Qt compiles without a hitch and so does KDE. And if you want the official word, Trolltech's web site indicates that Qt will compile fine on Solaris, or pretty much any box running some form of X11. The KDE project has also made accomodations to run properly on Sun's OS. Sun doesn't have to do any work other than compilation and making packages. What's so hard about that? At the very least, they could make it an option.
Sun, why not KDE, for the last time?
on
No GNOME For Solaris 9
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Why does Sun continue to ignore KDE as a viable alternative to GNOME. KDE is very mature and incredibly stable. I don't see why Sun doesn't just go forward with packaging it with Solaris. Do they stick with GNOME because it's built on a 100% free toolkit? What's the driving force? As far as I can see, KDE is a solution to many of the problems Sun's UI trials of GNOME came up with. It just doesn't make sense... for one thing, if they want easy of use, KDE is much nicer than GNOME, IMHO.
Really, did you have any dignity while you were wearing that thing? I mean, come on. A rainbow strip across the front of your Fedaration jumpsuit. Did you at least complain?
My original post: Now while, this is not the same thing, it's in the ballpark to most users who understand it as something that speeds up their apps.
Your post: That doesn't change NT's pre-emption behavior dude.
Actually, you are incorrect, and you back me up with your own words:
NT automatically boosts the priority of the process that owns the topmost window, to make the UI Snappier... that option just turns this on or off. It's not the same thing, but it's very similar.
So basically, you're turning preemption on and off. That's not a priority change - apps keep their priority mode (one of the top level 5 that is). With NT, the active process, top most window, preempts others that are running. That's how they make it seem like it's running faster. For Joe S. Admin, switching to the other setting, causes local procs to not preempt those that are running server software, thus increasing throughput.
Of course, UI speed in NT is a totally different matter from under *nix. The Windows GUI is faster because it's not networked, like X. There's no abstraction layer between the producer (server), and consumer (client).
* there is no option to turn it off while in operation. Means you have to run different kernels if you want to do some things with the preempt, and other stuff without.
This is something I haven't seen brought up yet. Windows 2000 can change favor from background to foreground processes on the fly (right click 'My Computer' and check out the properties). Now while, this is not the same thing, it's in the ballpark to most users who understand it as something that speeds up their apps. We really need a/proc switch that lets you turn this thing off and on.
What's going to happen to this project now that it's no longer under development? Certainly we have GPG, but PGP is a long time trusted name. Are they going to reopen it like it once was or is it now entirely dead - in the software graveyard with so many other projects that were kept closed after being pronounced dead?
Microsoft believes its customer base of 120 million will make it dominant in the field.
The the courts aren't taking more aggressive action at breaking up their monopoly power? Make Passport dominant in the face of Sun's superior product design. They are definitely right - that user base will make their product dominant. Come on DOJ, do something!
Certainly the Net is not a place of misinformation, full misleading journalism, with writers like JohnKats around. How could you not trust JK's medium of choice?
There's a very easy solution: Just wait for a while before you upgrade. That way you can decide for yourself how long you think the code should be tested before want to use it.
There's just one problem with it. If most people did that, bugs would take a lot longer to be found, let alone squashed. And the problem we've seen in 2.4.11 is not some obscure, minor thing that would have not have hindered stable use of the kernel. (Before you argue that, consider how severe it is, this is a show-stopper bug. Bugs in the kernel that corrupt the file system, even if they are rare, are serious problems.) This should have been caught and the fact that the bug exists indicates that whoever made the changes that created failed to even test said changes. 2.4.x is a "stable" kernel tree, and there's no reason why anyone should have to wait a couple patch levels before upgrading to the latest. There should be more thought and testing done on such a branch before releases are made. Period.
I get the impression that Linus is "rushing" releases of 2.4.x in an atempt to get it mature. Perhaps then he can say, "it's stable/it works" so that development on 2.6.x/3.0.x(?) can open up full swing? He mention in the interview posted yesterday that he wouldn't really jump into that until 2.4.x was a little older.
*shrug*
It just seems that the patch on this tree are coming out faster than any of the other branches before it. And many more "issues" slipping through the cracks including controversy and laziness. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would prefer slower progress in favor of more careful, more tested releases.:)
I'm a Residence Assistant and I'm concerned about future terrorist threats against the US coming from Bin Laden. When the September 11th attacks took place, my university decided that it would be a good idea to move everyone out of the dorms and out into the open. I never thought that this was a wise plan, but I considering the tower structures we use for dorms, I didn't think moving everyone to the lowest level would be sufficient. In the event of attack however, quick thinking will be required to get everyone under cover as soon as possible, and as an RA, I am seen as a leader in crisis situations. Does anyone have any suggestions of what I can do to move people to a safe location before I can get in touch with my superiors?
