Re:Can it be good if it's built for a certain Chip
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
Being available for only one chip isn't good. However, I'd assume that the OS would be portable if someone wanted to take the time to port it. The author may not have the money to buy suitable non-intel machines, and he may not of the time or desire to learn the intricacies of the machine well enough to port to it.
We don't really have enough information to make that judgement. The fact that the side was/.ed could mean that he had inadequate hardware to handle the traffic, or even more likely, he didn't have enough bandwidth to handle the traffic.
Err, that statement was supposed to be taken as sarcastically quoting of stereotype. I thought it was easy enough to infer from context, but obviously I was wrong.
That said, I am looking forward to spending time in Europe some day (preferably a year or three). Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.
That was meant to be a semi sarcastic quoting of stereo type. Perhaps I should have said:
the "socialistic" european countries
Anyway, european countries do tend to lean a bit more to the socialistic side than the US (or so it appears from the information I see), although I wouldn't accuse them of being outright socialistic.
The "free, capitalistic" part is supposed to be said with slightly sarcastic over tones, which I had hoped would be infered from the context. Obviously, if we were really free and/or capitalistic, you would be right, we wouldn't have any export or import regulation. Thus, when someone says we are free and capitalistic, they are either stupid, misguided, or being sarcastic. I personally prefer to think that I was being sarcastic rather than an idiot, but who am I to judge my mental state? 8)
So, why is it that the socialistic european countries seem to generally be acting smarted than the free capitalistic US recently? I'm all for capitalism, but, some things make you wonder...
How is the 2.4 kernel going to effect teams building large scale clusters? What changes would you like to see implemented in the 2.6 kernel to aide your job?
Now that advanced clustering systems (like Beowulf and Myrinet) have made super-computers affordable to almost any organization, how long until you see super computer applications being off the self, and every midsize corporation having a super-computer in their server room?
Also, a related question is how much of a role do you think the free software community will continue to play in advancing super-computing towards the masses?
The question isn't what the smartest move on behalf of the RIAA is. The question is what are their rights, what should their rights be, and are they allowed to make life unpleasant for others by abusing their rights?
The fact of the matter is that right now, the RIAA has the state given right to try exercise every bit of control that they can over the music that their clients produce to wring every possible penny out of it.
As to what the RIAA's rights should be, well, I don't know exectly what they should be, but whatever they should be, I don't think any of us disagree that the RIAA is over stepping them.
Whole sale copying of CDs (forging is a better word than piracy here) probably should be illegal. Selling someone else's music in general should probably illegal. I personally think that sharing of music should be legal, and I don't think that it will cut into the profits too much. I think much more leaway should be allowed for derivative works than currently is, but I don't know how much exactly.
But anyway, that's dreaming about the future, not talking about today.
Ignoring that right in the name of civil disobedience, or because we know what is better for the RIAA's clients isn't the right way to tackle this. That just makes us look like theives and/or commie pinkos (not to offend the commie flamigos out there).
A good way to support what our rights should be is through artists like Chuck D., Limp Bizket, and Offspring supporting Napster. Another effective move would be to band together as citizens and take back control of the government from big corporations.
Blatantly violating stupid laws is not the answer though.
You know, most of us Linux fans don't really care that much for Intel. We'd be just as happy with a quad G4 running linux as a quad xeon. So maybe you'll see GNU/linux i386 in your rearview, but what about GNU/linux PPC?
I appreciate his break out of how free software is funded, but I would have appreciated it if he wouldn't keep say this like:
As will be clear from the other cases, this is in the only case in which it is really appropriate to talk of "free software", although this term is in fact too weak; here one should more accurately talk of Donated software.
He made it clear that he read the FSF web site, so why couldn't he get the usage of free in free software correct? This misunderstanding is pervasive throughout the essay, making for numerous flawed arguments, such as:
The best-known figure of free software, Richard Stallman from GNU and the Free Software Foundation (FSF), professes an absolute refusal of any notion of commercial software. Software should be free, period.
To assume that because RMS insists on free software means that RMS is unwilling to pay is to disable yourself from understanding RMSs arguments. I don't like it when people say that one flawed argument nullify the whole essay, but in this case, that isn't far from the truth. That one misunderstanding causes a domino effect that means that each argument is less effective than the last. This problem isn't limited to this one essay. The same mistake pervades the thinking of many other people, which seems to be causing more and more anti-free software resentment. RMS said he considered libre software instead of free software, but thought libre was too pretentious. He should have stuck with libre anyway.
I don't care whether the software is free or not, I care whether or not it is open/free(libre).
