Canonical isn't a South African company. It's a Manx company. Or a British one at a stretch.
For those who are wondering what the hell AC is talking about (I know I was):
1) Manx means 'native of isle of man' (Like the cats) 2) Isle of Man is an Island between the British Mainland & Ireland - its neither part of the UK or the EU & certainly not british (although Britain represents them to some extent) 3) Canonical is registered as a company there.
I'll leave it the reader to judge whether Canonical (founded by a South African, employing people all over the world, with a heavy South African presence, but registered in a tax haven) is South African or Manx.
Relativism doesn't cut it here. John Paul II and Benedict have been very concilliatory to Jews. Compare that to Islam! Islam's relationship with other faiths is absolutely abysmal.
I don't believe Islam is a 'religion of peace' - it's a religion, and like all religions, its a 'religion of manipulating the masses.' If you believe your religion to be "better" then islam, you're deluded.
While I'm sure if there was money, Google would censor, I'm not sure there's enough profit in Iran to bother. (they're bowing down for China in return for access to a potentially huge market)
Its another American company that's profiting (illegally) from denying Iranians uncensored net access.
There's reports on the net that Adult diaper loving Secure Computing did not sell the software to Iranian ISPs, but given the actions of other US companies when faced with trade restrictions, I have trouble believing them.
I describe a continent-nation as a continent and a nation - and thats random?
I hearby apoligize for failing to realise that other nations are themselves not continent-nations and failing to modify my post to reflect sensitivities of non-australian readers. (yeesh)
EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES The following are common examples of electronic messages which are likely to be considered a commercial electronic message: * offers of stock-market options, credit and mortgage arrangements; * offers of computer goods including software and hardware; * promotions of pharmaceutical and health-related products; * promotions of sales at markets, shops or warehouses; * sale of franchises or business ventures; * advertisements for restaurants, exhibitions or trades services; * promotions of pornographic websites or services; and
advance fee or Nigerian scam2 emails, get-rich-quick schemes and gambling services. * EXAMPLES OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGES THAT MAY NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE The following are examples of electronic messages which are not likely to be considered commercial electronic messages: * community-focussed messages, for example, about the closure of local riding and walking tracks; * surveys, for example, collecting statistics about the use of public services and utilities; and * newsletters, for example, providing updates about matters of interest to the local community.
Nuisance messages such as those containing viruses may also not have a commercial purpose and may not be considered to be spam.
Messages of these types however may be subject to separate Australian legislation.
So... if you're a marketing company (doing a survey), a church, political party or charity, feel free to spam whomever you choose - in Australia, or abroad, the government wont touch you.
It's not legislation, but a code of practice (a sort of howto follow the legislation). from the linked pdf:
means commercial electronic messages that:
(a) are unsolicited within the meaning of section 16
of the Act; or
(b) do not include accurate sender information as
required by section 17 of the Act; or
(c) do not contain a functional unsubscribe facility
as required by section 18 of the Act.'
I'll dig up the 2003 legislation, but you will be sorely dissapointed when I do, as our lying, Saddam-conspiring, refugee hating, spamming bastard of a prime minister is a spammer himself
Colour me unimpressed - the Prime Minister of this country (John Howard) phone spammed the continent prior to the last election, then paid his smug looking son to spam the nation.
Anyway, back on topic, here's an article from a local paper - it contains a link to the actual code of practice (pdf warning)
Seriously, wtf with the naming guys. You think someone surfing through a linux app menu would have any idea what tasks these apps perform? I sure don't...
Sorry.
You're wrong.
1) Joomla isn't going to be in an application menu - its a CMS, you access it through your web browser.
2) Tell me from the following list which are CMSs and which are not: Open Text, Vignette, Hummingbird, Interwoven, Tower Technology, Hyland
Give up? Answer is all of them. And they're making millions. They don't care about your microsoft-has-no-imagination-so-noone-else-should views and neither should the joomla project leaders.
