And besides this, I think Addison-Wesley would have something to say about putting TAoCP in public domain.
Honestly, isn't this a bummer? I'd love to glance them, read a few chapters, and maybe someday I will, but it would be delicious if the text just was on, say, wikipedia or similar.
Sure, I personally don't use ms office, or office-type software like OOo - but what about all those messy excel/vba-kludges out there in businesses? (somewhat bad) solutions to problems that are expensive to re-solve.
And if we don't respect the decisions of musicians who choose otherwise, then what difference does it make whether some choose to share?
I'm one of those poor young fools who believe it should all be free, that there is no "choice". (It's a complicated issue and I've got no grudges against those who think otherwise.)
So no, me-and-my-friends-copying-the-record-wise, it does no difference.
But if someone actually goes and says "please, give copies to your friends" (or the same, more formally, by using a free license), then I know that that person is aware of the situation. (I also think that this is a person at least partly sharing my view on a topic, which is always cool.)
If someone, believing (unlike me) that Intellectual Property is valid, and spends money on a record intended as an investment depending on copyright enforcement, then it's a rude awakening to that artist to find out that her or his record is being copied essentially against her will. That's only a small, not really consequential argument against copying the record, but it certainly makes it less fun.
Some artists, like Bran Van 3000, informally but rather explicitly say "sure, give copies of the album to your friends, even though our record company might not legally allow it, but if you can afford it, also buy the CD or otherwise support us". Of course that makes me feel much better digging them as compared to a band that says/wishes something like "don't reproduce our lyrics, people should buy the CD". It doesn't change anything in practice, since the music is still being (in some cases illegally, post EUCD) reproduced, but it does change how we feel about the artists, and it changes how they feel about us.
Ya know that if you had gone by what your friend wanted and installed FreeBSD, you would have been installing an OS instead of a religion.
Whoah, you must know some different FreeBSD-users than I do...
Some of the ones I know always start religious license wars on "how much better the BSD license is" and so on, and not just discussion, they're as good as flaming.
Dammit, I like BSD, and I think Matt Dillon, Theo DeRaadt and the others ("rivals" as they are) have a lot of interesting things to say. It's just some of the zealous, elitist scrubby users that give it a bad name. (Don't worry, I won't apply my dislike for that to the system itself, or all of its fans, just some.)
Having said that, I *LOVE* Max OSX and I don't think it would have come out if it was simply Linux with the Aqua Interface as opposed to BSD with the same.
Well, Darwin is no BSD-kernel and the Apple license is no BSD-license. Complain about the GPL all you want, but at least it allows free redistribution and modification. A bit more hassle than the (new, no-ad-clause) BSD license, sure, but it's not totally off-limits like, say, Apple's Quartz.
Hi Ost, you might want to disable the middle-mouse-opens-selected-url feature, it's enabled by default. The prefs key is middlemouse.contentLoadURL in the firebird about:config system.
Regular mozilla (a.k.a. seamonkey) has something similar, perhaps the very same.
Adding less basic features to sometimes-present controls like the F keys, right or middle mouse buttons, scroll wheels, the Apple key, the Windows key, etc. lets those who have them take advantage of them, but doesn't seriously cripple those who don't.
Great! Just like pasting with the middle button, then.
Re:Cut-and-Paste in X beats the competition...
on
X.org and XFree86 Reform
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you're seriously going to attempt to hold up EMACS as an example of good user interface design, please just stop now.
Emacs has a lot of problems compared to modern day applicions, but also a lot of advantages. It's a nice consistent interface to a lisp system. But you're pulling a straw man - I only said that that particular keyboard shortcut for clearing the address bar was good because it's not just out of the blue, it's the same as in bash, zsh, most readline/editline applications, most application period - including all cocoa ones.
Right, but this adds two extra steps which require the user to move their hand from the mouse to the keyboard.
And you're pressing C-v with your nose?
The fact that you even need to explain the concept to me shows how much of a mess it all is.
No, it's just that you must've missed something.
Listen: you can forget completely about the primary selection buffer (the select/middle-button thing). You can select copy/paste from the menus, or use shortcuts (most often C-c, C-x and C-v as on Windows) just like on Windows and it will work. No need to spew "go back to the drawing board" bullshit. It works now.
And I can use the primary selection just like I like to do.
I repeat: it works just as on Windows.
If you don't want to have it explained, you shouldn't spread misunderstandings about it.
Think of it this way: you've got a normal clipboard buffer like on windows. You also have a completely unrelated feature that allows you to press the middle mouse button to paste what was last selected. Selecting something does not mess up the normal clipboard buffer.