Like... What kind of structures/locations can protect groups of people from explosions/debris/etc? Are steep rises and hills sufficient to protect people (my campus is situated such that we're on a bluff with a road running over the side of the bluff with about 5 meters between campus level and the road and a staircase going down to it)? What kinds of things do I have to consider? What about moving people to stairwells (which are solid concrete in my building)? What about chances in surviving a low yield nuclear detonation?
Certainly I intentend to ask administration these same questions come Monday, but I imagine I will get a "don't think, let us do the thinking" kind of answer.
He says it's an optimizing compiler for hand-tuned assembly? What's the point? So basically, it's just another compiler, period. I have an idea, how about we just use GCC with the -mcpu=i686 and -march=i686 flags instead of paying for this.
Shame on/. story posters, this "story" is just a shameless plug.
Can someone set up a web based vote tracking system which asks the question of those who have drives of the GXP series: "Ever had a problem?" I want to see what the actual failure rate is since/. story posters, in their world of utter cluelessness, post stupid stories just because they might draw lots of attention. I think you could substitute ANY make/model into this Ask Slashdot story and get a lot of enraged posters.
The project you're thinking of is Rasterman's own Evas canvas project and the E17 that sits on top of it. http://www.enlightenment.org Yes, it will come back.:)
The consumers. The consumers are the absolute highest power in the economic process. Consumers provide the money that makes the whole damn thing work. If consumers decide they don't want to spend the money, then all those musicians who are in it for the bucks are just out of luck. We as consumers have the right to force the music or whatever industry to do exactly what we want. The only trouble is getting us all organized. This guy did it. He said, "you don't have to pay for a high quality operating system", and made it happen, changing the face of the software industry.
WHY do you all persist in being such slaves to corporate power!? We all have a choice on what we want to consume an how!
Please name the countries where copyright infringement is legal (as opposed to illegal but unenforced due to how widespread it is like in most parts of Asia).
Afghanistan. Hell, anything's legal there (except women feeding their families). But I am CERTAIN they don't care if you make a copy of an N*Sync CD.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Other replies to your original post already address this and do it better than I can, so read theirs.
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster?
You're not very observant are you? Look at the real world. Why would anyone buy a CD when they can get it for free on blah blah blah. People STILL buy music in a day and age where music can be got for free. It's reality. It will still be reality.
Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
It's not the consumers fault that they jumped on the bandwagon after someone else did. It's call competition. Sometimes other people get to ideas before you do.
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
What a flaming crock of horse shit. You basically deny the existence of companies like RedHat that sell free software! That's right, they sell software that is given away for free everywhere else. The difference is, when you buy it, you get trimmings like actual CD's, manuals, and so forth. This model is very simple, works, seems pretty damn honest, and makes money. It could be very easily applied to the music industry.
Ugh, we need less of corporate bottom feeders like you.
So how should artists afford to prosecute multi-million dolar VC funded companies like Napster or companies that are outside the United?
I can't speak for the first case, but for your second statement, it's obvious. They don't. You don't prosecute someone from another country doing things that are legal there and not legal here. Oh wait, we already do that. It's not right, is it?
If you are an artist with the choice of getting a major label deal and maybe making a profit if you sell over a million copies (or being in debt otherwise) or making no money from the spread of your music while being popular among the fans that don't pay for your music, what would you choose?
Hold it. Remember that from the sale of each record, lesser known artists get as low as 1% or less of the total profits, with the RIAA keeping the other 99%. Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale. Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
Eventually, when CD burners, Minidiscs and car MP3 players become cheap and popular enough, how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
What are you talking about? They're already cheap and popular. I can buy a pack of 100 blank CDRs for 15$US. Mp3's are free (as in beer, and not the algorithm of course). Minidiscs are just about there. But going back on topic, remember an obscure, ancient invention called the "tape recorder"? Old dinosaurs in the music industry said the same thing and pushed the issue in court. The courts said that people making copies was fair use. I propose that we RETAIN fair use for everything we buy, including music. In a free economy, you have to figure out ways to fend for yourself. Artists will deal with it.
