I think the parent is suggesting problems using PDF hyperlinks from within KPDF. I didn't think this was a problem, though javascript might raise an issues...
No, its like having unprotected sex with strangers. Encryption is a good thing, if it were in widespread use the net would be a safer place. This is just a public safety message. Have a nice day:-)
Re:Not mentioning tac is not a dealbreaker
on
Data Crunching
·
· Score: 1
Not installable by you, of course. But not installable? You seem to suggest that it is more difficult to install for Solaris. Doesn't Sun have a GNU toolchain site? I always thought that:
It is a vital component in Linux kernel development, BSD development and a standard tool when developing software for embedded systems. Parts of the toolchain are also widely used in the Solaris Operating Environment (which, in the opinion of many, needs the GNU tools for reasonable usability) and Microsoft Windows programming with cygwin.
I know I've intalled cygwin painlessly, and even ran the gnu toolchain under irix.
I have to wonder if your post wasn't just intended to pretend a distinction.
The only philosphophy classes I ever took were a simple GE "Critical Thinking" class, and a graduate Philosphophy of Mathematics class. I'm sure about the politics, though.
I'm "full of shit", but then you explain how it was that I couldn't do it. Yes, it is configurable. No, these public computers are not configurable by users. That is why there was no "yes, I'm sure" button. It sucked. I walked to the nearest PC lab, renamed the file, and walked back. We could edit the file now. Oh but lets see what the changes look like. Opps! Can't rename the.txt to.html! Back to the PC Lab. Rename. Back to where she was working (the Student Cafe) and we were doing homework.
I wouldn't say I brought alot of prejudice with me. I would say I didn't try to work on those machines again. The idea that I can't rename the extension portion of a file I created, "for my own good", is outrageous to me. I'm not even sure how to do that under linux.
Every single computer in every computer lab (and the library) at this university has ZipDisks. Don't know why...maybe they don't fail and just keep getting moved over to the new boxes?
With Mac OS X the lack of choice is hardware oriented;-)
I'm not sure how easy it would be to switch from Aqua to KDE to Gnome, and back to Aqua. On Linux it is easy to switch from one window manager to another. I am intrigued with Mac OS X, but I'm a poor student, and I have "eyecandy-attention-deficiet". I like to switch around alot. Its like taking a walk to stretch one's legs and get a little fresh air.
I know my University monitors student use, including browsing and email. Whether that makes them responsible, I don't know. But don't get caught using P2P software (regardless of what you download) or you'll lose your connection. No servers of *any* kind, be they ftp, ssh, mail, or http. P2P is viewed as a type of server. So is bittorret.
What about locks on your car? Or if you want to use the snail mail comparison, consider that it is illegal to "sniff" your neighbor's snail mail. It isn't illegal to "sniff" their email, nor to listen to their cordless phone conversations. Would you say that legislation that protects our snail mail is an "admission of guilt?" Nope.
Well you might have signed a contract that stipulated you wouldn't sniff in order to purchase your connection. But I don't think there are laws related to sniffing like there would be for telephones. More like using a radio to listen to your neighbor's cordless phone conversations, which is both legal and provides admissable info. No expectation of privacy there. So the better cordless phones do encryption. Cellphones have an expectation of privacy. But email is like old time CB.
Bullshit. It should be considered improper to the point of being anti-social to not use encryption. You wouldn't say that a firewall was an admission of guilt, or that having a lock on your front door was an admission of guilt.
So right click on the KDE panel and install a couple docks. No big deal. I put one up on top that I keep visable with a digital clock, and a dictionary lookup entry widget, and links to documents that are currently in play alot. My math and physics software all goes on a hidden dock to my left. Office software on a hidden dock to the right. These are all drag n' drop. No big deal to configure. And yes, the icons zoom when I mouse over them. I can set transparency, etc...
"Desktop users don't want power, they want simplicity."
When you are confused, you want it simpler. Once you know your way, you want it powerful. The trick is to design things to be simple enough to start with (ease of use, entry), without forcing them to never grow into efficency (ease of power, later on).
