Actually, the "cheap" PS3 only has component HD output, no HDMI. Which is great news for you because it effectively kills the move towards mandatory HDMI.
Considering that the page starts with a giant disclaimer that's probably intentional. Perhaps they were getting a lot of returns from home users who perhaps weren't exactly the target market for FreeDOS.
Linus didn't say that, it was Greg KH, who is very anti-binary driver. All bark and no bite, because he's threatened to sue nvidia, and that hasn't gone anywhere.
IMO, the "shim" is irrelvant from a legal perspective. It only exists for engineering purposes because there is no standard module ABI.
Rather, the NVidia driver is clearly legal because of what it is -- an fully independant software work that's not derived from the Linux kernel. The fact that it calls kernel functions (directly or not) to do it's job is irrelvant.
For the same reason, Win32 programs are not derived from MS Windows, and PHP scripts are not derived from PHP.
I question how much better the Matrox G550 is over the Intel Integrated.
The Intel chip is "DX9" capable, which is all that's needed for fancy desktop effects, while the Matrox is the same old stuff they've been churning out since the 20th century.
If you're going to sell me 24/7, 6MB down/1MB up, then god damn it, I expect to get just that.
Last time this came up here, full rate bandwidth was quoted at $200/Mb/Month, and that was wholesale. No matter what, you aren't going to get thousands of dollars of bandwidth for your $50.
Yahoo (SBC) wants Google videos to pay them money everytime a Yahoo (SBC) customer downloads Google video.
I had the impression that Yahoo was paying SBC/AT&T for the rights to load up your computer with their toolbars and crap. I kind of doubt that Yahoo themselves has say in how SBC manages their network, nor directly profits from it. Most likely Yahoo would probably have to pay SBC even more for special video access under their non-neutrality plan.
NVidia and ATI claim to have "trade secrets" that protect eachother from eachother right? Except their hardware capabilities are almost equal and their prices are both competitive. That's like saying the only thing keeping Pepsi from beating out Coca Cola is that they just don't have that Coca Cola secret formula
I think what you're missing is that that Nvidia and ATI have a nice little duopoly going. They both can afford to reverse-engineer the "Make Doom3 Fast" function, but they aren't going to hand that information over to a competitor with a lower cost structure. Drivers are THE thing that keeps other players out of this market.
I one read an interview with Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman, where it was clear that they didn't share the same GPL interpretations. In fact one question was "Are binary Linux kernel modules legal?" and Moglen said "Yes" while Stallman said "No".
So I wouldn't necessarily assume that the FSF party line about "linking" is necessarily Eben Moglen's position. In fact he's probably well aware that there's been many court cases which have upheld linking as not copyright infringment. (Nintendo vs Game Genie off the top of my head).
IANAL, but the AC is describing the mainstream legal view of software copyright which is shared the entire computing industry, with the exception of the FSF.
Tainting the kernel makes it non-compatible with the gpl.... or perhaps im wrong, what do I know, anyway?
Yeah, you're wrong. "Tainting" is a support flag so that binary driver users won't clog up the lists asking for help.
It's not a legal requirement, nor could it be really unless there was a EULA attached to Linux. The legaity of any driver is a legal question, not a programmatic flag.
Well, the GPL is pretty clear that it requires that GPL applications can't link to non-GPL libraries, even if they're loaded at runtime (dynamicly linked).
The GPL doesn't say this. It just doesn't.
(Why is it that most people who preach about the GPL are acting on second-hand information and hearsay?)
I'm upset. I wrote (something like rails) in Javascript/ASP around year 2000, and gave up on it 3/4th way because I thought it wasn't worth the effort; and ASP.NET was coming out. Even playing with Rails, I still kind of think that it a bunch of code that still only solves the easy problems. But now I realize if I would have picked a more obscure open source language, I could have been cool and famous.
There's a lot of people in Asia who are very anti-Unicode and pro-wierd local encodings. Counter-intuitive to the western developer who uses Unicode for supporting Asian languages. I don't really get it either.