Anyway, the problem is that the general public doesn't care. They look at anything GNU, and think, "Oh good, I don't have to pay." This, as the AskSlashdot poster theorized, leads to dilution of the vision of GPL.
Free(beer) software is in my experience both limiting, and inferior, so I generally try to avoid it. If it's worth giving up freedom for, it's worth paying for. If it is free, it's all the more worth paying for.
Is it just me, or does it look like Apple is reverting the dock back to what it was like under nextstep (except on the bottom instead of top right corner)?
The UI changes look really promising. I can't wait to come into an unexpected $2k that that I can buy myself a Mac and get a copy of OS X.
They are creating a program for the express purpose of doing one thing: aiding downloads. It is bundled without mention with other Real software, and it installs itself without permission as the default file-download handler on your system. But what it does is provide RealNetworks with unprecedented access to the downloading habits of users; it's not software it's a trojan horse! Its most useful function is to real, and its method of inclusion is suspicious. They don't need that data to make anything for you more convenient -- it is entirely to aid their marketing program!
They will be able to better aid downloads in the next version if they know more about what people are downloading. Or so they will claim if they are asked.
They shouldn't be allowed to do that. I don't know how to stop them, but that shit should be illegal. Or at least force them to advertise functions which do not directly relate to the purpose you bought the software for: it's like buying a word processor with an undocumented feature which changes your networking settings, it's not what you bought it to do.
It should remain legal, just like it currently is. We already have too many laws. It is sheep like you, wanting the government to fix your dislikes that is helping to ruin this country (the other major problem is big companies buying government, but that's another rant). If you don't like that program, don't buy it. And please, try and convince your friends not to buy it.
Actually, VHS tapes have the same warning, as do laser discs, and video CDs. The idea is to disallow block buster like places from renting the movies without paying royalties. Not to keep you from loaning you DVD to a friend.
For the privilage of being forbiden from loaning you DVDs, you'd have to by a DivX machine. Oh wait, you can't.
Frankly, if I owned a S/390, I wouldn't want to buy TurboLinux or SuSe for it. I wouldn't even want Redhat for it. I'd only be willing to run one that is endorsed and supported by IBM. Otherwise, why take the chance?
IBM's S/390s start at $50k. Since linux on S/390 seems to be near and dear to IBMs heart, I'm sure a short term lease could be worked out which would make things even cheaper.
Besides, debian is based on volunteer labor. The debian team doesn't need to have a s/390 to work with hands on. They just need a volunteer to have access to one to work on. Now, there are many s/390s out there, and the port could be written without disturbing normal operation, so it is entirely possible that time may be borrowed from some university or corperate system somewhere.
Party time. Now if only Connectix would make a linux port... But seriously, this is the only good piece of legal news I've heard in a long time. Maybe there is still hope.
Have you considered using Glade? That should work on solaris. The Url for glade is http://glade.pn.org/.
If you are only interested in Motif or OpenLook gui builders, I'm sorry, I can't help you there. When I wanted a gui on solaris, I just went and installed GTK+ (http://www.gtk.org/).
I don't really care for GUI builders much. I prefer pencil and paper for design, then I just code them.
Slashdot Mirror
Being available for only one chip isn't good. However, I'd assume that the OS would be portable if someone wanted to take the time to port it. The author may not have the money to buy suitable non-intel machines, and he may not of the time or desire to learn the intricacies of the machine well enough to port to it.
We don't really have enough information to make that judgement. The fact that the side was /.ed could mean that he had inadequate hardware to handle the traffic, or even more likely, he didn't have enough bandwidth to handle the traffic.
Err, that statement was supposed to be taken as sarcastically quoting of stereotype. I thought it was easy enough to infer from context, but obviously I was wrong.
That said, I am looking forward to spending time in Europe some day (preferably a year or three). Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.
I never heard about that. Was it ever followed up on? What would be the current consensus about anonymous cash in Europe be?
That was meant to be a semi sarcastic quoting of stereo type. Perhaps I should have said:
the "socialistic" european countries
Anyway, european countries do tend to lean a bit more to the socialistic side than the US (or so it appears from the information I see), although I wouldn't accuse them of being outright socialistic.
The "free, capitalistic" part is supposed to be said with slightly sarcastic over tones, which I had hoped would be infered from the context. Obviously, if we were really free and/or capitalistic, you would be right, we wouldn't have any export or import regulation. Thus, when someone says we are free and capitalistic, they are either stupid, misguided, or being sarcastic. I personally prefer to think that I was being sarcastic rather than an idiot, but who am I to judge my mental state? 8)
So, why is it that the socialistic european countries seem to generally be acting smarted than the free capitalistic US recently? I'm all for capitalism, but, some things make you wonder...
