It also needs to be red.
sorry I use ubuntu and really dont give a shit about it's grandparents
Or about punctuation.
Perhaps he's like Windows... ...he'll only start to become useful at version 3.1
Can you provide an actual example of Debian fans complaining in the way you indicate, or is it all in your imagination?
Debian tends to be the way it is because Debian users (and builders) like it that way. Of course they do end up being rather smug as well, but complaints about those who choose to use lesser distributions are notably absent.
Am I the only one who read "Lego lover" as "legover"?
If you have an alien world under your feet, perhaps you should get out more...
Or perhaps less?
It's just under me here.
My favourite Walkman - and I've still got one - is the one which is exactly the same size as a compact cassette case. It uses just a single AA battery and is an utter masterpiece of miniaturisation. There is a slight trick to how they get all the guts and motors of a cassette player within the size of a standard case, but it's still very clever.
Linux users have less respect the concept of intellectual property than as most computer users
That sentence is so mangled it's hard to be sure what you were trying to say, but it sounds like an assertion that Linux users have less respect for intellectual property than others. If that is indeed what you're saying, then the following part is a total non-sequitur.
IME, Linux users tend to have rather *more* respect for intellectual property than your average computer user, which is why they stick to using open source software rather than stealing commercial software. I've lost track of the number of times when I've had an average Windows-user-in-the-street asking me for a bootleg copy of Office, Photoshop or indeed Windows itself. Most of them are gobsmacked by the idea that there's something wrong with just copying them.
I use Open Source software because I respect the rights of creators of software - including their right to make it freely available.
As long as the Australian presenter doesn't announce that it was Buzz Aldrin who got off the ladder first.
I'm just about to plug it in, but the cable I have isn't quite long enough.
Can anyone lend me a 5m patch cable?
5 = 4.999999....
That's always a fun one to explain to students. There are various ways of trying to convince them, but the one I particularly like is to ask them to subtract 4.999999... from 5 and tell me what the answer is.
My wife is taking calculus right now at a local college. Her professor takes points off if she solves a problem using intuition or innovative thinking rather than following the procedure he outlines in class. She gets the right answers, but gets marked "wrong" for not doing it the way HE knows it works.
In marking her down, he could be doing the wrong thing or he could be doing the right thing. It depends on what you been by "using intuition".
On a recent Maths Olympiad paper there was a question which involved working out the shaded area on a diagram which consisted of a rectangle with several diagonal lines across it. Three areas were given (1, 2 and 3 units each) and you were asked to work out the size of a shaded area.
Just by looking at the diagram and having a feel for the type of question I was pretty certain that the answer was 6 units, but for some time I couldn't produce a valid bit of reasoning to explain it. Eventually I showed it to a particularly bright A-level student and asked him to give me a pointer. He pointed out that pairs of the diagonal lines were forming triangles, and the reasoning was then obvious.
Had I just written down an answer of 6, gained by intuition, I would quite rightly have been given no marks for the question.
If on the other hand your wife produces valid derivations of her results and her professor marks her down then he should be sacked.
The whole thing is a misunderstanding of operator precedence, that's all.
Not true unfortunately. I teach maths and come across a lot of students who fully understand precedence but who don't understand the equals sign.
I believe it comes down to the way it's taught in primary school. Precedence is talked about a lot, with BIDMAS being a topic in its own right and a lot of work is done on it. Children arrive at secondary school fully versed in precedence and BIDMAS.
The equals sign on the other hand doesn't seem to be explained at all; it's simply used and students try to guess what it means. The usual guess is that it means "the answer is", and so frequently you'll see someone write:
= 22
or similar all in its own. Similarly you get:
7 + 2 = 9 x 3 = 27 + 2 = 29
in each case the equals sign is being used to signify, "The answer to the bit on the left is..."
It's a major omission in primary school maths teaching at present. Interesting to hear that the problem is the same in the USA.