My original post? Take care with your attributions, please.
The post you were responding to try to convince someone, not coerce. Since you are a writer, I would hope you know the difference.
You said you were a writer, and that was how I intrepted it.
Your clients, if they use Word, can read a wide variety of file formats, including RTF. Your clients are also likely to maintain a few Unix boxen or some machines that don't run the latest version of Word, and would appreciate being able to read your document.
Finally, "If you're using a design process that doesn't focus on end-user needs, you should get the hell out of the industry." Which is a non-squitor, as none of us said we were in the industry. Anyway, most open-source software is written for the needs of creators who also use their software. Now, as for the various arcana that many closed-source programs require to make sure you're the person who paid for the software, what end-user needs are they the result of focusing on?
KOffice doesn't have all the features you need? Gee, that's funny - I wonder how we have so many books from Asimov (typewriter), Steinbeck (pencil and paper), and other, pre-computer, writers. Or say Piers Anthony, who used a word processor under CP/M far inferior to KOffice. Maybe you should say it doesn't have all the features you want. Maybe they would appreciate you making polite suggestions on what features you would find useful.
Frankly, why should most of the Open-Source/Linux rah-rah-rah people care about what most people "need" in a computer? If you like Linux/Open-Source software, use it. If you don't, then don't. If you want, help. If not, get out of the way and stop complaining.
If you don't have WinZip, download it. What type of Windows developer are you if you can't decompress the most common Windows archives? EXE's should be avoided if possible - viruses, won't run on NT for Alpha, etc.
But their *technology* was good enough that if the war had gone on six months longer they would have started to push back ---
But did they have the manpower to run the technology? Was it of high enough quality to be usable? What about raw materials?
Anyway, somewhere around that point we developed a nuclear weapon. Since Germany wasn't going to develop one for a long time, the US could nuke them into submission.
Or with Linux support, which until recently has consisted mostly of IRC, Usenet and FAQs (this is great for the hobbyist and someone with time on his hands, but for the sysadmin whose mission-critical database just went down, it's not quite a sure thing that you'll get your system up in no time). Availability. Guaranteed availability.
We had one of the people from the local Linux group work on some Suns being used for DNA crunching in the Biochemistry labs. While he praised the sophisticated hardware interface (and loved working with 200 GB hard drives), he sometimes complained that there was nothing like HOWTO's for Solaris - that if he had a problem he couldn't just search the web for the answer, he usually had to debug it himself.
This can be as simple as joes-super-duper-extra-qt-2.1.1.tar.gz.
Reread the clause. "A form that is seperate from the Software, such as patches". It doesn't say rename it, it says keep it seperate from the software. This has been clear from the start, and said over and over by Troll Tech and others.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I accept chaos. I am not sure whether it accepts me. I know some people are terrified of the bomb. But then some people are terrified to be seen carrying a modern screen magazine. Experience teaches us that silence terrifies people the most. -- Bob Dylan
I fail to see how you are offended by either of these actions. Wouldn't you like a crackhead/murderer/rapist free workplace? "Yeah... We hired Joe last week. Smart guy, knows systems like the back of his hand. No, we weren't aware that he was jailed twice for pedophilia, and arrested two other times for drug use..." Screw that - employers have the right to know about unlawful activities of their (potential) employees.
Actually, I don't care, so long as he isn't doing anything in the workplace. So what if he's a pedophile? It's the Justice[sic] System's job to deal with that, not mine. As long as he does what he's paid to do, and does it without annoying other employees, why should we care? Does his former drug use affect his job? Does his sexual perversions?
How does society expect a felon to survive outside of jail if they don't give him another chance? Or do we want him to become a career criminal because he can't do anything else?
Gee, an anonymous coward tells me that kdelibs is not wanted by Debian. Then it's obviously true.
If you take a look at the archives for debian-devel and debian-legal, I've been posting and reading for almost two years now, despite not being a developer. I've never got the impression that Debian didn't want kdelibs in. I've never got the impression that Debian didn't want KDE in. I have got the impression that many Debian developers have put much blood, sweat, and tears into fixing the KDE problem, to no avail, and that some of them are quite frustrated. Considering that I've never read much discussion on kdelibs, and what discussion I've read has never been hostile towards kdelibs, I'd have to disagree with you.
I am curious - how you actually read any of debian-devel? debian-legal? Where is your primary evidence (i.e. the words or actions of Debian developers) that they don't want kdelibs? You've claimed kdelibs being in incoming, but frankly I don't see the evidence to prove that if it was there, that it was removed for dogmatic instead of technical reasons.
How would I know? The GPG/PGP signatures could have failed to check, it could have had some technical failing, it could have included some GPL code linked against Qt, it could have had some techincal failing, and it could have been uploaded by someone who is not a Debian developer. I don't know.
If there were no techical/security reasons to reject it, a developer has full recourse to the Debian lists. At no point in that time, did I see a complaint about kdelibs being rejected cross debian-devel or debian-legal. Neither did I see an ITP (Intent to Package) kdelibs message on debian-devel, which properly should preceed the uploading.
