I think he means galeon, which, as you can see below, is vital to GNOME:
$ rpm -q --whatrequires galeon no package requires galeon
Or maybe Mozilla (not a GNOME package, though):
$ rpm -q --whatrequires mozilla mozilla-devel-0.9.9-7 mozilla-psm-0.9.9- 7 galeon-1.2.0-6
This is under Rawhide. I would tell you what packages I have installed, but the *!?@ lameness filter won't let me. Instead, here's the lameness I tried using to get around the lameness filter:
BEGIN LAMENESS-FILTER AVOIDING LAMENESS
(Btw., if the ability to post a list of filenames is so all-important it can't be blocked by the lameness filter, how come I had to add all of this junk and my life story to get this through?
Taco, your lameness filter encourages lameness, like this stuff. Why do you have to include it?)
More off-topic rambling:
What sorts of anti-troll filters exist? A handful of filters have been put into place to try to make sure that people don't abuse the system. The most important is that the same person can't post more than once every 120 seconds. Also, if a single user is moderated down several times in a short time frame, a temporary ban will be imposed on that user... a cooling off period if you will. It lasts for 72 hours, or more for users who have posted a ton.
The vast majority of you will never encounter any of these troll filters. If you do encounter one unfairly, let us know so we can fix it. This stuff is fairly beta code, so there are bound to be problems.
Answered by: CmdrTaco Last Modified: 1/27/02
``The majority of you should never encounter any of these filters''? You mean half of/. doesn't encounter the 2 minutes/20 seconds rule on every third post? Taco, you need to think about what you're saying more thoroughly next time.
Well, most of the complaint is about code. And if you've got a folder open in web mode (the default), IE is loaded displaying that (usually auto-generated) HTML file. So it's still there.
Btw., I think the Desktop counts as a ``folder'' above. If a user has an HTML Desktop, IE is loaded. (That's why killing your browser can white out your desktop).
It's not ``basically what the GPL does''---the GPL says you provide your modifications to whoever you distribute them to. The Plan 9 License says
You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You
There are two obvious problems with this:
1. If I create a modification and give it to my girlfriend, I also have to give it to Lucent, upon request. Why?
2. Object code is defined in the license as ``machine executable software code''. Executable by what machine? The Turing Machine in my Discrete Math textbook?
If I buy a CD, burn nine copies of it, and sell them to nine of my friends for 10% of the original cost, isn't that commercial distribution? And that isn't in the least different from splitting the cost of the original CD between the ten of us, and burning nine extra copies.
I think that's why the rules governing commercial distribution are important.
Well, Stallman's idea of ``freedom'' is exactly about that---individual freedom. Central control of code production (i.e., prohibiting modification) violates that, but so does ``distributed control'' of code production (i.e., prohibiting private code or private modifications). Because they're equally violations of the basic principles, they're equally bad in RMS's eyes.
Smoking pot doesn't cure cancer, and nobody claims it does. It treats nausea, which is a side-effect of chemotherapy, a treatment often undergone by cancer patients.
We didn't have guns to protect ourselves on September 11. And Bush didn't force the election; he was what the overwhelming majority of the country wanted. And btw, thanks for discrediting yourself by giving in to ad-homenin attacks. I have nothing further to say.
If you had read the paper I linked to, you would have read:
By Don B. Kates Jr.*
* Don B. Kates Jr. attended Reed College and Yale Law School. In the Civil Rights Movement he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler; thereafter he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law and criminal procedure at St. Louis U. Law School, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law and teaches and writes in criminology. He is the editor of FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY (1984 -- paper bound copies available from the Pacific Research Institute) and the Winter, 1986 issue of LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, and the author of the entry on the Second Amendment in M. Levy & K. Karst, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, "Firearms and Violence: Old Premises, Current Evidence" in T. Gurr (ed.) 1 VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (1989) and "Precautionary Handgun Ownership: Reasonable Choice or Dangerous Delusion" forthcoming B. Danto (ed.), GUN CONTROL AND CRIMINAL HOMICIDE (1990).