Last thought on the issue of artists getting big and rich, well, that just is kind of absurd, isn't it? Someone's motivation for creating art should be for the sake of art, not the money they can get from it. Sure everyone has to live, but how many painters, sculpters, poets, etc, are rolling in the big bucks? If you are really good, you'll find a way. Take a look at J.R.R. Tolkien's estate.:)
[we do not know the nature of these communications/encryption/etc].
In the emails at fuckedcompany.com I found in this post, I read a number of instances where they plainly stated that they didn't know about how services uses FastTrack worked. I find it very amusing that they're threating lawsuits, but they don't have all the facts at their disposal. If they do not understand how the communications take place, how can they even assume that they can place liability on someone for "damages"?
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
What the RIAA and other big industry orgs fail to understand is that it's not about directing users to "legitimate offerings", it's about not being a dinosaur in a fast paced industry. They are struggling to maintain old ways of distributing music and they don't understand that they have been replaced by a new distribution model. The record industry used to exist because some band, say "Vibrating Sandbox", didn't have the resources to publish and distribute nationally. Duh. Today, ANYBODY can send their music around the world.
I find it so amusing that the RIAA claims it hopes for the success of other music related businesses, then talks about handing enforcement. Enforcement!? RIAA: You are a conduit for music, not the source! Enforcement is up to the artists. If "Vibrating Sandbox" doesn't want its music distributed on *ster, then that's their problem.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
Of course, not to mention that these "illegitimate" file/music sharing services actually give listeners access to a wide variety of flavors. Try finding the same obscure, yet decent material on an RIAA services as you would find on Napster. It's a shame how something so big, greedy, and ancient can have so much control over the methods of medium they contributed absolutely nothing to.
Sometimes I think the difference between computer gurus and guys like Lehtyos and other normal computer users is the ability and willingness to read a manual....
And you know what they say about people who assume. Computer gurus typically don't read the manual for something like SO, where the set up is zero-thought point and click. And fyi, last time I installed SO's derivative, OpenOffice, I spent too much time looking for this information in the OpenOffice.org documentation and finding nothing of value.
And regardless of what you say about me, you (and others) STILL gave me the information - I got what I wanted, which was the saving of time milling through an obscure manual that isn't distributed conveniently with the package. It's not a matter of whether or not I'm a "guru" by your definition, it's matter of me being in a hurry and wanting a quick answer so I can worry about important things - such as actually writing code and not worrying about how to use someone else's.
Why is it that Star/Open Office wants to be installed on a per user basis, instead of a system wide location where everyone can use it. I've never had any luck getting it to work unless I installed it in my home directory. Does anyone know of a way that I can make it available to everyone?
But contrary to popular belief, most of them are not soulless, money grubbing ambulance chasers.
Thank you for validating my cynical nature yet all the while, sharply reminding me of this very good point. You're definitely right - my own lawyer, a man by the name of Karl Pfeffer, is a truly remarkable and respectable human being. I've become close friends with him since I enlisted his service and that of two of his peers a couple years ago.
It's easy to speak coarsely of a lawyer (or anyone for that matter) whom you have not met or know personally. As for Mr. Keker, I respect and applaud his act and wish him luck in this endeavor while at the same time, I hope he does in fact benefit from taking this on. Everyone should have fruits for their labor.
My goal with this comment may have been misconstrued, however. In brief, I mean that we have to be careful, in broad terms, to not become complacent. There are a lot of people and organizations supporting our ideals. Lawyers are certainly there, but also think about large companies that are involved with free speech ideals.
Take IBM, for example. Lots of devotion lately to Linux, but that's far from their bottom line. They benefit from OSS just as much as we do, but most likely, their returns to the community are just for good press. Their bottom line is profit, nothing more, and they should not be so readily trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
Qt compiles without a hitch and so does KDE. And if you want the official word, Trolltech's web site indicates that Qt will compile fine on Solaris, or pretty much any box running some form of X11. The KDE project has also made accomodations to run properly on Sun's OS. Sun doesn't have to do any work other than compilation and making packages. What's so hard about that? At the very least, they could make it an option.
Why does Sun continue to ignore KDE as a viable alternative to GNOME. KDE is very mature and incredibly stable. I don't see why Sun doesn't just go forward with packaging it with Solaris. Do they stick with GNOME because it's built on a 100% free toolkit? What's the driving force? As far as I can see, KDE is a solution to many of the problems Sun's UI trials of GNOME came up with. It just doesn't make sense... for one thing, if they want easy of use, KDE is much nicer than GNOME, IMHO.