"the market has chosen it" is and always will be a bullshit statement.
X has both, and it has always had both. They're not "incompatible". Middle click inserts the primary selection, while application can access the clipboard buffer provided by X, for years and years long before KDE and GNOME with things like meny options or keyboard shortcuts. The GUIs use C-c, C-x and C-v just like Windows. (In which language does paste begin with v?)
That you can choose to use the clipboard buffer does not mean that we lazy geeks should be hindered from using the middle-click method. Neither is in the way of the other and they never were (except that for a while one of the DEs had a wrong implementation that used the primary selection buffer for C-c/C-x. This was dealt with accordingly - as a bug).
First of all: That's an amalgam of two emacs shortcuts that's older than me. C-a means move to the beginning of the line, C-k means delete until end of line.
Second: Another way to clear it is to use C-l (or A-d on some versions) to select the url text via the keyboard, then delete it with DEL. This won't clobber the primary selection since it's only mouse selections in Moz, not keyboard selections.
Third: You can do it just like on Windows by copying with C-c and pasting with C-v even on X Mozilla, since selecting the text in the URL-field doesn't clobber the C-c/C-v clipboard buffer. The fact that it clobbers the primary selection buffer should be of no matter to you since you appear to prefer the clipboard buffer anyway (unlike me, but that's fine, we can coexist).
Fourth: Try selecting an URL and middle clicking in a browser window (not on a link though). Works only on X.
This is also great for the corporate desktop, because you can give the secretary just the few apps she's allowed and nothing more.
How frustrating for hir it could become if that app selection is too small - what if s/he wants to do a small script to sort the mail, or other work-saving little things?
"This should contribute greatly to computer literacy, especially because many of the people thus exposed will be secretaries taught by society that they are incapable of doing mathematics, and unable to imagine for a moment that they can learn to program."--The Emacs Paper.
Openbox really surprised me by being a great program even though it was a rewrite.
About half of the rewrites I've seen have ended up as a better program than what went before, and half of them went nowhere and the program died. Sometimes it's OK to stop and say "this program is going nowhere. A rewrite is necessary".
Other examples are Rosegarden, for example, and hasn't Perl been rewritten successfully in the past? (We'll see what happens to Perl 6.)
Slashdot Mirror
There are graphical programming languages available, I know several people that gets serious work done in pd, particularly signal processing.
Different strokes for different problem domains, I guess.
Maybe so, but having the text available means that it's searchable.
Maybe I would want to read a lot of the chapters, if they're as good as I'm told.
Bullshit. Winamp, the propellerhead-apps, Adobe programs, even different MS programs have different widget sets and non-standard UIs.
(That's no reason for us not to try to be better than that, of course. I'm not denying that we have problems.)
They seem to have broken up but thanks for the tip. Seems like a band I would like.
I'd really like to see clause 2c dropped (it's a very good recommendation, but having it mandatory is obnoxious + causes compability problems).
I'd also like to see it a lot simpler/shorter and more compatible with other copylefts.
Honestly, isn't this a bummer? I'd love to glance them, read a few chapters, and maybe someday I will, but it would be delicious if the text just was on, say, wikipedia or similar.
Sure, I personally don't use ms office, or office-type software like OOo - but what about all those messy excel/vba-kludges out there in businesses? (somewhat bad) solutions to problems that are expensive to re-solve.
I speak of Apple, just like the parent poster did.
My point exactly, although I don't watch television.
Huh? You think Direct X is much nicer than SDL/OpenGL?
I'm one of those poor young fools who believe it should all be free, that there is no "choice". (It's a complicated issue and I've got no grudges against those who think otherwise.)
So no, me-and-my-friends-copying-the-record-wise, it does no difference.
But if someone actually goes and says "please, give copies to your friends" (or the same, more formally, by using a free license), then I know that that person is aware of the situation. (I also think that this is a person at least partly sharing my view on a topic, which is always cool.)
If someone, believing (unlike me) that Intellectual Property is valid, and spends money on a record intended as an investment depending on copyright enforcement, then it's a rude awakening to that artist to find out that her or his record is being copied essentially against her will. That's only a small, not really consequential argument against copying the record, but it certainly makes it less fun.
Some artists, like Bran Van 3000, informally but rather explicitly say "sure, give copies of the album to your friends, even though our record company might not legally allow it, but if you can afford it, also buy the CD or otherwise support us". Of course that makes me feel much better digging them as compared to a band that says/wishes something like "don't reproduce our lyrics, people should buy the CD". It doesn't change anything in practice, since the music is still being (in some cases illegally, post EUCD) reproduced, but it does change how we feel about the artists, and it changes how they feel about us.
