I think that it is. For example, let's say that someone has as an invariant section a prayer to their God, which you specifically believe is wrong or in bad taste. In order to include their manual within yours, you would HAVE to include the invariant section.
On the other hand, you should not be able to remove individual invariant sections, as that may compromise the spirit of what the author was saying.
Personally, I think that the person distributing the work should be able to _either_ remove all invariant sections _or_ remove none of them, but cannot remove some of them without prior approval of the author.
He needs to look into his program. What is happening is that his computer is not transfering his extra fonts to the PDF. This makes them bigger, but is necessary for a portable PDF. If he is using Mathematica, I know there is an option for this (although that may just be for Postscript).
That's true any time you transport documents - INCLUDING UPGRADING BETWEEN VERSIONS OF THE SAME PRODUCT. If you have different fonts, if you have different software versions, etc., etc. My guess is that he actually created it on _Linux_ using OpenOffice (Linux has completely different fonts) and then moved it to Office. Font issues (at least from my experience) do not exist on Windows OfficeWindows StarOffice conversions.
The only way to _really_ be sure that something looks exactly right in two places is to use PDF.
THe same thing would have likely happened in many other cases not involving StarOffice at all.
I'm not saying StarOffice is perfect, but people seem to be blaming StarOffice for every little problem they have, completely ignoring the times when they happen on their current system, or even when it might not be StarOffice that's at fault.
One thing I love about the latest StarOffice beta is that it allows you to convert PPT files to Flash for web usage - that's a cool feature!
Actually, re-use is not the big idea that OOP gives. At least _code_ reuse isn't. _Interface_ re-use is the biggy. The ability for multiple, disparate objects to be operated on through similar facilities _is_ the big breakthrough, which makes life a lot easier.
" If you need hardware like this, then you need Support."
Correct.
"And if you need support, you'll take whatever board your System Integrator uses in their boxes."
Wrong. You choose your vendor based on what they put into their box. Being the customer, you also get to provide input as to what they put in their box in the future.
"It's unfortunate (to me, at least) that Red Hat insists on "polluting the namespace" by branding recognized open-source projects in this way"
I don't think so. This way, no matter what they do with it, it doesn't negatively impact the given product. If they do a great job, then it will keep people from having too high of a view of the base project. If they do a bad job, it will keep people from thinking poorly of the base project.
Actually, I wasn't implying that. I just saw a similarity with my own story. Yes, I would probably cut myself in odd ways if I had to deal with Visual Basic constantly. Thankfully, I'm doing web applications and can stick to Linux for the most part.
I understand living paycheck to paycheck, as I have a wife and two kids to support, one of which has severe physical limitations.
Anyway, have you considered being an independent consultant? It takes a great degree of sales and communication skills, but it might be your way out. Having a wife and two kids kind of prevented that for me, at least for now.
I actually enjoy getting lots of diverse work. At my job, I routinely code in Lisp, HTML, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, VBScript, do system administration at multiple sites, and do helpdesk work. Usually all within the same week.
I used to make 60K doing level 1 support (mostly a helpdesk center for programmers + systems monitoring). I quit that job because I hated it and the company and now I'm doing things I enjoy for 45K. I could have kept the 60K position doing nothing, but I prefer being in a company making a difference, and doing something interesting.
" Remember that generalisations should always be considered carefully!"
No, policies should be considered carefully. Generalizations are to cut down needless typing and talking on things that most everyone likely agrees about anyway.
For example, I often say "everybody is a sinner". Now, being a Christian, I believe that Jesus was/is not a sinner. However, I assume my fellow Christians know that I don't mean Him. However, if I were writing Church doctrine, I would certainly include the exception.
The point is that _anything_ doctored cannot be considered news. If that became standard practice it would be so easy to abuse.
Pictures are taken as evidence to be an exact representation of what they are looking at. If you can't trust pictures in a newspaper or magazine, you can't trust the newspaper or magazine, period.
