From the GPL: > Each licensee is addressed as "you".
So while reading the GPL, keep in mind that it's being addressed to the Licensee, not the author.. the author still retains full copy(right|left) of (his|her) code... and as such, can change licenses at will
As the author of an app, I am free to choose whatever license I want. The license affects those who I give the source to, not myself. Once I relase under the GPL, I can't stop people from redistrubuting that version or from changing it, etc, etc...
I am free however, to release the same code under a different license because I OWN the code. It's mine.
I write a an app and put it v.1 under the GPL... If I, as the author, want, I can release v.2 under BSD or a restrictive license or binary only.... right?
Oka.. now say someone sends me a patch *with*no*license* attached to the patch. Does this put the PATCH in public domain? Meaning I could add it to my product and I would still own everything in there, and hence would be able to change the license on my work as I see fit?
But let's take another look at this... Say we have some project... Say this project is building a Snarfblat... Joe Coder starts building the snarfblat, and releases it (in true OS fasion) as version 0.1.
Now Bob downloads the source, plays with it, finds some broken things, and send Joe a patch. Joe incorperates this patch into release 0.2.
So now who owns the code? I'm assuming that our helper, Bob, didn't state that he was putting his patch under the GPL, but rather just sent it to the author. Would this be public domain, and hence the copyright for release 0.2 would still remain to Joe Coder?
The orginal author of the GPLed code still has full copyright of it, correct? And they can change the copyright on any subsequent version (i.e. they can make it proprietary in the next version but can't stop people from distrubiting the GPLed code.)
As such, any company that really wants to use GPLed code in a proprietary product would have to get the permission of the author, who could in turn demans payment, royalties, credit, or something else.
It seems to me like the GPL protects the interests of the coder as well as the general public.
>I'm curious what percentage of Linux users are >raving loonies. 30%? 40%? What fires them up so >much? Perhaps they are mostly adolescent brutes? >In any case, all the hype about Linux I see in >SlanderLot.org is most likely no good for Linux.
Are you for real? Hahahahahahahha... This is way too funny... Here we are, in the middle of a post about how worthless OS wars are, and how flames and name calling only degrades the users OS, and someone posts a message calling Linux users "raving loonies".
I _really_ hope that this post was made in jest, although the cynic in me tells me that the poster couldn't see the irony in his post...
_sigh_
Computer users are pretty much representative of the population. We have our geeks and nerds, our business execs, our kiddies, our morons, our jerks, and our loud mouth bigots. These people can use whatever operating system them want... which means that _every_ OS has jerks and morons using it.. it also means that every OS has intelligent users.
Linux crashed? Care to be a little more specific? The only "panic" or "oops" I've seen since 1.3 has been because of dying hardware... Following links to your page, it seems as if you're an active developer... as such you should know that just saying "it doesn't work" isn't good enough...
In short: What was your system doing, how were you doing it, and what do you think the problem might be?
These three things could help you keep your systems solid...
I got the impression that this wasn't necessarily an embedded system, but rather a tiny computer with an embedded processor. Rather than using this as a portable MP3 player, couldn't this also be used as a palm top, not unlike the palm pilot?
With a modem, pppd, fetchmail, pine, and lynx, you could have a fairly decent (and small) remote system... check mail, browse the web, etc, etc... all the stuff you normally carry a laptop around for, but this would fit on your hand...
What sort of display could you use with this? I was reading about this the other day and was wondering how you would do IO with it... a mini-keyboard and an small LCD monitor? Or use it more like a PDA communicating over a network connection...
In other words, what practical applications does this have?
His point was that if microsoft was to re-enter the *nix market that they would create as much confusion as possible to the point where no one would want to deal with all the mess.
He jokeingly said that microsoft would base their new *nix on BSD, enable it to run Linux binaries, hence enabling them to keep all their precious source code, and call it Linux to add confusion.
I pointed out that this wouldn't be possible because there is trademark control over the word linux.
No one said that they had proof that microsoft was going to do this, and no one said that they would have any desire...
I was simply stating the obvious flaw in his far fetched theorotical nonsense.
Oh, the interest in visual tools was a totally seperate thought.. my apologies for letting myself ramble..
>Personally, I LOVE Java
Yeah, I've got lots of friends who love it as well... I just can't seem to get into it... I do like the garbage collection and better memory control... It always seems a little slow to me and functions calls like:
And I suppose that the "visual" programmers who want OO design wouldn't want to use Visual C++? Does all this interest in "visual" design tools signify an increased lazyness in coders?
Or is it more about moving past the basics onto more advanced applications without having to focus on remember the code for a specific UI? Most VB apps I've seen are hardly advanced applications, so I'd have to go with the earlier.
