It's not surprising that Linus isn't crazy about GPLv3, because he's not crazy about the GPL in general, in the way that RMS and the Free Software folks are. He's into Linux for the engineering, not to Free the software world.
I am curious about why he chose the GPL and not something BSD-ish for Linux.
They have been, to some extent. 2007 diesel truck engines reduce emissions so much that mileage suffers (though the technology is pretty neat), so 2006 engines are selling like hotcakes as trucking companies stock up for the future.
On the flip side, what kinds of programs does it screw up? Can you load an out-of-tree non-vm-aware kernel module that talks to non-vm-aware hardware into a kernel inside the vm? How does the vm affect the timing of interrupt routines that run within the vm?
I think most college kids would be disappointed the minute they tried to play any game and had the machine slow to a crawl or simply be unable to play the game at all.
Poor gaming capability is a feature from the p.o.v. of the parents, who are usually the ones paying for it.
what bit rates are offered in ogg format?
can you download it in two different formats?
It's unclear exactly what bit rates are available (the site says "high quality Ogg Vorbis"), but a variety of formats are available including flac so you can transcode to whatever format and bitrate your heart desires.
You can download multiple times if you want to. Presumably you can choose a different format each time, but you'd have to try it to be sure.
most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse.
Cite? It looks like most patents are used to curtail competition. They're made as broad as possible to try to slow down or stop competitors, or to try to extract license fees from actual inventors.
How *should* patents be used, and what do you propose to move things in that direction?
I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied.
It would be nice if that were true, but most patent holders are corporations that don't have the ability to feel honored.
I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work.
Corporations without products would suffer, but corporations with products would continue to make money as they always have: by selling products.
I don't think our society is at risk of running out of inventions or of having useful trade secrets being lost to the mists of time, and those are the reasons for the existence of the patent system.
If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them.
Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations?
There are formal methods such as Z Notation for specifying the behavior of a general-purpose (not even necessarily computer-based) system in a provable, checkable way. Unfortunately, precisely specifying the behavior of a nontrivial system is a lot of work, as is learning how to use a formal method in the first place. Theoretically, someday tools will make it easier, but specifying the intended behavior ahead of time will still be time-consuming and often difficult to justify to management.
Other posters have it right: the biggest benefit will come from tools that import existing code and turn it into a formal specification of some kind (which can then be checked for logical inconsistencies, used to produce diagrams, and other fun things.) I could see a programmer using source code as the interface to a formal methods based system: write a code skeleton, import it into the tool to generate the initial model, tweak the skeleton, look at the model again, etc. With that kind of tool, it doesn't even really matter which formal methods approach is used; that's an implementation issue that could be abstracted away (or implemented via plugins.)
Either something is legal, and thus ok for society as a whole (as opposed to any particular slice of society), or it's not ok for society as a whole, in which case it should be made illegal.
That's a popular view, but I am unconvinced that just because somebody, or even the majority, believes that something is not ok for society as a whole it is ok to make that thing illegal.
Some things have negative effects on society as a whole that, if made illegal, would leave society even worse off. Example: the War On Some Drugs. Society as a whole is better off when people don't ruin their own lives, but it is even better off when the government doesn't ruin twice as many lives in its attempt to stop people from ruining their own lives.
Individual rights sometimes supercede society's best interests. Example: it is best for society as a whole for a genius to be as productive as possible, but she has the right to waste her potential by flipping burgers for a living or engaging in dangerous behavior (e.g. skydiving) if she so chooses. (Note that "copy" rights are not "rights" in this sense; their only reason for existence is society's best interest.)
How about looking for information on birth control / abortion / legal help / etc. that one can't do at home for fear of possible reprisals?
It needs to be phrased for the right target audience: "What about the children who want to learn about Jesus from their friends online, but whose atheist parents won't let them? Won't somebody think of the children?"
If you REALLY wanted energy independence, step 1 is to get rid of the mini-vans, Jeeps, the "cross-over" vehicles, and the "look I've got SO MUCH horsepower" crap. If it can't do at least 20mpg city/30mpg highway, just melt it down for scrap.
No, that's step 2. Step 1 is getting gas prices high enough for the average American to want to take action.
I agree, resolution is key. Though I would be willing to put up with 800x600 (I'd use a larger virtual desktop) if they managed to solve the other problems like size/weight, wireless connectivity and high cost.