You do realize that QT is in Debian, both versions 1.x and 2.x (though I don't know if 1.x is in Potato.) It's the one license alone; it's the GPL and QPL in combenation that's the problem.
Yes, Harmony is still around. Yggsdrail (sp!) is hosting it but it's not linked from the first page.
The reason the free software community can accomplish big things, is because it cares to. Harmony never had a lot of developers, and most left after the QPL. It's also a moving target, like the W32 API is - since KDE refuses to care about Harmony, it'll be an enternal chase just to stay in one place (to compile KDE).
Nobody cared enough to fix it. It's not quite as easy as you say; for instance, all the GPL-QT example code needs to be expunged too. At the time, it was (incorrectly) believed that the LGPL libraries included the GPL gettext code (it actually included the LGPL gettext code from libc.) Once again, it takes work to do this - the people to look at are the Debian developers who currently package KDE (unofficially - see kde.tydc.com). Ask they why they haven't package the kdelibs for Debian. They are the logical ones to do it.
Why do you think the work ethic has changed? Many people taped their music then, just like they trade mp3's now. What about the widespread copying of computer programs back then? The means may have changed, but I don't think the people have.
Did you read the article? It reads out of/dev/random, but then it overwrites that with the return value from read (always 1). It gets a series of 1's and thinks it has random data. It only has a problem on systems with/dev/random, because then it's fooled into thinking it's getting random data when it's not.
Please read the article before you respond.
Re:If I wanted an under-powered, under-used OS,
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
I didn't say uname -a would tell you the distro, but it would certainly tell you more than uname does.
Re:If I wanted an under-powered, under-used OS,
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
Which proves what? That Stupid_Distro 0.0.1 had a Bourne shell script for true? That you accidently deleted/bin/true so you wrote it in shell script? Maybe even that the GNU fileutils maintainers had it as a shell script and then changed it a executable? You didn't even bother showing uname -a or telling us what distribution it was.
As for me, file `which true` tells me it's a dynamically linked executable. This on Debian Woody for the i386.
If you stop making software, who cares? Us "freakish free advocates" will continue to do so.
Furthermore, making music is a labor of love for more people then programming is. Most of those who make money, make it through live performances. Why is Napster going to affect them?
Slashdot Mirror
My original post? Take care with your attributions, please.
The post you were responding to try to convince someone, not coerce. Since you are a writer, I would hope you know the difference.
You said you were a writer, and that was how I intrepted it.
Your clients, if they use Word, can read a wide variety of file formats, including RTF. Your clients are also likely to maintain a few Unix boxen or some machines that don't run the latest version of Word, and would appreciate being able to read your document.
Finally, "If you're using a design process that doesn't focus on end-user needs, you should get the hell out of the industry." Which is a non-squitor, as none of us said we were in the industry. Anyway, most open-source software is written for the needs of creators who also use their software. Now, as for the various arcana that many closed-source programs require to make sure you're the person who paid for the software, what end-user needs are they the result of focusing on?
KOffice doesn't have all the features you need?
Gee, that's funny - I wonder how we have so many books from Asimov (typewriter), Steinbeck (pencil and paper), and other, pre-computer, writers. Or say Piers Anthony, who used a word processor under CP/M far inferior to KOffice. Maybe you should say it doesn't have all the features you want. Maybe they would appreciate you making polite suggestions on what features you would find useful.
Frankly, why should most of the Open-Source/Linux rah-rah-rah people care about what most people "need" in a computer? If you like Linux/Open-Source software, use it. If you don't, then don't. If you want, help. If not, get out of the way and stop complaining.
If you don't have WinZip, download it. What type of Windows developer are you if you can't decompress the most common Windows archives? EXE's should be avoided if possible - viruses, won't run on NT for Alpha, etc.
But did they have the manpower to run the technology? Was it of high enough quality to be usable? What about raw materials?
Anyway, somewhere around that point we developed a nuclear weapon. Since Germany wasn't going to develop one for a long time, the US could nuke them into submission.
Then use the standard (RFC something) way of indicating a sig, "\n-- \n" (a C style string,
of course.)
Usenet and FAQs (this is great for the hobbyist and someone with time on his hands, but for the sysadmin whose mission-critical database just went down, it's not quite a
sure thing that you'll get your system up in no time). Availability. Guaranteed availability.
We had one of the people from the local Linux group work on some Suns being used for DNA crunching in the Biochemistry labs. While he praised the sophisticated hardware interface (and loved working with 200 GB hard drives), he sometimes complained that there was nothing like HOWTO's for Solaris - that if he had a problem he couldn't just search the web for the answer, he usually had to debug it himself.
Reread the clause. "A form that is seperate from the Software, such as patches". It doesn't say rename it, it says keep it seperate from the software. This has been clear from the start, and said over and over by Troll Tech and others.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I accept chaos. I am not sure whether it accepts me. I know some people are terrified of the bomb. But then some people are terrified to be seen carrying a modern screen magazine. Experience teaches us that silence terrifies people the most.