Good job being a prick and getting modded up for it.
But just rhetorically, are you 100.000% positive that your Mac hasn't been rooted? Absolutely 100%? Running tripwire scans ain't exactly normal practice.
I'm trying to figure out your point in the relationship to the story and why it's insightful.
Are you arguing that it's "enough" for Apple to not patch known problems? That because Apple has a good track record that they can be lax? That Apple should imitate Microsoft's policies of the late 1990s and not take "gray hats" seriously?
If so, that's a pretty stupid and reactionary attitude. I think most Mac users, including myself, are not slobbering "macz rulez" and want Apple to take an aggressive stance towards security issues in order to prevent the Windowns situation from ever happening.
Hey, some of us remember the days when Windows NT 4.0 was considered relatively immune to hackers when compared to *nix systems. Things can change if the vendor is idiotic.
but I believe that you can only use Windows XP if you use filesystem NTFS,
NTFS supports a lot of advanced features which Windows Explorer does not use or only barely uses, because you might be running things on FAT or another filesystem. Things like metadata tags and so on.
No, your view is "wacky" because it violates the "8th Grade Civics Class" understanding of the world where the judicial branch is independent of the President. Bush did not order the Appeals Court to shread the ruling. Period.
Now, if you wanted a more interesting theory, you'd look into the financial and personal ties of the appeals judges, etc. Seriously, this type of thing is not uncommon at all.
Since you are grasping desperately to this conspiracy theory in the face of evidence, let's think about it.... If the fix was in on the Appeals Court, it was fixed by a higher level than Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Apple will have difficultly arguing "prior art", because they have patented something very similar.
Interesting ... thanks for posting that!
Actually, the "cheap" PS3 only has component HD output, no HDMI. Which is great news for you because it effectively kills the move towards mandatory HDMI.
P2P is full of OReilly and other computer books.
And OReilly is all anti-RIAA, so you figure that he doesn't mind if you download his books for free.
Considering that the page starts with a giant disclaimer that's probably intentional. Perhaps they were getting a lot of returns from home users who perhaps weren't exactly the target market for FreeDOS.
Linus didn't say that, it was Greg KH, who is very anti-binary driver. All bark and no bite, because he's threatened to sue nvidia, and that hasn't gone anywhere.
IMO, the "shim" is irrelvant from a legal perspective. It only exists for engineering purposes because there is no standard module ABI.
Rather, the NVidia driver is clearly legal because of what it is -- an fully independant software work that's not derived from the Linux kernel. The fact that it calls kernel functions (directly or not) to do it's job is irrelvant.
For the same reason, Win32 programs are not derived from MS Windows, and PHP scripts are not derived from PHP.
I question how much better the Matrox G550 is over the Intel Integrated.
The Intel chip is "DX9" capable, which is all that's needed for fancy desktop effects, while the Matrox is the same old stuff they've been churning out since the 20th century.
Scum, yes. But assuming you meant scAm, the scam's on the grannies that pay $50/mo just to check email. Their service should be much cheaper.
That's just the maximum supported by the format. ATSC HD is 20mbs it's MPEG-2. It would be much lower with VC-1 or H.264.
If you're going to sell me 24/7, 6MB down/1MB up, then god damn it, I expect to get just that.
Last time this came up here, full rate bandwidth was quoted at $200/Mb/Month, and that was wholesale. No matter what, you aren't going to get thousands of dollars of bandwidth for your $50.
Yahoo (SBC) wants Google videos to pay them money everytime a Yahoo (SBC) customer downloads Google video.
I had the impression that Yahoo was paying SBC/AT&T for the rights to load up your computer with their toolbars and crap. I kind of doubt that Yahoo themselves has say in how SBC manages their network, nor directly profits from it. Most likely Yahoo would probably have to pay SBC even more for special video access under their non-neutrality plan.