I realised that mid-way through writing that post which you replied to. Hence my question ``If you don't believe B, why would A be any worse than the current situation?'' I don't think you've answered that. After all, if AOL users are willing to put up with an IE-based browser advertising AOL, why wouldn't they put up with a Gecko-based browser advertising AOL?
Slashdot Mirror
No. He's an MIS instructor---most of his students don't have enough clue to boycott him.
Or maybe Mozilla (not a GNOME package, though):
This is under Rawhide. I would tell you what packages I have installed, but the *!?@ lameness filter won't let me. Instead, here's the lameness I tried using to get around the lameness filter:
BEGIN LAMENESS-FILTER AVOIDING LAMENESS
(Btw., if the ability to post a list of filenames is so all-important it can't be blocked by the lameness filter, how come I had to add all of this junk and my life story to get this through?
Taco, your lameness filter encourages lameness, like this stuff. Why do you have to include it?)
More off-topic rambling:
``The majority of you should never encounter any of these filters''? You mean half of
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890
END LAMENESS -- Repeal the Lameness filter!
``Internet applications''?? And he doesn't think interoperability is possible? I fear for the employees of his students...
Then how come you can change one to the other by changing a registry key (facts available on demand)?
Well, most of the complaint is about code. And if you've got a folder open in web mode (the default), IE is loaded displaying that (usually auto-generated) HTML file. So it's still there.
Btw., I think the Desktop counts as a ``folder'' above. If a user has an HTML Desktop, IE is loaded. (That's why killing your browser can white out your desktop).
That was my line, dammit! :)
There are two obvious problems with this:
1. If I create a modification and give it to my girlfriend, I also have to give it to Lucent, upon request. Why?
2. Object code is defined in the license as ``machine executable software code''. Executable by what machine? The Turing Machine in my Discrete Math textbook?
If I buy a CD, burn nine copies of it, and sell them to nine of my friends for 10% of the original cost, isn't that commercial distribution? And that isn't in the least different from splitting the cost of the original CD between the ten of us, and burning nine extra copies.
I think that's why the rules governing commercial distribution are important.
Well, Stallman's idea of ``freedom'' is exactly about that---individual freedom. Central control of code production (i.e., prohibiting modification) violates that, but so does ``distributed control'' of code production (i.e., prohibiting private code or private modifications). Because they're equally violations of the basic principles, they're equally bad in RMS's eyes.
God, I hope we can solve this without resorting to cold-blooded murder!
Smoking pot doesn't cure cancer, and nobody claims it does. It treats nausea, which is a side-effect of chemotherapy, a treatment often undergone by cancer patients.
Equal (legal) playing field = free market, GPL.
(Legal) playing field intentionally screwed to obtain equal outcome = communism in theory.
(Legal) playing field intentionally screwed to obtain unequal outcome = communism in practice, software hoarding, etc.
Remember kids, software hoarding is communism!
Idiot suits.
You realise your saying this to a group with a large GNU constituent, right?
Calm down, it's only meant to annoy you.
Go read up on ``Patents''.
That's why Anglo-Saxons gave the world one of only two constitutions in Europe during the 18th century, and the oldest Republic in the world, right?
My thought exactly {well, almost.}
And what gives you the right to think that?
I'm feeding the troll, I know but:
Composing simple programs together, ala `|', is very basic in CS. It's called programming. Check into it sometime---it'll change your life, I swear.
We didn't have guns to protect ourselves on September 11. And Bush didn't force the election; he was what the overwhelming majority of the country wanted. And btw, thanks for discrediting yourself by giving in to ad-homenin attacks. I have nothing further to say.
Here.
Sorry, but using the word ``y'all'' will not convince us of your non-``civilization''.
Cilivilized man, n.: someone begging to have a crime committed against him.
I think this is where the Declaration of the Rights of Man failed...
I realised that mid-way through writing that post which you replied to. Hence my question ``If you don't believe B, why would A be any worse than the current situation?'' I don't think you've answered that. After all, if AOL users are willing to put up with an IE-based browser advertising AOL, why wouldn't they put up with a Gecko-based browser advertising AOL?