-- Bob Dylan
I fail to see how you are offended by either of these actions. Wouldn't you like a crackhead/murderer/rapist free workplace? "Yeah... We hired Joe last week. Smart guy, knows systems like the back of his hand. No, we weren't aware that he was jailed twice for pedophilia, and arrested two other times for drug use..." Screw that - employers have the right to know about unlawful activities of their (potential) employees.
Actually, I don't care, so long as he isn't doing anything in the workplace. So what if he's a pedophile? It's the Justice[sic] System's job to deal with that, not mine. As long as he does what he's paid to do, and does it without annoying other employees, why should we care? Does his former drug use affect his job? Does his sexual perversions?
How does society expect a felon to survive outside of jail if they don't give him another chance? Or do we want him to become a career criminal because he can't do anything else?
Gee, an anonymous coward tells me that kdelibs is not wanted by Debian. Then it's obviously true.
If you take a look at the archives for debian-devel and debian-legal, I've been posting and reading for almost two years now, despite not being a developer. I've never got the impression that Debian didn't want kdelibs in. I've never got the impression that Debian didn't want KDE in. I have got the impression that many Debian developers have put much blood, sweat, and tears into fixing the KDE problem, to no avail, and that some of them are quite frustrated. Considering that I've never read much discussion on kdelibs, and what discussion I've read has never been hostile towards kdelibs, I'd have to disagree with you.
I am curious - how you actually read any of debian-devel? debian-legal? Where is your primary evidence (i.e. the words or actions of Debian developers) that they don't want kdelibs? You've claimed kdelibs being in incoming, but frankly I don't see the evidence to prove that if it was there, that it was removed for dogmatic instead of technical reasons.
False. Qt has always had a consistent license, so Debian has always distributed it, albeit in nonfree until Qt version 2.0.
How would I know? The GPG/PGP signatures could have failed to check, it could have had some technical failing, it could have included some GPL code linked against Qt, it could have had some techincal failing, and it could have been uploaded by someone who is not a Debian developer. I don't know.
If there were no techical/security reasons to reject it, a developer has full recourse to the Debian lists. At no point in that time, did I see a complaint about kdelibs being rejected cross debian-devel or debian-legal. Neither did I see an ITP (Intent to Package) kdelibs message on debian-devel, which properly should preceed the uploading.
Take a look at incoming.debian.org. It's not there, nor has it been there recently.
You do realize that QT is in Debian, both versions 1.x and 2.x (though I don't know if 1.x is in Potato.) It's the one license alone; it's the GPL and QPL in combenation that's the problem.
They packaged kdelibs; they did not upload it to Debian.
Sorry, I did mean 2.96. I think they are planning to go directly to 3.0, but I'm not sure.
Yes, Harmony is still around. Yggsdrail (sp!) is hosting it but it's not linked from the first page.
The reason the free software community can accomplish big things, is because it cares to. Harmony never had a lot of developers, and most left after the QPL. It's also a moving target, like the W32 API is - since KDE refuses to care about Harmony, it'll be an enternal chase just to stay in one place (to compile KDE).
Nobody cared enough to fix it. It's not quite as easy as you say; for instance, all the GPL-QT example code needs to be expunged too. At the time, it was (incorrectly) believed that the LGPL libraries included the GPL gettext code (it actually included the LGPL gettext code from libc.) Once again, it takes work to do this - the people to look at are the Debian developers who currently package KDE (unofficially - see kde.tydc.com). Ask they why they haven't package the kdelibs for Debian. They are the logical ones to do it.
No. 2.95.* releases are bugfix releases on 2.95. The new x86 backend will be coming out in 2.95 or 3.0, which ever comes first.
Why do you think the work ethic has changed? Many people taped their music then, just like they trade mp3's now. What about the widespread copying of computer programs back then? The means may have changed, but I don't think the people have.
Am I the only one to read this article and say "Isn't that a little mean, to compare this to the IBM PS/2 which hasn't been made in many years?"
Did you read the article? It reads out of /dev/random, but then it overwrites that with the return value from read (always 1). It gets a series of 1's and thinks it has random data. It only has a problem on systems with /dev/random, because then it's fooled into thinking it's getting random data when it's not.
Please read the article before you respond.
I didn't say uname -a would tell you the distro, but it would certainly tell you more than uname does.
Which proves what? That Stupid_Distro 0.0.1 had a Bourne shell script for true? That you accidently deleted /bin/true so you wrote it in shell script?
Maybe even that the GNU fileutils maintainers had it as a shell script and then changed it a executable? You didn't even bother showing uname -a or telling us what distribution it was.
As for me, file `which true` tells me it's a dynamically linked executable. This on Debian Woody for the i386.
If you stop making software, who cares? Us "freakish free advocates" will continue to do so.
Furthermore, making music is a labor of love for more people then programming is. Most of those who make money, make it through live performances. Why is Napster going to affect them?