NVidia and ATI claim to have "trade secrets" that protect eachother from eachother right? Except their hardware capabilities are almost equal and their prices are both competitive. That's like saying the only thing keeping Pepsi from beating out Coca Cola is that they just don't have that Coca Cola secret formula
I think what you're missing is that that Nvidia and ATI have a nice little duopoly going. They both can afford to reverse-engineer the "Make Doom3 Fast" function, but they aren't going to hand that information over to a competitor with a lower cost structure. Drivers are THE thing that keeps other players out of this market.
I one read an interview with Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman, where it was clear that they didn't share the same GPL interpretations. In fact one question was "Are binary Linux kernel modules legal?" and Moglen said "Yes" while Stallman said "No".
So I wouldn't necessarily assume that the FSF party line about "linking" is necessarily Eben Moglen's position. In fact he's probably well aware that there's been many court cases which have upheld linking as not copyright infringment. (Nintendo vs Game Genie off the top of my head).
IANAL, but the AC is describing the mainstream legal view of software copyright which is shared the entire computing industry, with the exception of the FSF.
Tainting the kernel makes it non-compatible with the gpl. ... or perhaps im wrong, what do I know, anyway?
Yeah, you're wrong. "Tainting" is a support flag so that binary driver users won't clog up the lists asking for help.
It's not a legal requirement, nor could it be really unless there was a EULA attached to Linux. The legaity of any driver is a legal question, not a programmatic flag.
Well, the GPL is pretty clear that it requires that GPL applications can't link to non-GPL libraries, even if they're loaded at runtime (dynamicly linked).
The GPL doesn't say this. It just doesn't.
(Why is it that most people who preach about the GPL are acting on second-hand information and hearsay?)
I've heard that explaination. I've also heard it's a protectionist thing to guard the local software industry. Still seems rather silly to me.
I'm upset. I wrote (something like rails) in Javascript/ASP around year 2000, and gave up on it 3/4th way because I thought it wasn't worth the effort; and ASP.NET was coming out. Even playing with Rails, I still kind of think that it a bunch of code that still only solves the easy problems. But now I realize if I would have picked a more obscure open source language, I could have been cool and famous.
There's a lot of people in Asia who are very anti-Unicode and pro-wierd local encodings. Counter-intuitive to the western developer who uses Unicode for supporting Asian languages. I don't really get it either.
Good job being a prick and getting modded up for it.
But just rhetorically, are you 100.000% positive that your Mac hasn't been rooted? Absolutely 100%? Running tripwire scans ain't exactly normal practice.
I'm trying to figure out your point in the relationship to the story and why it's insightful.
Are you arguing that it's "enough" for Apple to not patch known problems? That because Apple has a good track record that they can be lax? That Apple should imitate Microsoft's policies of the late 1990s and not take "gray hats" seriously?
If so, that's a pretty stupid and reactionary attitude. I think most Mac users, including myself, are not slobbering "macz rulez" and want Apple to take an aggressive stance towards security issues in order to prevent the Windowns situation from ever happening.
Hey, some of us remember the days when Windows NT 4.0 was considered relatively immune to hackers when compared to *nix systems. Things can change if the vendor is idiotic.
but I believe that you can only use Windows XP if you use filesystem NTFS,
NTFS supports a lot of advanced features which Windows Explorer does not use or only barely uses, because you might be running things on FAT or another filesystem. Things like metadata tags and so on.
Jackson's findings of fact were not overturned.
This is true, but without the legal conclusions, those were useless to the government in seeking a remedy.
AOL, Sun, and others did use the Findings of Fact to extract a few billion dollars out of Microsoft though, so it wasn't entirely pointless.
No, your view is "wacky" because it violates the "8th Grade Civics Class" understanding of the world where the judicial branch is independent of the President. Bush did not order the Appeals Court to shread the ruling. Period.
Now, if you wanted a more interesting theory, you'd look into the financial and personal ties of the appeals judges, etc. Seriously, this type of thing is not uncommon at all.
Since you are grasping desperately to this conspiracy theory in the face of evidence, let's think about it.... If the fix was in on the Appeals Court, it was fixed by a higher level than Bush.