So you're telling us that a "small business owner" doesn't know how to Google for an app and stumble onto VersionTracker (which he/she should suspect exists anyway as similar sites exist for Windows) but the same "small business owner" knows what a Terminal app is; knows how to drive a command line, and knows that he/she needs to use a command called "apt-get".
No - nowhere in my post do I mention the command line or apt-get - a typical small business owner will get his machine setup for them and then:
Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.
every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?
You're comparing fluffy kitten apples with ninja oranges. Microsoft can redistribute everything the top distro provide. The reverse is not true.
Bundling is a tactic microsoft use to gain competetive advantage (and this in itself isn't too bad - look at Apple's use of it) - but Microsoft take it further then they should, using their dominance in one market to attempt to gain control in another market.... via bundling.
No, the post you were responding to phrased it poorly.
What is inherent in a MacOS X version (say, 10.4.5) already covers most of what an application might need, including Apple's "equivalent" of gtk.
Even though the post I was responding to was phrased poorly, I understood - I was talking about wanting to use something not in the OS X core libraries.
Have you ever heard of versiontracker?
*puts small business owner hat on*
No.
Which can bring in new versions of a library, which in turn brings in new versions of another application, which may be broken in some way (like any app can be). In other words, installing one app in Linux can effectively break another one.
Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.
You pay for the isolation available to MacOS X apps in the form of disk space and RAM, both of which can be relatively cheap depending on what you're doing with your computer.
I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.
*sighs* - OS X provides a core set of libraries, linux provides a choice of which core set you want to use.
Both operating systems (unlike you) understand the importance of using dynamic libraries to save disk space.
If every file on your mac was statically compiled, we would be talking gigabytes, not megabytes.
I also find it totally hilarious how Linux users are now advocating a completely centralized model of software distribution. Freedom of choice! As long as you only ever choose things approved by your distro maker!
You only find it totally hilarious because you fail to understand the difference between making it convenient for users to use software from a central source and forcing users to use software from a central source.
My Rule of thumb is whenever possible choose and use the #2 or #3 popular software.
Indeed - I do likewise, which is why I choose to run IIS (tm) on all my webservers, having a lower profile then Apache has made it far less likely to be attacked.
Seriously - whilst there is correlation between popularity of a project & number of attacks, there is no link between popularity and number of vulnerabilities.
A well written application is a well written application, regardless of popularity (look at openSSH).
We're talking about applications here. On Mac OS X, a properly packaged application lives in a.app directory which contains all dependencies with the sole exception of frameworks that are present on any version of Mac OS X that the app is capable of running on. In other words, a properly packaged Mac OS X app has no external dependencies
So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.
While the Apple way of handling applications is nice and all, it's really more suited to a closed, vertically integrated framework, whilst linux's method is more suited to an open, looser framework. (where all apps can share libraries, rather then each having their own copy of a library)
Additionally - linux apps are not harder to install. Imagine you're working in a small business, you need an application to print barcodes.
On the Mac you have scour the web deciding Free or Paid, can I trust this site? Am I downloading a trojan. Oh, this is windows only, but says I can run it using VPC. Will it work on my new macbook under rosetta? Once you've downloaded it, things are pretty sweet, but finding the download can be a PITA.
On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.
Now - its easier for a binary-only software maker to distribute to Macs, but thats a different discussion.
not to sound like some peta activist (i'm carniverous to a fault) but how does it effect the life of the animal?
You're going to get a million people replying to you saying variations of "what does it matter? The pig is going to die"
It's a question that society has to start thinking about - many people (like the parent poster) have no problem eating meat, but are concerned about the life of the animal prior to it being butchured.
Its a valid concern, and not hypocritical at all - there's an enormous gap between an animal that lives a relatively healthy, natural life prior to an (early) death and an animal that lives in pain, fear and misery prior to an early death. (for starters the first will taste much better).
So, in answer to your question, noone really cares how it effects the animal - but we should.
