Not that there is anything inherently wrong with going from Open Source to Free software,
Going from a non-copyleft license to a copyleft license is just going between two forms of open source/free software. (Open source and free software is basically two different groups' descriptions for the same thing.)
(..and I promised myself I wouldn't nitpick any more...)
It's open-source by nature since it's written in PHP, but I don't use the GPL or a free software license -- I sell the code and the users are then free to make any modifications they wish, but they have no redistribution rights (much like the vBulletin license.)
Well, then it's not open source, at least not in the OSD-way. It's open for looking at, and some tweaking, sure, but it's not open for redistribution.
(Shame to hear about your troubles with MySQL, though. I know several free software projects that have run into incompability problems as well.)
...I could manage to keep our floor uncluttered enough for these to be useful. (In which case I wouldn't need them because it wouldn't be too hard to do it myself.)
Probably because the GNU project is an unusually linked-to website, and it has a single 's' as the fourth character in it's title, but I still think it's fun.
(I meant "using Firebird's keyword search", I accidentally lowercased it and missed the apostrophe. No biggie.)
And do a search on google for the letter "s" (which I do accidentally all the time since I occasionally mess up using firebirds keyword search) and see what comes up on top.
Man it really kills me how words with Germanic roots have gotten such a bad name. Why is 'feces' a more acceptable word than 'shit'? Because it come from the Latin 'faex' rather than the Old English 'scite'?
Why does 'intelligent' sound more sophisticated than 'smart'? Because it comes directly from french rather than Old English?
It's because the words 'shit' and 'smart' are used much more commonly (which in turn may be because they're from Old English). They're words you've known since you were a kid, you're more familiar with them, they're more mundane. Using the "fancy" words is putting on a mask of unfamiliarity, you soften the message because people's brain use the time they would've been shocked/unimpressed by (ever so slightly) decoding.
How about the studies supposedly linking cell phone radiation to immune system deficiency? There are more parts and particles in the body that can be disrupted than just DNA.
Not saying cell phone radiation is harmful, but I am saying I don't know yet and I'm glad research is still being done (if it is).
GPLers are the ONLY group of people that feel they've been abused if their "free" software is used and nothing is returned...
Sure, they're a bit quirky/paranoid, but they don't have to fear because they're covered (using a copyleft license).
GPL-ers, or people with the copyleft mindset, are a large group of people and if they were to use a non-copyleft licence, maybe they would always be fretting over who owed them what and so on, and living in fear of the commercial corporations.
Just because some company adds features to their own private version, doesn't negatively affect the BSD-licensed version.
It creates competition - you're (by releasing code under a permissive license) boosting the competition, which is contrary to a goal of "all software should be free".
I used to think that that was a big issue (and thus was in the GPL camp). Nowadays I'm not so sure - I'm kinda starting to think of non-copyleft licenses because they're less of a hassle, and well, proprietary software can't really compete with free software anyway, in the long run, regardless of how many "features" they have people will choose freedom. (Or at least that's what I hope...)
If this was about BSD/MIT software, there wouldn't even be a discussion.
I think it would be more of a discussion. I'm a fan of the MIT/BSD-no-ad-clause license but with the GPL, the corporations "exploiting" the software always return their improvements, so there's even less need to "fear" that they're "taking" something.
I'm don't quite follow you here here, as I want the code fragments to be displayed in a fixed width font,
What you aren't saying is that you want the stuff that's not code to be displayed in a proportional font, in which case I do see your dilemma.
So *this* is essentially markup that tells Gnus to display this, just like
this is markup that tells Outlook Express (or any other MUA that can display HTML) to display the same thing in an HTML formatted email. While it is indeed a nice feature, it is based on a kind of de-facto, non-standardised markup. It basically enhances the plain text, just like HTML does.
Sure, if it were only about emphasis, underlining and so on, the syntax wouldn't matter. The thing is though, Gnus can read html-mail and I was sick and tired of people using ugly color-schemes and (the worst part) way too small fonts to be readable. So I turned that feature off.
But the problem here is that the user composing the message needs to know the markup. If you aren't a plain text email zealot;) and do write a HTML formatted message, you aren't going to mark it up yourself, but you are going to compose it with the WYSIWYG editor in your email client. The key thing is that the markup is abstracted away from end users.
