Er, no. If you want to pay for 4G more memory, then you use it for memory so you don't have to swap. Your suggestion is analagous to trying to reduce your gasoline consumption by buying an extra car.
Please. All open source OSes worth talking about have robust package management systems that automatically handle dependencies and downloading from mirrored network servers. Flaming about apt/dpg vs. apt/rpm vs. yum/rpm vs. ports vs. portage just make all of you look like the fanboys you are.
From the GPL, right up at the top, in paragraph 0:
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output
from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work
based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the
Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Taking a screenshot is clearly "running" the program, so that is not restricted. And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work of the program, so that's fine too.
Only the most technically incompetant or clinically paranoid legal team could have a problem with this.
I have a 2004 Prius. Unlike other cars, it really does match the EPA mileage, at least on the highway. We routinely match the official 50mpg number on freeways. Around town, though, we've never seen anything close to the 60mpg claimed. Typical numbers are 40-45, but a cold engine on a short commute tends to drag the number down to 30-35 or so. Our whole-tank mileage tends to be pretty consistent at 45 or so.
Why is everyone so defensive? It's a perfectly valid criticism. It makes the desktop frustrating to the point of unusable for many folks.
Perhaps true, but it also makes the idea of a "folder" accessible and
intuitive to a vastly larger group of people who otherwise wouldn't be
able to use a hierarchical filesystem at all.
Don't believe me? Go find some novice, non-technical windows and
macintosh (especially OS 9 and below) users and watch them. Don't
"help" them, don't tell them what to do, and don't mock them. Just
watch them.
The mac users tend to have their files arranged nicely into folders
on their desktops, and can tell you where things are and why they are
there. If they need to move something or make a copy, they typically
aren't afraid to do it.
The windows users of the same skill level have a heap of crap in
the default (usually application-specific) locations. If they are in
a corporate environment they might have an icon on their desktop (that
some IT kid put there) onto which they drag important things. Or else
they memorize a path to type into the "save as..." dialog. They
typically have no ability to sort their documents or move them
beyond the recipes they have been taught.
Really, try this. It's enlightening. If you don't like the
spatial mode, then turn it off (if you can't figure out how to turn it
off, then perhaps you should re-consider your use of browser mode).
But don't be blind to the needs of the rest of the world.
Obviously its just my opinion, but the way Nautilus browses the file system is backwards compared to 2.4, and the removal of the tree in a left hand pane was a very bad decision.
The tree has not been removed! Right click on something and select "browse" and you have your old Nautilus back. Not enough? Make a launcher on your desktop and have it run "nautilus --browser". Still not enough? Put it in a menu (FC2 already does). Still not enough? Delete all the spatial icons from your desktop and you will never see it again.
Good grief. You would think that "expert users" who can handle the complexities of a browser-based file interface might be able to, y'know, configure their desktops before whining about it in public.
No, it does not 'work fine'. The Excel/Photoshop analogy is poor. Cut a number from a cell and I can paste it in anything in Photoshop which expects text. Consistently, between versions of Windows and versions of Excel and PS. The same is not true of Linux apps.
Works fine for me between OOffice Calc and Gimp. What problems are you having?
You'll find that trolling works better when you don't make stuff up.:)
See, saying "the code is the standard" only works if there is only
one implementation. For everything else, you need a neutral third
party to make sure everyone plays by the rules.
This is simply wrong. Both of your examples (SMTP and HTTP) were
ad-hoc standards. The implementation existed before the
standard did. Indeed, the code was the standard.
The standardization process took over from there: cleaning up
ambiguities, fixing feature goofs that slipped through in the first
cut, etc... In no way does the standards process drive the
implementation. Successful standards codify existing practice,
always.
POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos, etc etc etc. How can
you not have heard of these?
And again, EVERY ONE (except perhaps DCE) of these is an
ad-hoc standard preceded by a working implementation. In the case of
NFS, the "neutral third party" you talk about is a proprietary company
with its own implementation -- hardly "neutral" in my mind. Yet NFS
works just fine. Why? Because it is useful, and because there is
benefit in writing compatible implementations. Certainly not because
Sun deigned to write a standards document.
For the record, I'm the author (but not the submitter!) of the
original report. It was really just intended for the FlightGear folks
who might be interested in the story. I didn't mean to be the poster
child for ATI compatibility problems, nor the last word on their
solutions.
Regardless, I just received the following from ATI. The slashdot
posting seems to have had the appropriate effect. I haven't had a
chance to insall the new driver version for myself yet; perhaps others
can comment. Certainly ATI needs to be commended on their fast
turnaround.
Please use the following communication as you desire!
Hi there,
Last week we posted a set of unified Linux drivers. These
drivers were only loading up on "Built by ATI" cards. Through our
various feedback mechanisms we have determined that there is a large
community of "Powered by ATI" Linux users that did not benefit from
our Linux drivers. At this point we are happy to announce an update to
our Linux driver (ver. 2.5.1) which will work on both "Powered by" and
"Built by". ATI's driver and software strategy is firmly based on
responsiveness and we greatly appreciate the feedback our Linux users
have provided. Please use http://apps.ati.com/linuxDfeedback/ for a
direct feedback line to ATI.
Thanks again for the feedback,
Terry Makedon
Sr. Product Manager - Software
ATI Technologies
- if (id channels_alloc) { + if (id = channels_alloc) {
You want to explain to me how any "modern safe language" is going to stop me from saying 'greater-than', when I really mean 'greater-than-or-equal-to'?