How is the 2.4 kernel going to effect teams building large scale clusters? What changes would you like to see implemented in the 2.6 kernel to aide your job?
Now that advanced clustering systems (like Beowulf and Myrinet) have made super-computers affordable to almost any organization, how long until you see super computer applications being off the self, and every midsize corporation having a super-computer in their server room?
Also, a related question is how much of a role do you think the free software community will continue to play in advancing super-computing towards the masses?
The question isn't what the smartest move on behalf of the RIAA is. The question is what are their rights, what should their rights be, and are they allowed to make life unpleasant for others by abusing their rights?
The fact of the matter is that right now, the RIAA has the state given right to try exercise every bit of control that they can over the music that their clients produce to wring every possible penny out of it.
As to what the RIAA's rights should be, well, I don't know exectly what they should be, but whatever they should be, I don't think any of us disagree that the RIAA is over stepping them.
Whole sale copying of CDs (forging is a better word than piracy here) probably should be illegal. Selling someone else's music in general should probably illegal. I personally think that sharing of music should be legal, and I don't think that it will cut into the profits too much. I think much more leaway should be allowed for derivative works than currently is, but I don't know how much exactly.
But anyway, that's dreaming about the future, not talking about today.
Ignoring that right in the name of civil disobedience, or because we know what is better for the RIAA's clients isn't the right way to tackle this. That just makes us look like theives and/or commie pinkos (not to offend the commie flamigos out there).
A good way to support what our rights should be is through artists like Chuck D., Limp Bizket, and Offspring supporting Napster. Another effective move would be to band together as citizens and take back control of the government from big corporations.
Blatantly violating stupid laws is not the answer though.
You know, most of us Linux fans don't really care that much for Intel. We'd be just as happy with a quad G4 running linux as a quad xeon. So maybe you'll see GNU/linux i386 in your rearview, but what about GNU/linux PPC?
I don't care whether the software is free or not, I care whether or not it is open/free(libre).
Anyway, the problem is that the general public doesn't care. They look at anything GNU, and think, "Oh good, I don't have to pay." This, as the AskSlashdot poster theorized, leads to dilution of the vision of GPL.
Free(beer) software is in my experience both limiting, and inferior, so I generally try to avoid it. If it's worth giving up freedom for, it's worth paying for. If it is free, it's all the more worth paying for.
Is it just me, or does it look like Apple is reverting the dock back to what it was like under nextstep (except on the bottom instead of top right corner)?
The UI changes look really promising. I can't wait to come into an unexpected $2k that that I can buy myself a Mac and get a copy of OS X.
How the heck did that message warrent being labeled flame bait? Off topic maybe, but flame bait?
When it comes to such statements, long reading should be translated into Just Say No. That's my rule of thumb.
Actually, VHS tapes have the same warning, as do laser discs, and video CDs. The idea is to disallow block buster like places from renting the movies without paying royalties. Not to keep you from loaning you DVD to a friend.
For the privilage of being forbiden from loaning you DVDs, you'd have to by a DivX machine. Oh wait, you can't.
Ooh, I do hope it a web pad. The pictures I've seen (with /. on the display) look so cool.
This article didn't have anything new in it, but it was well written I thought, and interesting none the less.
Frankly, if I owned a S/390, I wouldn't want to buy TurboLinux or SuSe for it. I wouldn't even want Redhat for it. I'd only be willing to run one that is endorsed and supported by IBM. Otherwise, why take the chance?
IBM's S/390s start at $50k. Since linux on S/390 seems to be near and dear to IBMs heart, I'm sure a short term lease could be worked out which would make things even cheaper.
Besides, debian is based on volunteer labor. The debian team doesn't need to have a s/390 to work with hands on. They just need a volunteer to have access to one to work on. Now, there are many s/390s out there, and the port could be written without disturbing normal operation, so it is entirely possible that time may be borrowed from some university or corperate system somewhere.
I don't know for sure, but all the needed reverse engineering might have taken place before DMCA took effect.
Party time. Now if only Connectix would make a linux port... But seriously, this is the only good piece of legal news I've heard in a long time. Maybe there is still hope.
Have you considered using Glade? That should work on solaris. The Url for glade is http://glade.pn.org/.
If you are only interested in Motif or OpenLook gui builders, I'm sorry, I can't help you there. When I wanted a gui on solaris, I just went and installed GTK+ (http://www.gtk.org/).
I don't really care for GUI builders much. I prefer pencil and paper for design, then I just code them.