If time went infinitely into the past, then there would be an infinite number of events that have actually occurred, and I've heard it claimed that the existence of an infinite number of past events creates mathematical paradoxes (but I'm not a mathematician and have not done such proofs myself.) Therefore, only a finite number of events can actually occur.
By that logic, time behaves either like a forward-facing ray or like a line segment, rather than like a line.
Here in the real world, people can vote Libertarian without any negative consequences occurring due to implementation of Libertarian ideas. It's really very freeing when your candidates have hardly any chance of being elected.
How much money are people supposed to spend on passive entertainment? It'd be better to spend the money not spent on gaming on tickets to a traveling Broadway play or a live concert.
Comparing video card prices to other hobbies or entertainment activities is an eye-opening experience. Tickets to the opera, plus tux rental, could easily total several hundred dollars. Learning to scuba dive, learning to fly a plane, skydiving, travel, and even a high-end bicycle can dwarf the cost of a decent gaming system.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I'd rather spend a couple hundred bucks on weeks or months worth of entertainment (Civ4 + the hardware upgrades to run it) than a couple hundred bucks on a single day's worth of entertainment.
I've often wondered why playing a video game with your buddies is considered passive entertainment. Maybe the people who think that have never tried it.
I do have empathy for your situation, but that empathy is tempered by the fact that as a nation you chose this situation - LA didn't magically sprawl, it became sprawled by the actions of its citizens. The fact that such sprawl turns out not to be a great idea is a consequence of your shortsightedness, not my lack of empathy.
The word "their" is more appropriate than the word "your" in your paragraph above. Like you, I didn't make any of the city planning decisions that now affect me. I didn't even vote for the people who made those decisions (they were made long ago.) It's not accurate to use "as a nation" to tar everyone with responsibility for decisions made by earlier generations.
Re:Oranges vs. apples, from an orange producer
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
There's a part you didn't understand in my post : comparing an old, outdated, text email client to a new shiny web-based one is complete nonsense.
Yes. No expert would expect the new shiny web-based one to be as capable as the text email client that he's used for years. You're right to suspect bias when the article concludes that gmail manages to compete.
Pressure from conservative Christian groups in the US, which has a veto over the internet addressing system, led the organisation last year
I think this is poor use of Englitsch. I think what the author was trying to say was, "The US, which has veto over the internet addressing system, was pressured by conservative Christian groups...."
That is what the author said. "which has" can't refer to "groups" because "groups" is plural.
Obviously patenting has run amok and needs to be fixed, but I don't see where anyone would benefit from the elimination of patents.
I used to assume that hardware patents were good, but then I realized that they're just as messed up as software patents. The purpose of the patent system is to prevent trade secrets from being lost forever, but is that really a big deal any more? Even if it is, is it worth the cost to society?
"Hey guys, I've got an idea...let's remove the ability to make money off massive R&D investments by making it so that people who didn't do any of the work can produce and sell a product as soon as it comes to market!"
Fortunately, nobody has suggested that. Or do you believe that patents are all that allow massive R&D to be profitable?
I want separate devices which do their job well instead of one device which does a dozen things weakly.
That is a sensible preference, but I would rather have just one device that does a dozen things well than a dozen separate devices that each do one thing well.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not surprising that Linus isn't crazy about GPLv3, because he's not crazy about the GPL in general, in the way that RMS and the Free Software folks are. He's into Linux for the engineering, not to Free the software world.
I am curious about why he chose the GPL and not something BSD-ish for Linux.
How did "objects and IDEs don't solve every problem" turn into "objects and IDEs have little or no value"?
It goes like this: "The first 90% takes 90% of the effort, and the last 10% takes 90% of the effort."
They have been, to some extent. 2007 diesel truck engines reduce emissions so much that mileage suffers (though the technology is pretty neat), so 2006 engines are selling like hotcakes as trucking companies stock up for the future.
On the flip side, what kinds of programs does it screw up? Can you load an out-of-tree non-vm-aware kernel module that talks to non-vm-aware hardware into a kernel inside the vm? How does the vm affect the timing of interrupt routines that run within the vm?
Poor gaming capability is a feature from the p.o.v. of the parents, who are usually the ones paying for it.
It's unclear exactly what bit rates are available (the site says "high quality Ogg Vorbis"), but a variety of formats are available including flac so you can transcode to whatever format and bitrate your heart desires.
You can download multiple times if you want to. Presumably you can choose a different format each time, but you'd have to try it to be sure.