"What would you say if NASA wanted Space Shuttle control software to be free as well? "
That would be pretty easy to do considering it is custom written for NASA. In fact, all internal software is technically "free software" (free as in speech), because, everyone who has access to it has full rights to it.
If you're requirement was that the software was Free (as in speech), you wouldn't have to wait at all for current Free software to mature, you just find a corporation that is willing to license it to the entity on those terms for a specified price (remember - free as in speech not beer).
I think market share is a good one in an established or saturated market.
***
Not if market share can vary based on the products ability to handle load. "We needed 10 Windows boxes for this project, Linux handled it with 1, I guess Windows is 10 times more popular than Linux!"
"Shouldn't the survey have been sent out to 400 randomly chosen developers? "
No. It would have been just as useful to send it out to 400 random people roaming the street. The question was about behavior patterns and backgrounds of _Linux Developers_, therefore, Linux Developers, not the world at large nor developers in general, is the population.
However, it definitely should be random within the target population, but there is no information on data collection techniques to confirm or deny that.
My favorite is that arial photo of the 707 used to train highjackers, along with the 2 Iraqi military defectors who acknowledge that that was it's use. Not just for Iraqi's, either - it was for all types of terrorists.
b) Saddam was ONLY allowed to stay in power at the end of Gulf War I because he promised to get rid of them
c) Saddam has not held up his end of the deal, and only _began_ doing _anything_ when 60,000 US troops lined up on the border. Even then, as is obvious now with the SCUD launchings, he is still full of B.S.
d) Saddam runs terrorist training camps in Iraq for worldwide terrorists. It even includes a 707 used to practice hijacking airplanes.
Basically, the reason we are at war is that we never ended the last one. We only stopped because Saddam agreed to play by certain rules. Since he hasn't held up his end, we are finishing the previous war.
Basically, George Bush was idiotic to think that Saddam would live up to his promises (or he was weak and bowed to pressure prematurely). Bill Clinton only cared about international affairs when it got people's minds off of he and his illegal and unethical behavior. Dubya is willing to go it alone.
"But I do agree that protests have all right to make you stop for a short period of time and listen to what they say."
Bull. The constitution guarantees the right for you to speak freely. It does not guarantee you the right to an audience or anyone to listen or care about what you have to say.
What kind of arrogance prompts you to think that EVERYONE must stop and listen to what have to say?
You brought up a great quote: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it." which I agree with entirely. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with your position. That quote is for the right to speak. You are fighting for the right to be heard, which is ludicrous.
What many people forget as well is how many Iraqi's died after the first Gulf War. They thought the US was going to topple Saddam, and started taking his pictures down. When we left him in power, everyone who showed disapproval was killed.
The electoral system is better than a popular vote - it prevents large masses of people in dense areas from getting unilateral control over a wide area.
It forces a candidate who listens to _both_ the views of those in densly populated areas, and those in smaller areas.
"stratjakt" was modded offtopic for his post, so I'm going to repost it here:
----
The popular vote does not choose a president. The electoral college does - http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm .
It was set up by the framers of the consitution this way for a specific reason. So that a very populous state with it's own regional political views cant dominate the federal government. Consider at the time, New York had probably a hundred times the population of the entire western half of the country.
This isnt the first time in which the winner lost the popular vote, but won the election.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2/outlines/e le ction.html
Please learn how the system works, then you can criticize it effectively.
-----
How a direct response to a previous comment is considered offtopic, I'll never know.
Re:how many hack books do i need to buy?
on
Linux Server Hacks
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Slashdot Mirror
I think that it is. For example, let's say that someone has as an invariant section a prayer to their God, which you specifically believe is wrong or in bad taste. In order to include their manual within yours, you would HAVE to include the invariant section.
On the other hand, you should not be able to remove individual invariant sections, as that may compromise the spirit of what the author was saying.