Really, did you have any dignity while you were wearing that thing? I mean, come on. A rainbow strip across the front of your Fedaration jumpsuit. Did you at least complain?
My original post: Now while, this is not the same thing, it's in the ballpark to most users who understand it as something that speeds up their apps.
Your post: That doesn't change NT's pre-emption behavior dude.
Actually, you are incorrect, and you back me up with your own words:
NT automatically boosts the priority of the process that owns the topmost window, to make the UI Snappier... that option just turns this on or off. It's not the same thing, but it's very similar.
So basically, you're turning preemption on and off. That's not a priority change - apps keep their priority mode (one of the top level 5 that is). With NT, the active process, top most window, preempts others that are running. That's how they make it seem like it's running faster. For Joe S. Admin, switching to the other setting, causes local procs to not preempt those that are running server software, thus increasing throughput.
Of course, UI speed in NT is a totally different matter from under *nix. The Windows GUI is faster because it's not networked, like X. There's no abstraction layer between the producer (server), and consumer (client).
* there is no option to turn it off while in operation. Means you have to run different kernels if you want to do some things with the preempt, and other stuff without.
/proc switch that lets you turn this thing off and on.
This is something I haven't seen brought up yet. Windows 2000 can change favor from background to foreground processes on the fly (right click 'My Computer' and check out the properties). Now while, this is not the same thing, it's in the ballpark to most users who understand it as something that speeds up their apps. We really need a
What's going to happen to this project now that it's no longer under development? Certainly we have GPG, but PGP is a long time trusted name. Are they going to reopen it like it once was or is it now entirely dead - in the software graveyard with so many other projects that were kept closed after being pronounced dead?
Microsoft believes its customer base of 120 million will make it dominant in the field.
The the courts aren't taking more aggressive action at breaking up their monopoly power? Make Passport dominant in the face of Sun's superior product design. They are definitely right - that user base will make their product dominant. Come on DOJ, do something!
Certainly the Net is not a place of misinformation, full misleading journalism, with writers like JohnKats around. How could you not trust JK's medium of choice?
There's a very easy solution: Just wait for a while before you upgrade. That way you can decide for yourself how long you think the code should be tested before want to use it.
There's just one problem with it. If most people did that, bugs would take a lot longer to be found, let alone squashed. And the problem we've seen in 2.4.11 is not some obscure, minor thing that would have not have hindered stable use of the kernel. (Before you argue that, consider how severe it is, this is a show-stopper bug. Bugs in the kernel that corrupt the file system, even if they are rare, are serious problems.) This should have been caught and the fact that the bug exists indicates that whoever made the changes that created failed to even test said changes. 2.4.x is a "stable" kernel tree, and there's no reason why anyone should have to wait a couple patch levels before upgrading to the latest. There should be more thought and testing done on such a branch before releases are made. Period.
I get the impression that Linus is "rushing" releases of 2.4.x in an atempt to get it mature. Perhaps then he can say, "it's stable/it works" so that development on 2.6.x/3.0.x(?) can open up full swing? He mention in the interview posted yesterday that he wouldn't really jump into that until 2.4.x was a little older.
:)
*shrug*
It just seems that the patch on this tree are coming out faster than any of the other branches before it. And many more "issues" slipping through the cracks including controversy and laziness. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would prefer slower progress in favor of more careful, more tested releases.
If you'll notice, Osama bin Laden's organization is called "Al Qaeda". This is Arabic for "the Base".
In light of our first attack upon Afghanistan, it could be said that...
"Al Qaeda are belong to us."
I'm a Residence Assistant and I'm concerned about future terrorist threats against the US coming from Bin Laden. When the September 11th attacks took place, my university decided that it would be a good idea to move everyone out of the dorms and out into the open. I never thought that this was a wise plan, but I considering the tower structures we use for dorms, I didn't think moving everyone to the lowest level would be sufficient. In the event of attack however, quick thinking will be required to get everyone under cover as soon as possible, and as an RA, I am seen as a leader in crisis situations. Does anyone have any suggestions of what I can do to move people to a safe location before I can get in touch with my superiors?