Looking at the poultry industry (pdf warning) I'd say, any effects to the Pig's wellbeing (good or bad) will be irrelevant to the agribusiness owners & the vast majority of consumers.
Quite sad - I have no problem with people eating meat, but knowingly choosing to eat something that's the end result of a life of torture is shocking.
ownership of land refutes directly an argument made as to why indeas cannot be property.
No it doesn't directly refute it - you can't copy land & give it to someone else whilst retaining your own land.
They're both artificial limitations, but the notion that you can lump all artificial limitations into the same bucket & discuss them as one thing is well... artifically limiting.
Even discussing such disparate concepts as copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patents under one umbrella term (intellectual property) is limiting to the discussion - adding property law makes it even more of a mess.
In human history, IP protection has been the norm for millenia. Why do you think tradespeople kept their techniques secret? Why do you think guilds were formed? To suggest that IP is a modern invention is way off base. What's relatively new is the structure of law encouraging distribution of knowledge by protecting profit incentive to innovate. Whether it's a good idea or not, I'd rather not get into -- but IP is as old as human invention.
Nope - you're talking about keeping secrets. Keeping a secret is different fron 'owning' an idea.
I think as a concept of ownership of an idea really doesnt predate the printing press (although venice was issuing patents in the 15th century & the ancient greek philosophers may have had some sort of attribution [not economic] rights).
I take your point about wolves/land (and the artificialness of land ownership) - but a parcel of land is a physical item & doesn't really relate to the discussion at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Walmart sells cheap crap - if your company does not sell cheap crap, you can't sell at walmart.
Oh - and the quote: same product any more than a cup of 50-cent vending-machine coffee is the same as a Starbucks nonfat venti latte.
Dreadful analogy - the 50-cent vending machine coffee is crap, the $3.50 starbucks latte is crap.
Canonical isn't a South African company. It's a Manx company. Or a British one at a stretch.
For those who are wondering what the hell AC is talking about (I know I was):
1) Manx means 'native of isle of man' (Like the cats)
2) Isle of Man is an Island between the British Mainland & Ireland - its neither part of the UK or the EU & certainly not british (although Britain represents them to some extent)
3) Canonical is registered as a company there.
I'll leave it the reader to judge whether Canonical (founded by a South African, employing people all over the world, with a heavy South African presence, but registered in a tax haven) is South African or Manx.
Relativism doesn't cut it here. John Paul II and Benedict have been very concilliatory to Jews. Compare that to Islam! Islam's relationship with other faiths is absolutely abysmal.
Using a single example doesn't cut it here.
Pat Robertson: Muslims are "Satanic" and inspired by "demoinic power"
Jerry Falwell: Mohammed is a terrorist
Frank Graham: Islam is "a Very Evil and Wicked Religion"
Rabbi Yosef: You must send missiles to them and annihilate them [about Arabs]
I don't believe Islam is a 'religion of peace' - it's a religion, and like all religions, its a 'religion of manipulating the masses.' If you believe your religion to be "better" then islam, you're deluded.
ooks like the page has allready been /.ed, any one got a mirror?
Mirrordot
As for the "Suitable for Mum, not slashdotters" comment, its 100MB of webspace for free
That makes it suitable for me - even just to use to transfer large files around (when I'm behind a firewall that only lets port 80 through)
While I'm sure if there was money, Google would censor, I'm not sure there's enough profit in Iran to bother. (they're bowing down for China in return for access to a potentially huge market)
Its another American company that's profiting (illegally) from denying Iranians uncensored net access.
There's reports on the net that Adult diaper loving Secure Computing did not sell the software to Iranian ISPs, but given the actions of other US companies when faced with trade restrictions, I have trouble believing them.
Are you just using random words for fun?
I describe a continent-nation as a continent and a nation - and thats random?
I hearby apoligize for failing to realise that other nations are themselves not continent-nations and failing to modify my post to reflect sensitivities of non-australian readers. (yeesh)
Here's the legislation - and a link to the rather more helpful plain english explanation of what constitutes a commercial message
Quoting it:So... if you're a marketing company (doing a survey), a church, political party or charity, feel free to spam whomever you choose - in Australia, or abroad, the government wont touch you.