What makes something your idea or my idea? Answer: if you or I know an idea, it is our idea.
How can anyone steal an idea? Answer: it can't be done. You sharing an idea with someone else doesn't eliminate your possession of that idea.
If anything is "stealing an idea", it's using patent law to prevent somebody from using an idea that they came up with independently.
Cite? It looks like most patents are used to curtail competition. They're made as broad as possible to try to slow down or stop competitors, or to try to extract license fees from actual inventors.
How *should* patents be used, and what do you propose to move things in that direction?
It would be nice if that were true, but most patent holders are corporations that don't have the ability to feel honored.
Corporations without products would suffer, but corporations with products would continue to make money as they always have: by selling products.
I don't think our society is at risk of running out of inventions or of having useful trade secrets being lost to the mists of time, and those are the reasons for the existence of the patent system.
Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations?
Perhaps the poster in question is for the war in Iraq, and wants to use the cheese funds to prolong it an additional 5 seconds.
Other posters have it right: the biggest benefit will come from tools that import existing code and turn it into a formal specification of some kind (which can then be checked for logical inconsistencies, used to produce diagrams, and other fun things.) I could see a programmer using source code as the interface to a formal methods based system: write a code skeleton, import it into the tool to generate the initial model, tweak the skeleton, look at the model again, etc. With that kind of tool, it doesn't even really matter which formal methods approach is used; that's an implementation issue that could be abstracted away (or implemented via plugins.)
That's a popular view, but I am unconvinced that just because somebody, or even the majority, believes that something is not ok for society as a whole it is ok to make that thing illegal.
Some things have negative effects on society as a whole that, if made illegal, would leave society even worse off. Example: the War On Some Drugs. Society as a whole is better off when people don't ruin their own lives, but it is even better off when the government doesn't ruin twice as many lives in its attempt to stop people from ruining their own lives.
Individual rights sometimes supercede society's best interests. Example: it is best for society as a whole for a genius to be as productive as possible, but she has the right to waste her potential by flipping burgers for a living or engaging in dangerous behavior (e.g. skydiving) if she so chooses. (Note that "copy" rights are not "rights" in this sense; their only reason for existence is society's best interest.)
It needs to be phrased for the right target audience: "What about the children who want to learn about Jesus from their friends online, but whose atheist parents won't let them? Won't somebody think of the children?"
No, that's step 2. Step 1 is getting gas prices high enough for the average American to want to take action.
Like, say, talking on the phone?
Which of these headsets implement their own encryption/identity management on top of BT?
I agree, resolution is key. Though I would be willing to put up with 800x600 (I'd use a larger virtual desktop) if they managed to solve the other problems like size/weight, wireless connectivity and high cost.
By that logic, time behaves either like a forward-facing ray or like a line segment, rather than like a line.
Here in the real world, people can vote Libertarian without any negative consequences occurring due to implementation of Libertarian ideas. It's really very freeing when your candidates have hardly any chance of being elected.
Comparing video card prices to other hobbies or entertainment activities is an eye-opening experience. Tickets to the opera, plus tux rental, could easily total several hundred dollars. Learning to scuba dive, learning to fly a plane, skydiving, travel, and even a high-end bicycle can dwarf the cost of a decent gaming system.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I'd rather spend a couple hundred bucks on weeks or months worth of entertainment (Civ4 + the hardware upgrades to run it) than a couple hundred bucks on a single day's worth of entertainment.
I've often wondered why playing a video game with your buddies is considered passive entertainment. Maybe the people who think that have never tried it.
The word "their" is more appropriate than the word "your" in your paragraph above. Like you, I didn't make any of the city planning decisions that now affect me. I didn't even vote for the people who made those decisions (they were made long ago.) It's not accurate to use "as a nation" to tar everyone with responsibility for decisions made by earlier generations.
Yes. No expert would expect the new shiny web-based one to be as capable as the text email client that he's used for years. You're right to suspect bias when the article concludes that gmail manages to compete.
That is what the author said. "which has" can't refer to "groups" because "groups" is plural.
I used to assume that hardware patents were good, but then I realized that they're just as messed up as software patents. The purpose of the patent system is to prevent trade secrets from being lost forever, but is that really a big deal any more? Even if it is, is it worth the cost to society?
Fortunately, nobody has suggested that. Or do you believe that patents are all that allow massive R&D to be profitable?
That is a sensible preference, but I would rather have just one device that does a dozen things well than a dozen separate devices that each do one thing well.