I use the BSD license. Why? It doesn't necessarily have much to do with the terms of the license itself, but rather with the ideological baggage that one is forced to carry when using the GPL.
The GPL includes at the beginning "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." This means that I cannot use the GPL without, for example, the preamble. The GPL doesn't fall under the GPL; while RMS feels that I should make my code available to others to build on, and that all these changes should be made public for others to build off of, I cannot build my own (different) ideas off the GPL. Why is this important? I don't use the GPL because I don't like the ideology expressed in the preamble, and until I am given the opportunity to remove the preamble for my code, I will only use the BSD license.
I disagree with the statement "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it." I don't feel that most licenses are designed to take away my freedom, they're designed to make money for the owners by not extending me every possible priveledge. Free software is, in my opinion, a priveledge and not a right.
I also disagree with the statement "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." I don't think that's true, I think we're talking about both, in that if we prevent the price from being free (if only in theory) then we aren't truly giving people true freedom; that the GPL does permit the software to be free doesn't mean that I can/should/will put up with this statement.
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." I have a big problem with this statement. As outlined above, my belief that this is a priveledge and not a right means that this first sentence is off base. I'm making these restrictions because I want something done with my software. And, if I change the license, which as the owner I can do, I may ask you to surrender your "rights" to use future versions of my software (though I cannot ask you to stop using the version I've already licensed to you). Further, none of this is a responsibility that I trust you to carry out, this is all a legal requirement, and if you don't follow the terms of the license I can sue you.
There are some problems with the actual terms of the license, which I won't get into, and I would still choose the BSD license for some circumstances, but I might use the GPL for others if I were permitted to change it. For now, I will either keep with the BSDl, or write my own license.
There is another problem. The killer bee problem in the Americas was started when scientists tried to make honey bees more reilient to warm climates. They crossbred American honeybees, a rather benign form of bee that doesn't mind human presence, with African bees, which do. The bees seem to have picked up the wrong part of the mix, they became slightly more resistive to climatic change, and they became extremely fierce. Though not the result of Genetics, they illustrate some of the unexpected outcomes that breeding of non-native species can have with the local population. These hybrid bees have driven out local bees and proved to be more than just a nuisance to some people.
umm...it's a laptop, a lot of people do things while on a plane and such that aren't particularly processor intensive (such as word proc) and they want their battery to last as long as possible; they aren't too worried about draining the power grid when plugged in.
It still does certain useful things. It means that een when you are doing stuff, the processor won't get as hot, and hence the fan can be off. This is where the battery savings come from, since slower processor at less power would just be on longer to do the same thing, right? (admittedly a bit oversimplified, there may be some gain inherent in slowing down the proc)
It's not the first Laptop to do this as far as I'm aware, I know many Toshiba laptops will do this with a special setting using the Fn (blue) hot keys or a third mode (the best i think) that runs at full speed and runs the fan based on a thermostat. They also implement other things like reduced power to the screen, causing less brightness but more battery life, and being more careful about spinning down HDs and cdroms which are idle. That being said, i'm not sure I want a processor that forces this on me as opposed to letting me choose, does anyone know which this does?
Looking to get a new laptop soon for college...stuyman
I think you're dead wrong. I see no reason why FreeBSD will die. Try and justify yourself. I think FreeBSD will grow for a number of reasons.
1) The License: Like it or not, some people just don't agree with the GPL. I don't have a problem with the license itself, but some certainly do. 2) Technical differences: Different Layout, longer history, technical superiority in some areas (perhaps only perceived, I don't want a flame war). 3) Empirical: FreeBSD has been gaining users faster than ever.
I don't know that I'm right, but if someone has a reason why I'm wrong I'd like to know what they are. Linux is certainly a good OS, I know many who swear by it, and an increase in available apps helps FreeBSD too (Linux emu is a good thing IMHO). If nothing else, personal preference keeps me with FreeBSD, and I don't see any reason why that would change. Btw I agree that AIX and Solaris will remain, and that UnixWare, OpenServer, and other Unixen that simply replicate Linux/FreeBSD functionality at a greater price will probably fade away...
PS. Looking back at my comment, FreeBSD is my OS of choice, but OpenBSD will survive too (security) and NetBSD at least has a chance (don't know enough about it to say for sure)
The problem you're having in parts Connecticut are that AT&T doesn't cover that area, rather an affiliate does (or so says my AT&T brochure that my cell-phone came with). It is the only place I've ever experienced problems with AT&T wireless, and my phone shows something other than AT&T in that zone (just like the Palm shows a different provider number). Not much you can do about it I suppose, you'll find the same problem in certain parts of eastern Mass.