Personally, I think that the person distributing the work should be able to _either_ remove all invariant sections _or_ remove none of them, but cannot remove some of them without prior approval of the author.
What is the "Image" style?
He needs to look into his program. What is happening is that his computer is not transfering his extra fonts to the PDF. This makes them bigger, but is necessary for a portable PDF. If he is using Mathematica, I know there is an option for this (although that may just be for Postscript).
That's true any time you transport documents - INCLUDING UPGRADING BETWEEN VERSIONS OF THE SAME PRODUCT. If you have different fonts, if you have different software versions, etc., etc. My guess is that he actually created it on _Linux_ using OpenOffice (Linux has completely different fonts) and then moved it to Office. Font issues (at least from my experience) do not exist on Windows OfficeWindows StarOffice conversions.
The only way to _really_ be sure that something looks exactly right in two places is to use PDF.
THe same thing would have likely happened in many other cases not involving StarOffice at all.
I'm not saying StarOffice is perfect, but people seem to be blaming StarOffice for every little problem they have, completely ignoring the times when they happen on their current system, or even when it might not be StarOffice that's at fault.
One thing I love about the latest StarOffice beta is that it allows you to convert PPT files to Flash for web usage - that's a cool feature!
Actually, re-use is not the big idea that OOP gives. At least _code_ reuse isn't. _Interface_ re-use is the biggy. The ability for multiple, disparate objects to be operated on through similar facilities _is_ the big breakthrough, which makes life a lot easier.
" If you need hardware like this, then you need Support."
Correct.
"And if you need support, you'll take whatever board your System Integrator uses in their boxes."
Wrong. You choose your vendor based on what they put into their box. Being the customer, you also get to provide input as to what they put in their box in the future.
"It's unfortunate (to me, at least) that Red Hat insists on "polluting the namespace" by branding recognized open-source projects in this way"
I don't think so. This way, no matter what they do with it, it doesn't negatively impact the given product. If they do a great job, then it will keep people from having too high of a view of the base project. If they do a bad job, it will keep people from thinking poorly of the base project.
"Still think I should be happy?"
Actually, I wasn't implying that. I just saw a similarity with my own story. Yes, I would probably cut myself in odd ways if I had to deal with Visual Basic constantly. Thankfully, I'm doing web applications and can stick to Linux for the most part.
I understand living paycheck to paycheck, as I have a wife and two kids to support, one of which has severe physical limitations.
Anyway, have you considered being an independent consultant? It takes a great degree of sales and communication skills, but it might be your way out. Having a wife and two kids kind of prevented that for me, at least for now.
I actually enjoy getting lots of diverse work. At my job, I routinely code in Lisp, HTML, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, VBScript, do system administration at multiple sites, and do helpdesk work. Usually all within the same week.
I used to make 60K doing level 1 support (mostly a helpdesk center for programmers + systems monitoring). I quit that job because I hated it and the company and now I'm doing things I enjoy for 45K. I could have kept the 60K position doing nothing, but I prefer being in a company making a difference, and doing something interesting.
Money isn't everything.
" Remember that generalisations should always be considered carefully!"
No, policies should be considered carefully. Generalizations are to cut down needless typing and talking on things that most everyone likely agrees about anyway.
For example, I often say "everybody is a sinner". Now, being a Christian, I believe that Jesus was/is not a sinner. However, I assume my fellow Christians know that I don't mean Him. However, if I were writing Church doctrine, I would certainly include the exception.
The point is that _anything_ doctored cannot be considered news. If that became standard practice it would be so easy to abuse.
Pictures are taken as evidence to be an exact representation of what they are looking at. If you can't trust pictures in a newspaper or magazine, you can't trust the newspaper or magazine, period.
This was definitely the right decision.
There's a lot of companies using NT on Alpha. They can't upgrade without shelling out a whole bunch of cash for an equivalently-powered Intel machine.
