It's my understanding that the GPL hasn't had its day in court because it's case is so strong that nobody is willing to go up against it.
If you are aware of unclear issues in the GPL as it currently reads, please list them. If you're right, then you're right. If you're wrong, someone knowledgable might demonstrate to you what is wrong and all who read will benefit.
What problems do you have in your multi-distro Linux environment?
Most of the devs in my group run whatever distro they want (mostly Gentoo and Fedora) and the production environment is either Solaris or RHES. There are no headaches working with multiple distros on the same project. All the headaches seem to be getting Linux developed code to play nicely on Solaris.
Linux is ready for my desktop. I've been using it exclusively for years. Most of the people I work with use it on their desktops, too.
So, while it is true that it may not be ready for all desktops, to claim that it isn't ready for any desktops is demonstrably false since we already have lots of counter examples.
Get your mind around the fact that there is no "The Desktop". There's lots of individule desktops.
Has anyone thought of doing this just to identify IPs of compromised machines that are used in DDoS attacks? Generating a list of IPs and alerting ISPs might go a long way of reducing the amount of zombie machines out there.
I humbly sumit that both you and Marcus have tunnel vision. If the goal of the Linux community were to destroy Microsoft, then perhaps you could be correct. There are certainly some who use open source as a way of fighting against MS, but there are others who are interested in open source for idealistic reasons, for pragmatic reasons (I, for example, prefer open source tools because I find them easier to work with), and for business reasons.
I want Linux to succeed because it is my preferred environment to use. If Microsoft takes a beating as a result, I won't complain about it, but defeating Microsoft (whatever that means) certainly isn't my goal.
*nix will NEVER SUCCEED UNTILL IT DOES SOMETHING I CARE ABOUT (I = normal people like me)
How do you define success? I use Linux and Solaris every day to accomplish a great deal of work, so by any metric I'm inclined to use, *nix has already succeeded.
Is success defined by financial backing? If so, then all the corporates who are now dumping money into Linux, and have been dumping money into Unix for decades would seem to have made it a success.
Is success defined by the number of people who are using *nix to run their desktop computers? Well, knowledgable users have been doing that for years, so *nix is already a success in that arena, too.
It's true that there are lots of people who don't use *nix, and who are, perhaps, better served by OSX or Windows, but that in no way detracts from the successes of *nix.
You do realize that having nuke anything in addition to all-in-one gestures is redundant? Check out "Hide Object" and "Undo Hide Object" gesture targets. Personally, I find using gestures much easier than using a context menu to remove the object. Also, you can undo your hides without having to reload the page from scratch.
Please don't call KDE a window manager. Both KDE and Gnome use window managers, but neither of them are window managers (the fact that you can change which window manager is used by KDE and Gnome is a good indication that they, themselves, are not window managers).
xwinman.org gives an excellent introduction to both window managers and desktop environments. Give it a look.
I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for shareholders than simply maximizing profits). Good will, happy customers, and a reputation for practicing enlightened ethics all add value to a company that management can point to if they ever need to defend their actions against a shareholder lawsuit.
Such things may not prevent shareholder lawsuits, but they do provide a solid defense them.
An article I read earlier this week said that AMD is keeping its dual-core chips at less than 100W. Maybe someone else who read the same article would be kind enough to post a link.
No one technology is going to change the world. We're way past that. However, this will become one of many tools at our disposal that will help us deal with our energy consumption habits.
This process isn't limited to argricultural waste. For instance, you could pipe the output of every bathroom in the city into a plant that turns that waste into usable light crude. All it would take is to build a plant where the sanitary sewer dumps out.
Added benefit would be that there would be less pollution into rivers and such.
A good modular design is not the same as Object-Oriented design. If the design uses polymorphism, then it's OO, otherwise it's just a modular design. Assuming you buy into the distinction I just made, it's unusual, but not difficult or impossible, to do OO in C since the language doesn't explicitly support polymorphism.
In contrast, python makes polymorphism so simple that you often don't even realize you're doing it. With Java and C#, you either have to share a common ancester or implement the same interface.
I realize you say this in jest, but I'd like to point out the obvious anyway: Instead of targetting specific companies, the needs of the community would probably be better met by efforts to improve existing software and documentation. New software to cover existing gaps is good too. If our offerings improve, then the community and its resources will grow too, giving us more power to defend ourself later.
SCO was a good wake up call. Serious enough to make us aware of the dangers, but weak enough that it couldn't actually harm us. The next danger might not be so hollow.
Slashdot Mirror
It's my understanding that the GPL hasn't had its day in court because it's
case is so strong that nobody is willing to go up against it.
If you are aware of unclear issues in the GPL as it currently reads, please
list them. If you're right, then you're right. If you're wrong, someone
knowledgable might demonstrate to you what is wrong and all who read will
benefit.
What problems do you have in your multi-distro Linux environment?
Most of the devs in my group run whatever distro they want (mostly Gentoo
and Fedora) and the production environment is either Solaris or RHES. There
are no headaches working with multiple distros on the same project. All the
headaches seem to be getting Linux developed code to play nicely on Solaris.