So port it and release it as free software. Problem solved.
If they are happy with their tiny market share, why pull something like this?.
And we keep it up all night.
"Do what?"
Whoah, you must know some different FreeBSD-users than I do...
Some of the ones I know always start religious license wars on "how much better the BSD license is" and so on, and not just discussion, they're as good as flaming.
Dammit, I like BSD, and I think Matt Dillon, Theo DeRaadt and the others ("rivals" as they are) have a lot of interesting things to say. It's just some of the zealous, elitist scrubby users that give it a bad name. (Don't worry, I won't apply my dislike for that to the system itself, or all of its fans, just some.)
Well, Darwin is no BSD-kernel and the Apple license is no BSD-license. Complain about the GPL all you want, but at least it allows free redistribution and modification. A bit more hassle than the (new, no-ad-clause) BSD license, sure, but it's not totally off-limits like, say, Apple's Quartz.
Peace, drop the religious wars, it's all good.
It's a good thing I drink coke.
Yeah, fucking great. (Pepsi's bad, too.)
Hi Ost,
you might want to disable the middle-mouse-opens-selected-url feature, it's enabled by default. The prefs key is middlemouse.contentLoadURL in the firebird about:config system.
Regular mozilla (a.k.a. seamonkey) has something similar, perhaps the very same.
Good luck!
Great! Just like pasting with the middle button, then.
Emacs has a lot of problems compared to modern day applicions, but also a lot of advantages. It's a nice consistent interface to a lisp system.
But you're pulling a straw man - I only said that that particular keyboard shortcut for clearing the address bar was good because it's not just out of the blue, it's the same as in bash, zsh, most readline/editline applications, most application period - including all cocoa ones.
And you're pressing C-v with your nose?
No, it's just that you must've missed something.
Listen: you can forget completely about the primary selection buffer (the select/middle-button thing). You can select copy/paste from the menus, or use shortcuts (most often C-c, C-x and C-v as on Windows) just like on Windows and it will work. No need to spew "go back to the drawing board" bullshit. It works now.
And I can use the primary selection just like I like to do.
I repeat: it works just as on Windows.
If you don't want to have it explained, you shouldn't spread misunderstandings about it.
Think of it this way: you've got a normal clipboard buffer like on windows. You also have a completely unrelated feature that allows you to press the middle mouse button to paste what was last selected. Selecting something does not mess up the normal clipboard buffer.
"the market has chosen it" is and always will be a bullshit statement.
X has both, and it has always had both. They're not "incompatible". Middle click inserts the primary selection, while application can access the clipboard buffer provided by X, for years and years long before KDE and GNOME with things like meny options or keyboard shortcuts. The GUIs use C-c, C-x and C-v just like Windows. (In which language does paste begin with v?)
That you can choose to use the clipboard buffer does not mean that we lazy geeks should be hindered from using the middle-click method. Neither is in the way of the other and they never were (except that for a while one of the DEs had a wrong implementation that used the primary selection buffer for C-c/C-x. This was dealt with accordingly - as a bug).
JWZ explains it nicely.
Not really.
First of all:
That's an amalgam of two emacs shortcuts that's older than me. C-a means move to the beginning of the line, C-k means delete until end of line.
Second:
Another way to clear it is to use C-l (or A-d on some versions) to select the url text via the keyboard, then delete it with DEL. This won't clobber the primary selection since it's only mouse selections in Moz, not keyboard selections.
Third:
You can do it just like on Windows by copying with C-c and pasting with C-v even on X Mozilla, since selecting the text in the URL-field doesn't clobber the C-c/C-v clipboard buffer. The fact that it clobbers the primary selection buffer should be of no matter to you since you appear to prefer the clipboard buffer anyway (unlike me, but that's fine, we can coexist).
Fourth:
Try selecting an URL and middle clicking in a browser window (not on a link though). Works only on X.
I know several that could and would. Not everybody, but more than you'd think.
How frustrating for hir it could become if that app selection is too small - what if s/he wants to do a small script to sort the mail, or other work-saving little things?
"This should contribute greatly to computer literacy, especially because many of the people thus exposed will be secretaries taught by society that they are incapable of doing mathematics, and unable to imagine for a moment that they can learn to program."--The Emacs Paper.
Openbox really surprised me by being a great program even though it was a rewrite.
About half of the rewrites I've seen have ended up as a better program than what went before, and half of them went nowhere and the program died. Sometimes it's OK to stop and say "this program is going nowhere. A rewrite is necessary".
Other examples are Rosegarden, for example, and hasn't Perl been rewritten successfully in the past? (We'll see what happens to Perl 6.)