"What would you say if NASA wanted Space Shuttle control software to be free as well? "
That would be pretty easy to do considering it is custom written for NASA. In fact, all internal software is technically "free software" (free as in speech), because, everyone who has access to it has full rights to it.
If you're requirement was that the software was Free (as in speech), you wouldn't have to wait at all for current Free software to mature, you just find a corporation that is willing to license it to the entity on those terms for a specified price (remember - free as in speech not beer).
I think market share is a good one in an established or saturated market.
***
Not if market share can vary based on the products ability to handle load. "We needed 10 Windows boxes for this project, Linux handled it with 1, I guess Windows is 10 times more popular than Linux!"
Your other points were excellent.
"Shouldn't the survey have been sent out to 400 randomly chosen developers? "
No. It would have been just as useful to send it out to 400 random people roaming the street. The question was about behavior patterns and backgrounds of _Linux Developers_, therefore, Linux Developers, not the world at large nor developers in general, is the population.
However, it definitely should be random within the target population, but there is no information on data collection techniques to confirm or deny that.
No. If someone wanted to find out why people started smoking, who would they ask? Smokers!
Similarly, if someone wants to find out needs of Linux developers and what their background is, who would they ask? Linux developers!
My favorite is that arial photo of the 707 used to train highjackers, along with the 2 Iraqi military defectors who acknowledge that that was it's use. Not just for Iraqi's, either - it was for all types of terrorists.
What's wrong with Fox news? It appears to be the only outlet providing both conservative and liberal opinions.
Outside of fox news, you either have the liberal TV people or conservative radio.
Pray tell, why are we REALLY at war?
--------
a) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
b) Saddam was ONLY allowed to stay in power at the end of Gulf War I because he promised to get rid of them
c) Saddam has not held up his end of the deal, and only _began_ doing _anything_ when 60,000 US troops lined up on the border. Even then, as is obvious now with the SCUD launchings, he is still full of B.S.
d) Saddam runs terrorist training camps in Iraq for worldwide terrorists. It even includes a 707 used to practice hijacking airplanes.
Basically, the reason we are at war is that we never ended the last one. We only stopped because Saddam agreed to play by certain rules. Since he hasn't held up his end, we are finishing the previous war.
Basically, George Bush was idiotic to think that Saddam would live up to his promises (or he was weak and bowed to pressure prematurely). Bill Clinton only cared about international affairs when it got people's minds off of he and his illegal and unethical behavior. Dubya is willing to go it alone.
"But I do agree that protests have all right to make you stop for a short period of time and listen to what they say."
Bull. The constitution guarantees the right for you to speak freely. It does not guarantee you the right to an audience or anyone to listen or care about what you have to say.
What kind of arrogance prompts you to think that EVERYONE must stop and listen to what have to say?
You brought up a great quote: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it." which I agree with entirely. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with your position. That quote is for the right to speak. You are fighting for the right to be heard, which is ludicrous.
What many people forget as well is how many Iraqi's died after the first Gulf War. They thought the US was going to topple Saddam, and started taking his pictures down. When we left him in power, everyone who showed disapproval was killed.
A better example would be World War I - especially with the French troops.
The electoral system is better than a popular vote - it prevents large masses of people in dense areas from getting unilateral control over a wide area.
e le ction.html
It forces a candidate who listens to _both_ the views of those in densly populated areas, and those in smaller areas.
"stratjakt" was modded offtopic for his post, so I'm going to repost it here:
----
The popular vote does not choose a president. The electoral college does - http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
.
It was set up by the framers of the consitution this way for a specific reason. So that a very populous state with it's own regional political views cant dominate the federal government. Consider at the time, New York had probably a hundred times the population of the entire western half of the country.
This isnt the first time in which the winner lost the popular vote, but won the election.
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2/outlines/
Please learn how the system works, then you can criticize it effectively.
-----
How a direct response to a previous comment is considered offtopic, I'll never know.
"And dead trees can't be grepped."
There goes my social life.