Actually I do know people who have switched from WindowsXP to Linux for the eye candy. It isn't as though "free" means alot, in a dorm. Its *all* free. But it doesn't have to be ugly.
If you want consistency over choice, constrict yourself to KDE. KDE has it's own versions of just about everything. Use a Metal theme, set your icons to zoom when you mouse over them, choose those round colored window buttons, etc... Now just don't run the non-KDE software. *Poof*, you have consistency.
I don't think it would be legal to sell a patch or device that would let OS X run on non-apple hardware without Apple's OK. If you could demonstrate non-infringing uses, then you'd be able to sell it for those purposes (and what people actually did wouldn't be your concern.) But if it's sole purpose was to infringe, then you would never get to offer it. Besides, those options would only work for home machines. No business is going to purchase patches or devices to allow them to pirate software for office use.
But (and this is a big but) those switchers can get a copy of their new OS and install it. Total upgrade: on the order of $100. Compare that to buying a Mac. Weigh that in each hand. Not even in the same league. It would be like comparing walmart bicycles to a car. How many people really think that actions taken by Honda effect the price of bicycles?
As long as OS X only runs on Apple hardware, then it isn't running on the x86 platform. What makes the x86 is modularity which lead to volume which made things cheap. But Apple isn't part of that. They weren't part of that when they went their own way, and obviously they don't want to be a part of that as they come 1/2 back (lets call it apple-86 to differentiate it from x86). If people could buy OS X to install on all those x86 systems out there, Apple could be a threat to the whole industry. Isn't happening...so no threat. There is a story here, and it is Apple. But Apple-86 isn't that story.
Two threads appears on the debian-legal mailing list. One commented on the draft license, and the other on the OSI-approved license. I think the most pertinant entry from the former thread was this one, by Juhapekka Tolvanen which states:
It probably fails the Chinese Dissident test, but I don't think that's a problem. The requirement to not modify "descriptive text" that provides attributions/may/ be a problem, but that'll depend on specific code rather than being a general problem...
Andrew Suffield elaborates, saying:
> Is that license free according to DFSG?
Not intrinsically. Individual applications of it may be, with a liberal interpretation, or may not be, with a lawyer one. Notably it's capable of failing the Chinese Dissident test, and of containing a choice-of-venue provision. It also has a number of weasel-worded lawyer clauses that could be used in nasty ways...
Yeah, it's another of those irritating buggers. We'll have to analyse each license declaration that invokes this thing.
Followups in the later thread reinforce that none of the problems debian-legal had with the orignal draft appears to have shifted.
To close out this entry I'd like to bring the sagely words of Stuart Yeates from debian-legal to bear:
The CDDL is almost certainly better from pretty much every point of view (including that of the DFSG) than the current licences for Solaris. If you had ethical no problems with the old licences for Solaris, you're unlikely to have ethical problems with the CDDL.
It was SunOS that was BSD derived: "Joy left Berkeley with a master s degree in electrical engineering, and became cofounder of Sun Microsystems (Sun stands for Stanford University Network). Sun s implementation of BSD was called SunOS."
Of course, then, "1993 Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V, release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4 (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating the important features found in SunOS." http://unixed.com/Resources/history_of_solaris.pdf
So, then, uh, looks like BSD *is* in the Solaris Family Tree...
Actually current practice is to not give you *anything* unless you ask, and then there are policy limits on things like sauce. The taco bell near me has a sign up for their workers that is visable from the customer side. You order 5 tacos and ask for 10 mild sauces. They can't give them to you. Even from the drive-through, you have to park and come in to get the extra sauce yourself. (Which you can do, it is available.)
Your fallacy is assuming that since a company is evil, that all companies would be equally likely to be just as evil given the opportunity. A function of top management (especially the CEO) is to set the tone. Usually one or two key people *are* the company's "personality". And these do differ.
It isn't a question of how much of the capacity Apple required, it was how much excess capacity IBM had. Apple only needed 5%, but that was 5% of a resource that is maxed out. Competing for scarce resources is expensive. Intel has excess, so their resources isn't as scarce. Myself, I'm an AMD fanboy. But oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the parent is suggesting problems using PDF hyperlinks from within KPDF. I didn't think this was a problem, though javascript might raise an issues...