Well, yeah, and that's good and bad. I've been using *this* as emphasis for a long time and when I discovered that Gnus actually interpreted it, it was a small pleasant surprise and it's made email even more readable for me.
The more low-paid jobs available, the more competition for labour, and as a result, better working conditions and pay.
This seems counter-intuitive to me... The worse the working conditions are, the better they are?
Actually, the only thing that can (under capitalism and most other systems) increase working conditions seem to be a surplus of work opportunities. If there's a surplus of workes - e.g. massive unemployment - most of them are going to be pretty miserable, even those who have work. (Not to sound conspiratorial, but there are plenty of corporate fat cats who actively lobby the governments and banks to keep unemployment rates from being to low, since that could cause workes to feel comfortable enough to try to work for improvement in their workplace.)
Don't forget - in Soviet Russia, WORKING CONDITIONS improve YOU.
How about both? I'm really grateful for mozilla's text size modification, but that doesn't mean I should be happy with people who use the font-size CSS-element, or size attribute to the font tag. Default font size at all times, that's my motto.
Don't be bitter because someone else is willing the play the game a step further than you are. Step up to it and start networking with people.
If the problem is "competition for work requires networking efforts", then just telling people to network more won't make the problem (unemployment) go away.
To really deal with this issue, maybe we geeks need to think of starting types of organisation other than Dilbert/PHB-style corps. Maybe some for-profit programmer cooperatives run in a way that you consider fair and just, welth distributed in a way you like, everyone getting a chance to weigh in on decisions, and so on.
The compression formats I usually use (I like gzip) are optimized for things with a lot of repetition, say text (and XML would even better.)
I can imagine it beating out any old compressed binary file, but how about a binary file format with a compression algorithm tailored for it? For example, how about FLAC vs some theoretical "XML audio" (markup describing the waveforms), zipped or not?
Either way, I'm not one to just dismiss comments to my post, based on assumptions of mine - any pointers to this study? It could turn out to be an interesting read.
The main point is that you are going to get way better compression ratios with SVG compared with Flash, and so transfer size is going to be about the same.
I still don't think so. XML is really verbose, and there are plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to binary files.
(Disclaimer: I hate Flash, I like SVG. But SVG is a less compact format.)
Slashdot Mirror
Going from a non-copyleft license to a copyleft license is just going between two forms of open source/free software. (Open source and free software is basically two different groups' descriptions for the same thing.)
(..and I promised myself I wouldn't nitpick any more...)
"Harry Potter"? How about Books of Magic, the protagonist even looks exactly the same. Or is that not light enough, I've never read Harry Potter.
Sims and comics? Outside of Cerebus?
Well, there's been a trend of black-and-white, artsy, autobiographical comics that's getting popular. (Like Asa Grennvall, Daniel Ahlgren..)
Artsy doesn't have to mean controversial or ugly. Check out, say, Jason for some nice comics.
Chris Claremont's original run of New Mutants are among my favorite comics ever. But seriously. Check out X-Statix by Milligan/Allred.
It's good.
..and here I thought that DC/Vertigo/ABC/Wildstorms was the only good thing AOL did...
Well, then it's not open source, at least not in the OSD-way. It's open for looking at, and some tweaking, sure, but it's not open for redistribution.
(Shame to hear about your troubles with MySQL, though. I know several free software projects that have run into incompability problems as well.)
Not necessarily, there are some snags in the GPL that make it particularly easy to be incompatible with it, even if you have a free license.
...I could manage to keep our floor uncluttered enough for these to be useful. (In which case I wouldn't need them because it wouldn't be too hard to do it myself.)
RMS speaks briefly on the SCO issue in this interview.
Probably because the GNU project is an unusually linked-to website, and it has a single 's' as the fourth character in it's title, but I still think it's fun.
(I meant "using Firebird's keyword search", I accidentally lowercased it and missed the apostrophe. No biggie.)
And do a search on google for the letter "s" (which I do accidentally all the time since I occasionally mess up using firebirds keyword search) and see what comes up on top.