Like... What kind of structures/locations can protect groups of people from explosions/debris/etc? Are steep rises and hills sufficient to protect people (my campus is situated such that we're on a bluff with a road running over the side of the bluff with about 5 meters between campus level and the road and a staircase going down to it)? What kinds of things do I have to consider? What about moving people to stairwells (which are solid concrete in my building)? What about chances in surviving a low yield nuclear detonation?
Certainly I intentend to ask administration these same questions come Monday, but I imagine I will get a "don't think, let us do the thinking" kind of answer.
I should not have made that post anonymous! Well, this will drive down my karma points for me... :)
Visit CmdrTaco's home page!
He says it's an optimizing compiler for hand-tuned assembly? What's the point? So basically, it's just another compiler, period. I have an idea, how about we just use GCC with the -mcpu=i686 and -march=i686 flags instead of paying for this.
/. story posters, this "story" is just a shameless plug.
Shame on
Can someone set up a web based vote tracking system which asks the question of those who have drives of the GXP series: "Ever had a problem?" I want to see what the actual failure rate is since /. story posters, in their world of utter cluelessness, post stupid stories just because they might draw lots of attention. I think you could substitute ANY make/model into this Ask Slashdot story and get a lot of enraged posters.
The project you're thinking of is Rasterman's own Evas canvas project and the E17 that sits on top of it. http://www.enlightenment.org Yes, it will come back. :)
The consumers. The consumers are the absolute highest power in the economic process. Consumers provide the money that makes the whole damn thing work. If consumers decide they don't want to spend the money, then all those musicians who are in it for the bucks are just out of luck. We as consumers have the right to force the music or whatever industry to do exactly what we want. The only trouble is getting us all organized. This guy did it. He said, "you don't have to pay for a high quality operating system", and made it happen, changing the face of the software industry.
WHY do you all persist in being such slaves to corporate power!? We all have a choice on what we want to consume an how!
Will it interfere with my conversations? (I lay this karma upon the alter for sacrifice...)
Please name the countries where copyright infringement is legal (as opposed to illegal but unenforced due to how widespread it is like in most parts of Asia).
Afghanistan. Hell, anything's legal there (except women feeding their families). But I am CERTAIN they don't care if you make a copy of an N*Sync CD.
That was my point about selling a million copies. Artists that go multi-platinum do fairly well while those that don't end up with a few good memories and sometimes in debt. This gamble is still preferable to making no money which is what the P2P services would eventually lead to given enough time.
Other replies to your original post already address this and do it better than I can, so read theirs.
This is very amusing. Why would anyone pay to download a song when they can get it for free on Morpheus, Gnutella, KaaZaa or Grokster?
You're not very observant are you? Look at the real world. Why would anyone buy a CD when they can get it for free on blah blah blah. People STILL buy music in a day and age where music can be got for free. It's reality. It will still be reality.
Wasn't there a recent Slashdot story about They Might Be Giants and how they were pissed at Napster because they had created an online presence only for Napster to render it all irrelvant?
It's not the consumers fault that they jumped on the bandwagon after someone else did. It's call competition. Sometimes other people get to ideas before you do.
BOTTOM LINE: For artists to make money from online music, free music services must disappear.
What a flaming crock of horse shit. You basically deny the existence of companies like RedHat that sell free software! That's right, they sell software that is given away for free everywhere else. The difference is, when you buy it, you get trimmings like actual CD's, manuals, and so forth. This model is very simple, works, seems pretty damn honest, and makes money. It could be very easily applied to the music industry.
Ugh, we need less of corporate bottom feeders like you.
So how should artists afford to prosecute multi-million dolar VC funded companies like Napster or companies that are outside the United?
:)
I can't speak for the first case, but for your second statement, it's obvious. They don't. You don't prosecute someone from another country doing things that are legal there and not legal here. Oh wait, we already do that. It's not right, is it?
If you are an artist with the choice of getting a major label deal and maybe making a profit if you sell over a million copies (or being in debt otherwise) or making no money from the spread of your music while being popular among the fans that don't pay for your music, what would you choose?
Hold it. Remember that from the sale of each record, lesser known artists get as low as 1% or less of the total profits, with the RIAA keeping the other 99%. Artists literally can get checks from the RIAA of 0.12$US for a 20$US record sale. Artists could make a LOT more money if they distributed online and took all the profits from said sales (and more power to them on doing this - I would buy music if my money was going to the artist, and not the RIAA).
Eventually, when CD burners, Minidiscs and car MP3 players become cheap and popular enough, how do you propose artists make a living in this new world order?