Linux is ready for my desktop. I've been using it exclusively for years.
Most of the people I work with use it on their desktops, too.
So, while it is true that it may not be ready for all desktops, to claim
that it isn't ready for any desktops is demonstrably false since we already
have lots of counter examples.
Get your mind around the fact that there is no "The Desktop". There's lots
of individule desktops.
It's not hard.
Has anyone thought of doing this just to identify IPs of compromised machines
that are used in DDoS attacks? Generating a list of IPs and alerting ISPs
might go a long way of reducing the amount of zombie machines out there.
Just a (possibly naive) thought.
The vast majority of topcis are non-controvercial. While trusting Wikipedia on
controvercial topics might be dangerous, most articles are trustworthy.
That said, you should never use Wikipedia as your sole source for anything
that really matters, but for satisfying idle curiosity, Wikipedia is fine.
He appears to be on the page now. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts)
Can you post a link? Sounds like that would be interesting to read about.
As Marcus says, the only reason not to is ego.
I humbly sumit that both you and Marcus have tunnel vision. If the goal of
the Linux community were to destroy Microsoft, then perhaps you could be
correct. There are certainly some who use open source as a way of fighting
against MS, but there are others who are interested in open source for
idealistic reasons, for pragmatic reasons (I, for example, prefer open source
tools because I find them easier to work with), and for business reasons.
I want Linux to succeed because it is my preferred environment to use. If
Microsoft takes a beating as a result, I won't complain about it, but defeating
Microsoft (whatever that means) certainly isn't my goal.
Perhaps you should consider that haveing a large chunk of the population not
thinking for themselves might be an advantage.
*nix will NEVER SUCCEED UNTILL IT DOES SOMETHING I CARE ABOUT (I = normal people like me)
How do you define success? I use Linux and Solaris every day to accomplish
a great deal of work, so by any metric I'm inclined to use, *nix has
already succeeded.
Is success defined by financial backing? If so, then all the corporates who
are now dumping money into Linux, and have been dumping money into Unix for
decades would seem to have made it a success.
Is success defined by the number of people who are using *nix to run their
desktop computers? Well, knowledgable users have been doing that for years,
so *nix is already a success in that arena, too.
It's true that there are lots of people who don't use *nix, and who are, perhaps,
better served by OSX or Windows, but that in no way detracts from the
successes of *nix.
You do realize that having nuke anything in addition to all-in-one gestures
is redundant? Check out "Hide Object" and "Undo Hide Object" gesture targets.
Personally, I find using gestures much easier than using a context menu to
remove the object. Also, you can undo your hides without having to reload the
page from scratch.
Please don't call KDE a window manager.
Both KDE and Gnome use window managers, but neither of them are window managers
(the fact that you can change which window manager is used by KDE and Gnome
is a good indication that they, themselves, are not window managers).
xwinman.org gives an excellent introduction to both window managers and
desktop environments. Give it a look.
Yes, but the speech being silenced is illegal speech (agree or disagree with
it, trade secrets are protected by law).
Is this a troll or is someone trying to be funny?
I can't tell.
I've never heard of anyone running Windows on blades. Does anyone do this?
Can somebody please chime in with what the technical legal responsibilities of a
publically traded company are in regards to their shareholders?
I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to
maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to
maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for
shareholders than simply maximizing profits). Good will, happy
customers, and a reputation for practicing enlightened ethics all add value
to a company that management can point to if they ever need to defend their
actions against a shareholder lawsuit.
Such things may not prevent shareholder lawsuits, but they do provide a solid
defense them.
I think the idea is that the impact of the 2.6 kernel was felt in 2004, even
though it was officially released in 2003.
Donald Knuth was quoating Tony Hoare when he said that.
An article I read earlier this week said that AMD is keeping its
dual-core chips at less than 100W. Maybe someone else who read the
same article would be kind enough to post a link.
For oil, at least.
No one technology is going to change the world. We're way past that. However,
this will become one of many tools at our disposal that will help us deal
with our energy consumption habits.
This process isn't limited to argricultural waste. For instance, you could
pipe the output of every bathroom in the city into a plant that turns that
waste into usable light crude. All it would take is to build a plant where
the sanitary sewer dumps out.
Added benefit would be that there would be less pollution into rivers and such.
A good modular design is not the same as Object-Oriented design. If the design
uses polymorphism, then it's OO, otherwise it's just a modular design. Assuming
you buy into the distinction I just made, it's unusual, but not difficult or impossible,
to do OO in C since the language doesn't explicitly support polymorphism.
In contrast, python makes polymorphism so simple that you often don't even
realize you're doing it. With Java and C#, you either have to share a common
ancester or implement the same interface.
I realize you say this in jest, but I'd like to point out the obvious anyway:
Instead of targetting specific companies, the needs of the community would
probably be better met by efforts to improve existing software and documentation. New software to cover existing gaps is good too. If our offerings
improve, then the community and its resources will grow too, giving us more
power to defend ourself later.
SCO was a good wake up call. Serious enough to make us aware of the dangers,
but weak enough that it couldn't actually harm us. The next danger might not
be so hollow.