Here you go (pdf warning)
It's not legislation, but a code of practice (a sort of howto follow the legislation). from the linked pdf:I'll dig up the 2003 legislation, but you will be sorely dissapointed when I do, as our lying, Saddam-conspiring, refugee hating, spamming bastard of a prime minister is a spammer himself
Colour me unimpressed - the Prime Minister of this country (John Howard) phone spammed the continent prior to the last election, then paid his smug looking son to spam the nation.
Anyway, back on topic, here's an article from a local paper - it contains a link to the actual code of practice (pdf warning)
Seriously, wtf with the naming guys. You think someone surfing through a linux app menu would have any idea what tasks these apps perform? I sure don't...
Sorry.
You're wrong.
1) Joomla isn't going to be in an application menu - its a CMS, you access it through your web browser.
2) Tell me from the following list which are CMSs and which are not: Open Text, Vignette, Hummingbird, Interwoven, Tower Technology, Hyland
Give up? Answer is all of them. And they're making millions. They don't care about your microsoft-has-no-imagination-so-noone-else-should views and neither should the joomla project leaders.
No - nowhere in my post do I mention the command line or apt-get - a typical small business owner will get his machine setup for them and then: I don't believe you!
That's because your reading comprehension is poor
My prediction is that consumer will largely (ps3 being the notable exception) ignore both blu-ray & hd-dvd until dual players arrive.
Shouldn't take too long...
what is so bad about bundling?
Nothing.
every bsd and linux distro are chock full of bundled applications. why can't windows do the same?
You're comparing fluffy kitten apples with ninja oranges. Microsoft can redistribute everything the top distro provide. The reverse is not true.
Bundling is a tactic microsoft use to gain competetive advantage (and this in itself isn't too bad - look at Apple's use of it) - but Microsoft take it further then they should, using their dominance in one market to attempt to gain control in another market.... via bundling.
No, the post you were responding to phrased it poorly.
What is inherent in a MacOS X version (say, 10.4.5) already covers most of what an application might need, including Apple's "equivalent" of gtk.
Even though the post I was responding to was phrased poorly, I understood - I was talking about wanting to use something not in the OS X core libraries.
Have you ever heard of versiontracker?
*puts small business owner hat on*
No.
Which can bring in new versions of a library, which in turn brings in new versions of another application, which may be broken in some way (like any app can be). In other words, installing one app in Linux can effectively break another one.
Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.
You pay for the isolation available to MacOS X apps in the form of disk space and RAM, both of which can be relatively cheap depending on what you're doing with your computer.
I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.
My god! That will use up megabytes of disk space!
*sighs* - OS X provides a core set of libraries, linux provides a choice of which core set you want to use.
Both operating systems (unlike you) understand the importance of using dynamic libraries to save disk space.
If every file on your mac was statically compiled, we would be talking gigabytes, not megabytes.
I also find it totally hilarious how Linux users are now advocating a completely centralized model of software distribution. Freedom of choice! As long as you only ever choose things approved by your distro maker!
You only find it totally hilarious because you fail to understand the difference between making it convenient for users to use software from a central source and forcing users to use software from a central source.
My Rule of thumb is whenever possible choose and use the #2 or #3 popular software.
Indeed - I do likewise, which is why I choose to run IIS (tm) on all my webservers, having a lower profile then Apache has made it far less likely to be attacked.
Seriously - whilst there is correlation between popularity of a project & number of attacks, there is no link between popularity and number of vulnerabilities.
A well written application is a well written application, regardless of popularity (look at openSSH).
We're talking about applications here. On Mac OS X, a properly packaged application lives in a .app directory which contains all dependencies with the sole exception of frameworks that are present on any version of Mac OS X that the app is capable of running on. In other words, a properly packaged Mac OS X app has no external dependencies
So - you install a version of the gimp - you get a copy of gtk, install eog - you get a copy of gtk, install.... well I think you get my point.