It's because the words 'shit' and 'smart' are used much more commonly (which in turn may be because they're from Old English). They're words you've known since you were a kid, you're more familiar with them, they're more mundane. Using the "fancy" words is putting on a mask of unfamiliarity, you soften the message because people's brain use the time they would've been shocked/unimpressed by (ever so slightly) decoding.
How about the studies supposedly linking cell phone radiation to immune system deficiency? There are more parts and particles in the body that can be disrupted than just DNA.
Not saying cell phone radiation is harmful, but I am saying I don't know yet and I'm glad research is still being done (if it is).
Sure, they're a bit quirky/paranoid, but they don't have to fear because they're covered (using a copyleft license).
GPL-ers, or people with the copyleft mindset, are a large group of people and if they were to use a non-copyleft licence, maybe they would always be fretting over who owed them what and so on, and living in fear of the commercial corporations.
It creates competition - you're (by releasing code under a permissive license) boosting the competition, which is contrary to a goal of "all software should be free".
I used to think that that was a big issue (and thus was in the GPL camp). Nowadays I'm not so sure - I'm kinda starting to think of non-copyleft licenses because they're less of a hassle, and well, proprietary software can't really compete with free software anyway, in the long run, regardless of how many "features" they have people will choose freedom. (Or at least that's what I hope...)
I think it would be more of a discussion. I'm a fan of the MIT/BSD-no-ad-clause license but with the GPL, the corporations "exploiting" the software always return their improvements, so there's even less need to "fear" that they're "taking" something.
What you aren't saying is that you want the stuff that's not code to be displayed in a proportional font, in which case I do see your dilemma.
Sure, if it were only about emphasis, underlining and so on, the syntax wouldn't matter. The thing is though, Gnus can read html-mail and I was sick and tired of people using ugly color-schemes and (the worst part) way too small fonts to be readable. So I turned that feature off.
Well, yeah, and that's good and bad. I've been using *this* as emphasis for a long time and when I discovered that Gnus actually interpreted it, it was a small pleasant surprise and it's made email even more readable for me.
A good MUA will display inline code proportional without any problem
I use Gnus, and it converts *this* to this for me automatically.
What, like there are no poor people on slashdot? You don't know anyone poor?
This seems counter-intuitive to me...
The worse the working conditions are, the better they are?
Actually, the only thing that can (under capitalism and most other systems) increase working conditions seem to be a surplus of work opportunities. If there's a surplus of workes - e.g. massive unemployment - most of them are going to be pretty miserable, even those who have work. (Not to sound conspiratorial, but there are plenty of corporate fat cats who actively lobby the governments and banks to keep unemployment rates from being to low, since that could cause workes to feel comfortable enough to try to work for improvement in their workplace.)
Don't forget - in Soviet Russia, WORKING CONDITIONS improve YOU.
I think you may have misunderstood. It's not recommended because it's incompatible with the GPL.
... all but 256 were duplicates. So that's 195312500 per unique byte!
Man, if I had that job, just sit and make up bytes all day long...
How about both? I'm really grateful for mozilla's text size modification, but that doesn't mean I should be happy with people who use the font-size CSS-element, or size attribute to the font tag. Default font size at all times, that's my motto.
If the problem is "competition for work requires networking efforts", then just telling people to network more won't make the problem (unemployment) go away.
To really deal with this issue, maybe we geeks need to think of starting types of organisation other than Dilbert/PHB-style corps. Maybe some for-profit programmer cooperatives run in a way that you consider fair and just, welth distributed in a way you like, everyone getting a chance to weigh in on decisions, and so on.
The compression formats I usually use (I like gzip) are optimized for things with a lot of repetition, say text (and XML would even better.)
I can imagine it beating out any old compressed binary file, but how about a binary file format with a compression algorithm tailored for it? For example, how about FLAC vs some theoretical "XML audio" (markup describing the waveforms), zipped or not?
Either way, I'm not one to just dismiss comments to my post, based on assumptions of mine - any pointers to this study? It could turn out to be an interesting read.
I still don't think so. XML is really verbose, and there are plenty of advantages (and disadvantages) to binary files.
(Disclaimer: I hate Flash, I like SVG. But SVG is a less compact format.)
Which is better? I heard Octave but I'm not very good with either.