No, but a "modern safe language" would crash instead of silently corrupting memory and producing the root exploit. The bug is unavoidable, but the impact is mitigated.
Sure, Java (or C#, or whatever) isn't the software engineering panacea that Sun wants you to think it is, but don't let that blind you to its features. You just plain missed the boat on this one, which means you are exactly the kind of person who is going to repeat this kind of stupid-c-tricks bug. Pick the tool for the job.
RMS's history goes back much farther than the 2 years or so we've all been riding the open source bandwagon together. Have a look at the FSF website and find the information on the Apple boycot and all the mid-80's mess about Look&Feel copyrights.
You may choose to agree or disagree with him (for what it's worth, I think he's right on on this one), but RMS is nothing if not consistent. He's been an active software patent opponent since before many of us learned to code.
Stated simply: This is most definitely NOT a change of focus for RMS.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, no. If you want to pay for 4G more memory, then you use it for memory so you don't have to swap. Your suggestion is analagous to trying to reduce your gasoline consumption by buying an extra car.
Google "apples and oranges".
Please. All open source OSes worth talking about have robust package management systems that automatically handle dependencies and downloading from mirrored network servers. Flaming about apt/dpg vs. apt/rpm vs. yum/rpm vs. ports vs. portage just make all of you look like the fanboys you are.
From the GPL, right up at the top, in paragraph 0:
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output
from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work
based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the
Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
Taking a screenshot is clearly "running" the program, so that is not
restricted. And clearly a screenshot (an image) is not a derived work
of the program, so that's fine too.
Only the most technically incompetant or clinically paranoid legal
team could have a problem with this.
I have a 2004 Prius. Unlike other cars, it really does match the EPA mileage, at least on the highway. We routinely match the official 50mpg number on freeways. Around town, though, we've never seen anything close to the 60mpg claimed. Typical numbers are 40-45, but a cold engine on a short commute tends to drag the number down to 30-35 or so. Our whole-tank mileage tends to be pretty consistent at 45 or so.
Don't believe me? Go find some novice, non-technical windows and macintosh (especially OS 9 and below) users and watch them. Don't "help" them, don't tell them what to do, and don't mock them. Just watch them.
The mac users tend to have their files arranged nicely into folders on their desktops, and can tell you where things are and why they are there. If they need to move something or make a copy, they typically aren't afraid to do it.
The windows users of the same skill level have a heap of crap in the default (usually application-specific) locations. If they are in a corporate environment they might have an icon on their desktop (that some IT kid put there) onto which they drag important things. Or else they memorize a path to type into the "save as..." dialog. They typically have no ability to sort their documents or move them beyond the recipes they have been taught.
Really, try this. It's enlightening. If you don't like the spatial mode, then turn it off (if you can't figure out how to turn it off, then perhaps you should re-consider your use of browser mode). But don't be blind to the needs of the rest of the world.
The tree has not been removed! Right click on something and select "browse" and you have your old Nautilus back. Not enough? Make a launcher on your desktop and have it run "nautilus --browser". Still not enough? Put it in a menu (FC2 already does). Still not enough? Delete all the spatial icons from your desktop and you will never see it again.
Good grief. You would think that "expert users" who can handle the complexities of a browser-based file interface might be able to, y'know, configure their desktops before whining about it in public.
No, it does not 'work fine'. The Excel/Photoshop analogy is poor. Cut a number from a cell and I can paste it in anything in Photoshop which expects text. Consistently, between versions of Windows and versions of Excel and PS. The same is not true of Linux apps.
:)
Works fine for me between OOffice Calc and Gimp. What problems are you having?
You'll find that trolling works better when you don't make stuff up.
This is simply wrong. Both of your examples (SMTP and HTTP) were ad-hoc standards. The implementation existed before the standard did. Indeed, the code was the standard.
The standardization process took over from there: cleaning up ambiguities, fixing feature goofs that slipped through in the first cut, etc... In no way does the standards process drive the implementation. Successful standards codify existing practice, always.
POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos, etc etc etc. How can you not have heard of these?
And again, EVERY ONE (except perhaps DCE) of these is an ad-hoc standard preceded by a working implementation. In the case of NFS, the "neutral third party" you talk about is a proprietary company with its own implementation -- hardly "neutral" in my mind. Yet NFS works just fine. Why? Because it is useful, and because there is benefit in writing compatible implementations. Certainly not because Sun deigned to write a standards document.
No, but a "modern safe language" would crash instead of silently corrupting memory and producing the root exploit. The bug is unavoidable, but the impact is mitigated.
Sure, Java (or C#, or whatever) isn't the software engineering panacea that Sun wants you to think it is, but don't let that blind you to its features. You just plain missed the boat on this one, which means you are exactly the kind of person who is going to repeat this kind of stupid-c-tricks bug. Pick the tool for the job.
RMS's history goes back much farther than the 2 years or so we've all been riding the open source bandwagon together. Have a look at the FSF website and find the information on the Apple boycot and all the mid-80's mess about Look&Feel copyrights.
You may choose to agree or disagree with him (for what it's worth, I think he's right on on this one), but RMS is nothing if not consistent. He's been an active software patent opponent since before many of us learned to code.
Stated simply: This is most definitely NOT a change of focus for RMS.