Yeah, it is... I'm wondering if it was trademarked in any way shape or form... Imagine an open source vendor sueing microsoft over a trade mark dispute... and winning.
Writing java apps that only run in Windows? Pardon me for asking, but what's the point? The point of Java was "write once run everywhere"...
>"I propose that no government agency be allowed >to run more than 34 percent of its personal computers >on one proprietary operating system by a date certain," he said.
So then if the government was using any open OS then they could be running 100% of one OS? With an open OS this makes much more sense... all the bugs found are quickly patched... Might this mean that the government might start leaning towards open OSes?
Regardless of any bugs found in apache, how is it that a user level process was able to bring down the machine?
I was curious as to how that could happen, especially when I thought that it was based off of BSD which doesn't allow user level processes to mess with the kernel space.
There are 10 stories on my front page here... of them 4 mention Linux. The rest deal with topics that would be considered.. well.. "News for Nerds."
Do you read any other tech news site? Every single one has an OS that they tend to favor... Whether it be MacOS, or BSD, or Windows, or Linux. complaining about it doesn't do anybody any good. If you don't like the stories posted, then you have three option.
Stop reading it
Read it and don't complain
Find news stories you'd like to see and submit them. (and stop complaining about article you don't like)
That way, everyone gets is happy. The people who like the site don't have to sift through garbage in order to read the real comments.
I thought that OS X was supposed to be based off of BSD. As such how did a user level process crash the kernel? There are a couple things I thought of:
The web server was running as super user (and hence could get to system memory?)
There is a flaw in the kernel that allows user level processes to affect the system area.
The kernel can't handle X many simultanious tasks
The machine is actually run off of "Apache OS(tm) The Ficticious Web Server Operating system" and hence the web server WAS the kernel.
I tend to think that there might be a flaw in the kernel letting user proccesses affect kernel space...
Slashdot Mirror
From the GPL:
> Each licensee is addressed as "you".
So while reading the GPL, keep in mind that it's being addressed to the Licensee, not the author.. the author still retains full copy(right|left) of (his|her) code... and as such, can change licenses at will
No... I think your getting confused here...
As the author of an app, I am free to choose whatever license I want. The license affects those who I give the source to, not myself. Once I relase under the GPL, I can't stop people from redistrubuting that version or from changing it, etc, etc...
I am free however, to release the same code under a different license because I OWN the code. It's mine.
I think you missed the question..
I write a an app and put it v.1 under the GPL... If I, as the author, want, I can release v.2 under BSD or a restrictive license or binary only.... right?
Oka.. now say someone sends me a patch *with*no*license* attached to the patch. Does this put the PATCH in public domain? Meaning I could add it to my product and I would still own everything in there, and hence would be able to change the license on my work as I see fit?
Good point, I hadn't considered that...
;)
But let's take another look at this... Say we have some project... Say this project is building a Snarfblat... Joe Coder starts building the snarfblat, and releases it (in true OS fasion) as version 0.1.
Now Bob downloads the source, plays with it, finds some broken things, and send Joe a patch. Joe incorperates this patch into release 0.2.
So now who owns the code? I'm assuming that our helper, Bob, didn't state that he was putting his patch under the GPL, but rather just sent it to the author. Would this be public domain, and hence the copyright for release 0.2 would still remain to Joe Coder?
Man... I think I blew a gasket on that one
The orginal author of the GPLed code still has full copyright of it, correct? And they can change the copyright on any subsequent version (i.e. they can make it proprietary in the next version but can't stop people from distrubiting the GPLed code.)
As such, any company that really wants to use GPLed code in a proprietary product would have to get the permission of the author, who could in turn demans payment, royalties, credit, or something else.
It seems to me like the GPL protects the interests of the coder as well as the general public.
Why is the Linux-i686 tar.gz nearly twice as big as the Windows .zip? Is there a difference? (besides that one is for Linux and one for windows :P)
>I'm curious what percentage of Linux users are
>raving loonies. 30%? 40%? What fires them up so
>much? Perhaps they are mostly adolescent brutes?
>In any case, all the hype about Linux I see in
>SlanderLot.org is most likely no good for Linux.
Are you for real? Hahahahahahahha... This is way too funny... Here we are, in the middle of a post about how worthless OS wars are, and how flames and name calling only degrades the users OS, and someone posts a message calling Linux users "raving loonies".
I _really_ hope that this post was made in jest, although the cynic in me tells me that the poster couldn't see the irony in his post...
_sigh_
Computer users are pretty much representative of the population. We have our geeks and nerds, our business execs, our kiddies, our morons, our jerks, and our loud mouth bigots. These people can use whatever operating system them want... which means that _every_ OS has jerks and morons using it.. it also means that every OS has intelligent users.