In general, I'm not all that surprised the TCP/IP implementation is suboptimal, back in the day the only thing that could panic my linux box would be dealing with TCP/IP, and Windows 3.0 with various addons always seemed to die with it, but now Linux works fine, and Windows is windows so it's only improved marginally. FreeBSD has had good TCP for years. Windows CE, I've been told, has a barely functional implemetation, so I suppose this must be better than that. Anybody know how the Palm VII's TCP/IP is? Also, the site says the WinNT installer worked, anyone know if they have a Linux/Unix (I'll run under Linux emu on FBSD) version waiting in the wings?
If I recall correctly the History Channel show I saw on the Tu-144, there is no proof that its failure had any relationship to unstable design. To this day a number of engineers from around the world maintain to this day that its design (though stolen from the Anglo-French group) was improved upon to the point that it was superior to Concorde. The cause of the accident seems to be disputed, but it seems to be a tossup between pilot error (the pilot putting the plane in a position no commercial airliner would ever hold up to [the 144 made it further in than the rest would've]) or the interference of a mirage fighter put in the air by France. Tu-144s are still flown today, admittedly not widely (but neither are Concordes) in Russia, with a flawless safety record.
I think it's time to set the record straight on this Al Gore thing. Mr Gore does not, nor has he ever, claimed to invent the internet. What Al Gore claims (and rightly so) is that while he was in the senate he was influenced heavily by a report (see this for details)that made him believe in and become a major proponent of the internet. While in the senate he helped to pass a number of bills in support of ARPANET.
Some general comments on this story: I don't think it's a well-done story, in that it only covers the last century; on the other hand it doesn't pretend to be the whole millenium but actually is just the century. I think they leave out lots of critical disasters, like the great depression, but put things that had almost no impact on societys (N-Rays??? Who cares?) They also leave out the invention of nuclear weapons, World War II and the Holocaust (How do you miss that?) and add things like wrong way corrigan, which are more humorous than they are true failures. All in all a halfhearted attempt, but not a bad read.
Slashdot Mirror
I use the BSD license. Why? It doesn't necessarily have much to do with the terms of the license itself, but rather with the ideological baggage that one is forced to carry when using the GPL.
The GPL includes at the beginning "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." This means that I cannot use the GPL without, for example, the preamble. The GPL doesn't fall under the GPL; while RMS feels that I should make my code available to others to build on, and that all these changes should be made public for others to build off of, I cannot build my own (different) ideas off the GPL. Why is this important? I don't use the GPL because I don't like the ideology expressed in the preamble, and until I am given the opportunity to remove the preamble for my code, I will only use the BSD license.
I disagree with the statement "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it." I don't feel that most licenses are designed to take away my freedom, they're designed to make money for the owners by not extending me every possible priveledge. Free software is, in my opinion, a priveledge and not a right.
I also disagree with the statement "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." I don't think that's true, I think we're talking about both, in that if we prevent the price from being free (if only in theory) then we aren't truly giving people true freedom; that the GPL does permit the software to be free doesn't mean that I can/should/will put up with this statement.
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." I have a big problem with this statement. As outlined above, my belief that this is a priveledge and not a right means that this first sentence is off base. I'm making these restrictions because I want something done with my software. And, if I change the license, which as the owner I can do, I may ask you to surrender your "rights" to use future versions of my software (though I cannot ask you to stop using the version I've already licensed to you). Further, none of this is a responsibility that I trust you to carry out, this is all a legal requirement, and if you don't follow the terms of the license I can sue you.
There are some problems with the actual terms of the license, which I won't get into, and I would still choose the BSD license for some circumstances, but I might use the GPL for others if I were permitted to change it. For now, I will either keep with the BSDl, or write my own license.
There is another problem. The killer bee problem in the Americas was started when scientists tried to make honey bees more reilient to warm climates. They crossbred American honeybees, a rather benign form of bee that doesn't mind human presence, with African bees, which do. The bees seem to have picked up the wrong part of the mix, they became slightly more resistive to climatic change, and they became extremely fierce. Though not the result of Genetics, they illustrate some of the unexpected outcomes that breeding of non-native species can have with the local population. These hybrid bees have driven out local bees and proved to be more than just a nuisance to some people.
More info:
Killer bee attack in Mexico
AgNews on Killer Bees
Desertusa Attack of the "Killer Bees"
Fleming's Bee page
umm...it's a laptop, a lot of people do things while on a plane and such that aren't particularly processor intensive (such as word proc) and they want their battery to last as long as possible; they aren't too worried about draining the power grid when plugged in.