Note: running a ssh client is ok. Running *any* server of any kind is not. So I can't run sshd without violating my TOS.
No, its like having unprotected sex with strangers. Encryption is a good thing, if it were in widespread use the net would be a safer place. This is just a public safety message. Have a nice day :-)
Hey! If you're not in sales you're overhead!
I know I've intalled cygwin painlessly, and even ran the gnu toolchain under irix.
I have to wonder if your post wasn't just intended to pretend a distinction.
How about a bumper sticker that says, "Don't Rip Me Off, I voted for Socialized Medicine, Please Find a Republican Instead."
The only philosphophy classes I ever took were a simple GE "Critical Thinking" class, and a graduate Philosphophy of Mathematics class. I'm sure about the politics, though.
I'm "full of shit", but then you explain how it was that I couldn't do it. Yes, it is configurable. No, these public computers are not configurable by users. That is why there was no "yes, I'm sure" button. It sucked. I walked to the nearest PC lab, renamed the file, and walked back. We could edit the file now. Oh but lets see what the changes look like. Opps! Can't rename the .txt to .html! Back to the PC Lab. Rename. Back to where she was working (the Student Cafe) and we were doing homework.
I wouldn't say I brought alot of prejudice with me. I would say I didn't try to work on those machines again. The idea that I can't rename the extension portion of a file I created, "for my own good", is outrageous to me. I'm not even sure how to do that under linux.
Every single computer in every computer lab (and the library) at this university has ZipDisks. Don't know why...maybe they don't fail and just keep getting moved over to the new boxes?
With Mac OS X the lack of choice is hardware oriented ;-)
I'm not sure how easy it would be to switch from Aqua to KDE to Gnome, and back to Aqua. On Linux it is easy to switch from one window manager to another. I am intrigued with Mac OS X, but I'm a poor student, and I have "eyecandy-attention-deficiet". I like to switch around alot. Its like taking a walk to stretch one's legs and get a little fresh air.
I know my University monitors student use, including browsing and email. Whether that makes them responsible, I don't know. But don't get caught using P2P software (regardless of what you download) or you'll lose your connection. No servers of *any* kind, be they ftp, ssh, mail, or http. P2P is viewed as a type of server. So is bittorret.
What about locks on your car? Or if you want to use the snail mail comparison, consider that it is illegal to "sniff" your neighbor's snail mail. It isn't illegal to "sniff" their email, nor to listen to their cordless phone conversations. Would you say that legislation that protects our snail mail is an "admission of guilt?" Nope.
Well you might have signed a contract that stipulated you wouldn't sniff in order to purchase your connection. But I don't think there are laws related to sniffing like there would be for telephones. More like using a radio to listen to your neighbor's cordless phone conversations, which is both legal and provides admissable info. No expectation of privacy there. So the better cordless phones do encryption. Cellphones have an expectation of privacy. But email is like old time CB.
Bullshit. It should be considered improper to the point of being anti-social to not use encryption. You wouldn't say that a firewall was an admission of guilt, or that having a lock on your front door was an admission of guilt.
"Look at OS X. Take the Dock for example."
So right click on the KDE panel and install a couple docks. No big deal. I put one up on top that I keep visable with a digital clock, and a dictionary lookup entry widget, and links to documents that are currently in play alot. My math and physics software all goes on a hidden dock to my left. Office software on a hidden dock to the right. These are all drag n' drop. No big deal to configure. And yes, the icons zoom when I mouse over them. I can set transparency, etc...
"Desktop users don't want power, they want simplicity."
When you are confused, you want it simpler. Once you know your way, you want it powerful. The trick is to design things to be simple enough to start with (ease of use, entry), without forcing them to never grow into efficency (ease of power, later on).
Actually I do know people who have switched from WindowsXP to Linux for the eye candy. It isn't as though "free" means alot, in a dorm. Its *all* free. But it doesn't have to be ugly.