Linux crashed? Care to be a little more specific? The only "panic" or "oops" I've seen since 1.3 has been because of dying hardware... Following links to your page, it seems as if you're an active developer... as such you should know that just saying "it doesn't work" isn't good enough...
;)
In short: What was your system doing, how were you doing it, and what do you think the problem might be?
These three things could help you keep your systems solid...
As for cyrix...
I got the impression that this wasn't necessarily an embedded system, but rather a tiny computer with an embedded processor. Rather than using this as a portable MP3 player, couldn't this also be used as a palm top, not unlike the palm pilot?
With a modem, pppd, fetchmail, pine, and lynx, you could have a fairly decent (and small) remote system... check mail, browse the web, etc, etc... all the stuff you normally carry a laptop around for, but this would fit on your hand...
This, of course, would need some IO...
What sort of display could you use with this? I was reading about this the other day and was wondering how you would do IO with it... a mini-keyboard and an small LCD monitor? Or use it more like a PDA communicating over a network connection...
In other words, what practical applications does this have?
> Yes, and I've got a 386 chip lying around, but
>the the first one....
Ack! Brain fart.. "the the" = "not the"
> the Smithsonian already has one.
Yes, and I've got a 386 chip lying around, but the the first one....
His point was that if microsoft was to re-enter the *nix market that they would create as much confusion as possible to the point where no one would want to deal with all the mess.
He jokeingly said that microsoft would base their new *nix on BSD, enable it to run Linux binaries, hence enabling them to keep all their precious source code, and call it Linux to add confusion.
I pointed out that this wouldn't be possible because there is trademark control over the word linux.
No one said that they had proof that microsoft was going to do this, and no one said that they would have any desire...
I was simply stating the obvious flaw in his far fetched theorotical nonsense.
Except that it wouldn't be Linux and we could all sue for false advertising, and Linus would assert his trademark power..
This doesn't even warrent a response, troll.
I would suggest moving to cotton instead of brillo pads as a choice for boxers... silk is nice too...
This has NOTHING TO DO with Linux vs. Windows. This has to do with Microsoft trying to subvert and destroy a product from SUN.
Had you spent 5 minutes reading the comments, you would have figured this out.
Oh, the interest in visual tools was a totally seperate thought.. my apologies for letting myself ramble..
;-)
>Personally, I LOVE Java
Yeah, I've got lots of friends who love it as well... I just can't seem to get into it... I do like the garbage collection and better memory control... It always seems a little slow to me and functions calls like:
System.out.println
instead of
printf
annoy me a little..
And I suppose that the "visual" programmers who want OO design wouldn't want to use Visual C++? Does all this interest in "visual" design tools signify an increased lazyness in coders?
Or is it more about moving past the basics onto more advanced applications without having to focus on remember the code for a specific UI? Most VB apps I've seen are hardly advanced applications, so I'd have to go with the earlier.
Yeah, it is... I'm wondering if it was trademarked in any way shape or form... Imagine an open source vendor sueing microsoft over a trade mark dispute... and winning.
Writing java apps that only run in Windows? Pardon me for asking, but what's the point? The point of Java was "write once run everywhere"...
Bad Microsoft. No soup for you.
>to run more than 34 percent of its personal computers
>on one proprietary operating system by a date certain," he said.
So then if the government was using any open OS then they could be running 100% of one OS? With an open OS this makes much more sense... all the bugs found are quickly patched... Might this mean that the government might start leaning towards open OSes?
On your everday life? Not much, probably...
It will however give the scientists a better view at a Black Hole. They might be able to study it and find new stuff out about it.
But don't worry, it's not going to gobble us up.
Right... I've seen crashes before... But always from something running in the Kernel or as a super user. (Read: X and kernel space networking)
Apache is (or should be) niether... It's not part of the kernel and not running as super user. Why was it able to crash the entire machine?
It seems to be a bug in the kernel allowing user level processes to screw with the kernel space.
Regardless of any bugs found in apache, how is it that a user level process was able to bring down the machine?
I was curious as to how that could happen, especially when I thought that it was based off of BSD which doesn't allow user level processes to mess with the kernel space.
Do you read any other tech news site? Every single one has an OS that they tend to favor... Whether it be MacOS, or BSD, or Windows, or Linux. complaining about it doesn't do anybody any good. If you don't like the stories posted, then you have three option.
That way, everyone gets is happy. The people who like the site don't have to sift through garbage in order to read the real comments.
I tend to think that there might be a flaw in the kernel letting user proccesses affect kernel space...
Any other ideas?