It still does certain useful things. It means that een when you are doing stuff, the processor won't get as hot, and hence the fan can be off. This is where the battery savings come from, since slower processor at less power would just be on longer to do the same thing, right? (admittedly a bit oversimplified, there may be some gain inherent in slowing down the proc)
It's not the first Laptop to do this as far as I'm aware, I know many Toshiba laptops will do this with a special setting using the Fn (blue) hot keys or a third mode (the best i think) that runs at full speed and runs the fan based on a thermostat. They also implement other things like reduced power to the screen, causing less brightness but more battery life, and being more careful about spinning down HDs and cdroms which are idle. That being said, i'm not sure I want a processor that forces this on me as opposed to letting me choose, does anyone know which this does?
Looking to get a new laptop soon for college...stuyman
I think you're dead wrong. I see no reason why FreeBSD will die. Try and justify yourself. I think FreeBSD will grow for a number of reasons.
1) The License: Like it or not, some people just don't agree with the GPL. I don't have a problem with the license itself, but some certainly do.
2) Technical differences: Different Layout, longer history, technical superiority in some areas (perhaps only perceived, I don't want a flame war).
3) Empirical: FreeBSD has been gaining users faster than ever.
I don't know that I'm right, but if someone has a reason why I'm wrong I'd like to know what they are. Linux is certainly a good OS, I know many who swear by it, and an increase in available apps helps FreeBSD too (Linux emu is a good thing IMHO). If nothing else, personal preference keeps me with FreeBSD, and I don't see any reason why that would change. Btw I agree that AIX and Solaris will remain, and that UnixWare, OpenServer, and other Unixen that simply replicate Linux/FreeBSD functionality at a greater price will probably fade away...
PS. Looking back at my comment, FreeBSD is my OS of choice, but OpenBSD will survive too (security) and NetBSD at least has a chance (don't know enough about it to say for sure)
Happy New Year everyone, we're getting close...
The problem you're having in parts Connecticut are that AT&T doesn't cover that area, rather an affiliate does (or so says my AT&T brochure that my cell-phone came with). It is the only place I've ever experienced problems with AT&T wireless, and my phone shows something other than AT&T in that zone (just like the Palm shows a different provider number). Not much you can do about it I suppose, you'll find the same problem in certain parts of eastern Mass.
In general, I'm not all that surprised the TCP/IP implementation is suboptimal, back in the day the only thing that could panic my linux box would be dealing with TCP/IP, and Windows 3.0 with various addons always seemed to die with it, but now Linux works fine, and Windows is windows so it's only improved marginally. FreeBSD has had good TCP for years. Windows CE, I've been told, has a barely functional implemetation, so I suppose this must be better than that. Anybody know how the Palm VII's TCP/IP is? Also, the site says the WinNT installer worked, anyone know if they have a Linux/Unix (I'll run under Linux emu on FBSD) version waiting in the wings?
If I recall correctly the History Channel show I saw on the Tu-144, there is no proof that its failure had any relationship to unstable design. To this day a number of engineers from around the world maintain to this day that its design (though stolen from the Anglo-French group) was improved upon to the point that it was superior to Concorde. The cause of the accident seems to be disputed, but it seems to be a tossup between pilot error (the pilot putting the plane in a position no commercial airliner would ever hold up to [the 144 made it further in than the rest would've]) or the interference of a mirage fighter put in the air by France. Tu-144s are still flown today, admittedly not widely (but neither are Concordes) in Russia, with a flawless safety record.
More info on the Tu-144 "Konkordsky":
The 144LL Initiative
More 144LL
Tu 144 specs
A guide to Russian Airplanes
I think it's time to set the record straight on this Al Gore thing. Mr Gore does not, nor has he ever, claimed to invent the internet. What Al Gore claims (and rightly so) is that while he was in the senate he was influenced heavily by a report (see this for details)that made him believe in and become a major proponent of the internet. While in the senate he helped to pass a number of bills in support of ARPANET.
More info see:
Internet Pioneers
Wired News
The Slashdot story
This doesn't mean I'm voting for Gore btw, no political endorsements
Some general comments on this story: I don't think it's a well-done story, in that it only covers the last century; on the other hand it doesn't pretend to be the whole millenium but actually is just the century. I think they leave out lots of critical disasters, like the great depression, but put things that had almost no impact on societys (N-Rays??? Who cares?) They also leave out the invention of nuclear weapons, World War II and the Holocaust (How do you miss that?) and add things like wrong way corrigan, which are more humorous than they are true failures. All in all a halfhearted attempt, but not a bad read.