If you want consistency over choice, constrict yourself to KDE. KDE has it's own versions of just about everything. Use a Metal theme, set your icons to zoom when you mouse over them, choose those round colored window buttons, etc... Now just don't run the non-KDE software. *Poof*, you have consistency.
I don't think it would be legal to sell a patch or device that would let OS X run on non-apple hardware without Apple's OK. If you could demonstrate non-infringing uses, then you'd be able to sell it for those purposes (and what people actually did wouldn't be your concern.) But if it's sole purpose was to infringe, then you would never get to offer it. Besides, those options would only work for home machines. No business is going to purchase patches or devices to allow them to pirate software for office use.
But (and this is a big but) those switchers can get a copy of their new OS and install it. Total upgrade: on the order of $100. Compare that to buying a Mac. Weigh that in each hand. Not even in the same league. It would be like comparing walmart bicycles to a car. How many people really think that actions taken by Honda effect the price of bicycles?
As long as OS X only runs on Apple hardware, then it isn't running on the x86 platform. What makes the x86 is modularity which lead to volume which made things cheap. But Apple isn't part of that. They weren't part of that when they went their own way, and obviously they don't want to be a part of that as they come 1/2 back (lets call it apple-86 to differentiate it from x86). If people could buy OS X to install on all those x86 systems out there, Apple could be a threat to the whole industry. Isn't happening...so no threat. There is a story here, and it is Apple. But Apple-86 isn't that story.
Two threads appears on the debian-legal mailing list. One commented on the draft license, and the other on the OSI-approved license. I think the most pertinant entry from the former thread was this one, by Juhapekka Tolvanen which states: It probably fails the Chinese Dissident test, but I don't think that's a problem. The requirement to not modify "descriptive text" that provides attributions /may/ be a problem, but that'll depend on specific code rather than being a general problem...
Andrew Suffield elaborates, saying:
> Is that license free according to DFSG?
Not intrinsically. Individual applications of it may be, with a liberal interpretation, or may not be, with a lawyer one. Notably it's capable of failing the Chinese Dissident test, and of containing a choice-of-venue provision. It also has a number of weasel-worded lawyer clauses that could be used in nasty ways...
Yeah, it's another of those irritating buggers. We'll have to analyse each license declaration that invokes this thing.
Followups in the later thread reinforce that none of the problems debian-legal had with the orignal draft appears to have shifted.
To close out this entry I'd like to bring the sagely words of Stuart Yeates from debian-legal to bear:
The CDDL is almost certainly better from pretty much every point of view (including that of the DFSG) than the current licences for Solaris. If you had ethical no problems with the old licences for Solaris, you're unlikely to have ethical problems with the CDDL.
It was SunOS that was BSD derived: "Joy left Berkeley with a master s degree in electrical engineering, and became cofounder of Sun Microsystems (Sun stands for Stanford University Network). Sun s implementation of BSD was called SunOS."
f
Of course, then, "1993 Sun announced that SunOS, release 4.1.4, would be its last release of an operating system based on BSD. Sun saw the writing on the wall and moved to System V, release 4, which they named Solaris. System V, release 4 (SRV4) was a merger of System V and BSD, incorporating the important features found in SunOS." http://unixed.com/Resources/history_of_solaris.pd
So, then, uh, looks like BSD *is* in the Solaris Family Tree...
Actually current practice is to not give you *anything* unless you ask, and then there are policy limits on things like sauce. The taco bell near me has a sign up for their workers that is visable from the customer side. You order 5 tacos and ask for 10 mild sauces. They can't give them to you. Even from the drive-through, you have to park and come in to get the extra sauce yourself. (Which you can do, it is available.)
Your fallacy is assuming that since a company is evil, that all companies would be equally likely to be just as evil given the opportunity. A function of top management (especially the CEO) is to set the tone. Usually one or two key people *are* the company's "personality". And these do differ.
It isn't a question of how much of the capacity Apple required, it was how much excess capacity IBM had. Apple only needed 5%, but that was 5% of a resource that is maxed out. Competing for scarce resources is expensive. Intel has excess, so their resources isn't as scarce. Myself, I'm an AMD fanboy. But oh well.