While the Apple way of handling applications is nice and all, it's really more suited to a closed, vertically integrated framework, whilst linux's method is more suited to an open, looser framework. (where all apps can share libraries, rather then each having their own copy of a library)
Additionally - linux apps are not harder to install. Imagine you're working in a small business, you need an application to print barcodes.
On the Mac you have scour the web deciding Free or Paid, can I trust this site? Am I downloading a trojan. Oh, this is windows only, but says I can run it using VPC. Will it work on my new macbook under rosetta? Once you've downloaded it, things are pretty sweet, but finding the download can be a PITA.
On the linux box (I am going to choose Debian as I'm familiar with it). Fire up synaptic from the gnome menu. Search for barcode. Two results returned. Both of these programs I know to be free of trojans, compatable with my system & configured for it. To install, I double click.
Now - its easier for a binary-only software maker to distribute to Macs, but thats a different discussion.
I've installed KDE on Ubuntu,
Big deal - you can install KDE on OS X - but I wouldn't point out something in KDE as a problem with OS X as it's not the primary UI.
He mentions ubuntu and you reply with a KDE comment?
At least the GP has used the operating system he's talking about....
This guy Carleson helped create the iPod and his brother
Helped create the ipod?
Carleson's work on fourier series paved the way for many advances in modern technology (including many compression techniques).
Calling him 'creator of the ipod' is like calling John Bardeen creator of the radio alarm clock.
not to sound like some peta activist (i'm carniverous to a fault) but how does it effect the life of the animal?
You're going to get a million people replying to you saying variations of "what does it matter? The pig is going to die"
It's a question that society has to start thinking about - many people (like the parent poster) have no problem eating meat, but are concerned about the life of the animal prior to it being butchured.
Its a valid concern, and not hypocritical at all - there's an enormous gap between an animal that lives a relatively healthy, natural life prior to an (early) death and an animal that lives in pain, fear and misery prior to an early death. (for starters the first will taste much better).
So, in answer to your question, noone really cares how it effects the animal - but we should.
Whats the effect on them?
Looking at the poultry industry (pdf warning) I'd say, any effects to the Pig's wellbeing (good or bad) will be irrelevant to the agribusiness owners & the vast majority of consumers.
Quite sad - I have no problem with people eating meat, but knowingly choosing to eat something that's the end result of a life of torture is shocking.
(control == ownership)
No - control and ownership are different concepts.
Copyright & Patent laws extended trade secrets substatially.
ownership of land refutes directly an argument made as to why indeas cannot be property.
No it doesn't directly refute it - you can't copy land & give it to someone else whilst retaining your own land.
They're both artificial limitations, but the notion that you can lump all artificial limitations into the same bucket & discuss them as one thing is well... artifically limiting.
Even discussing such disparate concepts as copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patents under one umbrella term (intellectual property) is limiting to the discussion - adding property law makes it even more of a mess.
In human history, IP protection has been the norm for millenia. Why do you think tradespeople kept their techniques secret? Why do you think guilds were formed? To suggest that IP is a modern invention is way off base. What's relatively new is the structure of law encouraging distribution of knowledge by protecting profit incentive to innovate. Whether it's a good idea or not, I'd rather not get into -- but IP is as old as human invention.
Nope - you're talking about keeping secrets. Keeping a secret is different fron 'owning' an idea.
I think as a concept of ownership of an idea really doesnt predate the printing press (although venice was issuing patents in the 15th century & the ancient greek philosophers may have had some sort of attribution [not economic] rights).
I take your point about wolves/land (and the artificialness of land ownership) - but a parcel of land is a physical item & doesn't really relate to the discussion at hand.
According to eldavojohn (I don't care enough to verify it)
Errr, you linked to speculation posted by someone less then 20 minutes ago. I don't believe eldavojohn actually knows whether Lyons owns stock or not.