What are you talking about? They're already cheap and popular. I can buy a pack of 100 blank CDRs for 15$US. Mp3's are free (as in beer, and not the algorithm of course). Minidiscs are just about there. But going back on topic, remember an obscure, ancient invention called the "tape recorder"? Old dinosaurs in the music industry said the same thing and pushed the issue in court. The courts said that people making copies was fair use. I propose that we RETAIN fair use for everything we buy, including music. In a free economy, you have to figure out ways to fend for yourself. Artists will deal with it.
Last thought on the issue of artists getting big and rich, well, that just is kind of absurd, isn't it? Someone's motivation for creating art should be for the sake of art, not the money they can get from it. Sure everyone has to live, but how many painters, sculpters, poets, etc, are rolling in the big bucks? If you are really good, you'll find a way. Take a look at J.R.R. Tolkien's estate.
[we do not know the nature of these communications/encryption/etc].
In the emails at fuckedcompany.com I found in this post, I read a number of instances where they plainly stated that they didn't know about how services uses FastTrack worked. I find it very amusing that they're threating lawsuits, but they don't have all the facts at their disposal. If they do not understand how the communications take place, how can they even assume that they can place liability on someone for "damages"?
"I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious," Rosen continued.
What the RIAA and other big industry orgs fail to understand is that it's not about directing users to "legitimate offerings", it's about not being a dinosaur in a fast paced industry. They are struggling to maintain old ways of distributing music and they don't understand that they have been replaced by a new distribution model. The record industry used to exist because some band, say "Vibrating Sandbox", didn't have the resources to publish and distribute nationally. Duh. Today, ANYBODY can send their music around the world.
I find it so amusing that the RIAA claims it hopes for the success of other music related businesses, then talks about handing enforcement. Enforcement!? RIAA: You are a conduit for music, not the source! Enforcement is up to the artists. If "Vibrating Sandbox" doesn't want its music distributed on *ster, then that's their problem.
The thing with organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA is they don't know when to quit. They need to learn a new way to make money that works with the modern world, or just go away all together.
Of course, not to mention that these "illegitimate" file/music sharing services actually give listeners access to a wide variety of flavors. Try finding the same obscure, yet decent material on an RIAA services as you would find on Napster. It's a shame how something so big, greedy, and ancient can have so much control over the methods of medium they contributed absolutely nothing to.
Sometimes I think the difference between computer gurus and guys like Lehtyos and other normal computer users is the ability and willingness to read a manual....
And you know what they say about people who assume. Computer gurus typically don't read the manual for something like SO, where the set up is zero-thought point and click. And fyi, last time I installed SO's derivative, OpenOffice, I spent too much time looking for this information in the OpenOffice.org documentation and finding nothing of value.
And regardless of what you say about me, you (and others) STILL gave me the information - I got what I wanted, which was the saving of time milling through an obscure manual that isn't distributed conveniently with the package. It's not a matter of whether or not I'm a "guru" by your definition, it's matter of me being in a hurry and wanting a quick answer so I can worry about important things - such as actually writing code and not worrying about how to use someone else's.
Why is it that Star/Open Office wants to be installed on a per user basis, instead of a system wide location where everyone can use it. I've never had any luck getting it to work unless I installed it in my home directory. Does anyone know of a way that I can make it available to everyone?
But contrary to popular belief, most of them are not soulless, money grubbing ambulance chasers.
Thank you for validating my cynical nature yet all the while, sharply reminding me of this very good point. You're definitely right - my own lawyer, a man by the name of Karl Pfeffer, is a truly remarkable and respectable human being. I've become close friends with him since I enlisted his service and that of two of his peers a couple years ago.
It's easy to speak coarsely of a lawyer (or anyone for that matter) whom you have not met or know personally. As for Mr. Keker, I respect and applaud his act and wish him luck in this endeavor while at the same time, I hope he does in fact benefit from taking this on. Everyone should have fruits for their labor.
My goal with this comment may have been misconstrued, however. In brief, I mean that we have to be careful, in broad terms, to not become complacent. There are a lot of people and organizations supporting our ideals. Lawyers are certainly there, but also think about large companies that are involved with free speech ideals.
Take IBM, for example. Lots of devotion lately to Linux, but that's far from their bottom line. They benefit from OSS just as much as we do, but most likely, their returns to the community are just for good press. Their bottom line is profit, nothing more, and they should not be so readily trusted.