You're trolling, obviously. As an MIT grad, I can assure you they have a strong humanities program (8 humanities courses are required to graduate). I graduated with a music major.
In terms of CS students doing CS from day one - only if they choose to. In fact, you don't even choose your major until Sophomore year - freshman are doing the basic courses (physics, calculus, chemistry, etc), and getting a feel for what they want to go into.
In terms of uniformity of students, well, yes, they are uniformly smart enough to get in. Other than that, they come from around the world, all cultures, all income levels, all (you name it).
Most valuable about the MIT education was learning to solve problems, and getting direct info from some of the best folks doing research in the fields (of course, some were good teachers, some weren't). You can't beat getting the latest & greatest info from the person doing the research in the labs there (I took courses from people who literally wrote the textbooks, and they gave more info, because the textbook was out-of-date by the time it was published).
With "Open Source" specificly "GNU" you have the right to USE the software, but you are guranteed NO SUPPORT. Your guranteed NOTHING really.
Unless you choose to purchase it (try looking for it, many companies are selling support). Of course, with MS, you pay for the licensing AND for the support.
Atleast with Microsoft and Windows NT advanced server on specific hardware your guranteed 99.99 percent availability.
Read the EULA recently? They guarantee nothing. They claim 4-9's, but then don't show anyone actually getting it. BTW: Anyone guaranteeing 99.99% without including HW & apps is lying through their teeth - that's a max of 1 hour of donwtime PER YEAR.
Actually, the major problem is the 1KW / m2 max solar insolation at the surface of the earth (i.e. noon, clear skies, etc). After you take into account night (minimum 1/2 of your time, regardless of where you live), the the movement of the sun (divide by 1.44 for average), and clouds, you end up with a pretty lousy average power to start with (at best, 347 W / m2, assuming no clouds, more likely 250 W / m2). Now start figuring efficencies into it (including transmission losses).
Solar is good, and should be a part of the total equation, but people need to understand it's not the "silver bullet" of energy (of course, nothing probably is).
Depends on the contract. If you're selling yearly support contracts, the best way to make money is to be certain your users don't call - they've already paid, and that call is an expense. How do you make certain your customers don't need to call? Make the product very good, with lots of help.
(of course, now the question is, why would they buy a support contract if they're never going to use it, but that's a different issue).
Where in the GPL does it state you have to change the name? Unless Noonberg trademarked the name "xpdf", GPL gives anyone who wants to the right to modify & distribute changes. That's the same reason Red Hat, Debian, et al, can distribute Linux, including patched versions (Red Hat's 2.2.16-5.0 is not the same as Linus' 2.2.16).
Re:Backdoor challenge for you hackers...
on
NSA Linux In Depth
·
· Score: 1
Alas for that theory, what they released was the source to the modified kernel (not even the binary). You have to use your own compiler to compile it. Of course, if they've been actually controlling gcc for the last umpteen years...
That's what distros are for. Like GNOME - choose a GNOME distro. Like KDE - choose a KDE distro. I am thinking like a newbie - one who wants things that work his/her way, not the way someone thinks I should.
In terms of standard menu configurations - KDE can choose one way, GNOME another, as long as they interoperate (that I agree with - themeing and ways for apps to signal things to the DE).
As far as "workstation" installs go - all the distros I know have a "workstation" install that defaults to X. So that's there.
In terms of newbies booting into single user - no I don't expect them to. I expect them to eventually become non-newbies (it's called learning, something I always assume people can do). I also expect them to know folks who can fix the system using such things as single user mode.
I'm going to keep harping on this as long as people keep harping on the "one way" for newbies. Standardize so the apps can all work (LSB), but don't think that newbies are incapable of making choices. Let them choose.
Unless you believe it would be better if we only had one standard car, in one standard color.
1. Provides one window manager.
I see no reason a standards body can't decide on a standard default for the window manager. We aren't saying don't make the rest available. Just pick one for the default, regardless of distro, aside from specializied distro's that need to be different. Most non-tech users will stick with the default which would provide a commonality accross various people's installs.
Why? What I like and what you like are / can be different. My recommendation on KDE/GNOME is for the user to decide what's best for them. Choice is good.
2. Provide one shell.
See above answer. Hopefully the user wont' need the shell, but if they do, it can't hurt to have a
standard default.
There is:/bin/sh. However, some people like different things. Choice is good.
3. Provide a unified Linux "look and feel"
This one really WOULD be nice. Lack of consistancy in user interfaces drives me nuts in linux.
Because what you like isn't what I like? Choice is good.
4. Remove options.
Fine. Make two different sets of config screen. Advanced and simple. Make simple the default. Make it so you can change the default to Advanaced if you so chose. There, done. Newbies and non-techies don't have to worry about it, but with a magical check box we can forever unlock the "Advanced" options. That doesn't sound unreasonable.
That's an install matter. GNOME is moving in this direction in it's gnome-control center. At lest you admit, Choice is Good.
5. Stability stuffs...
Yeah, duh. Of course we want stability. But, duh, the command line needs to be a last resort if all else fails. Seems like she was stating the obvious there...
Unless you like the command line. Choice is Good. (BTW: Command line has nothing to do with stability - stability has to do with the kernel / software, not the UI. Having said that, the advantage of command line (with all config in text files) is that, at worst case, you boot up single user / vi and edit).
> To have the lawyers go over the code you write to make sure it does not infringe on the GPL takes money.
Why? If it's kernel, it's GPL. If it's app, it's whatever you want (note: Oracle runs on Linux. Oracle is not Open Source).
If the concern is GPL'ing of kernel code to make it run well on Jornada's proprietary HW, read esr's paper on driver development in _The Cathedral and The Bazaar_ (hint - you WANT them to copy you, because if they're copying you, they're not innnovating).
Took all of 2 seconds, no lawyer needed.
> NetBSD already boots, and doesn't have a long, lengthy license requiring a staff dedicated to preventing the release of company Intellectual Property as expressed in source code.
Actually, the issue is not the GPL, but the fact that the latest mozilla has crypto in it. The Debian folks are in the process of changing things so crypto can go into main (because of changed US law), until then, new mozillas aren't going in. Galeon depends on mozilla, thus galeon is held up. For galeon download, use:
deb http://galeon.euber.net/galeon/ ximian/
or
deb http://galeon.euber.net/galeon/ sid/
Even better for those ads (I just read one in Business Week), having talked about how Window 2000 is "designed for 5 9's" they talk about companies running W2K. Note that they don't say these companies are GETTING 5 9's from W2K. Nice miss-direction there.
Actually, they can have bugs, but not in the security section (all code has bugs - 1st law of programming). However, Trusted Systems are designed to be trusted DESPITE errors / bugs.
Third - change the priority of the patent system. Currently, the PTO gets paid to award patents. Instead, award them for NOT issueing patents. Every patent app requires a fee. Successful patenting gets a rebate.
Actually, the original Democratic-Republicans became today's Democrats. They were the state's rights (Thomas Jefferson) party against the Whiggs & Federalists (John Adams) party. In the 1850's, an upstart party called the Republicans (Federalist in nature) appeared, that eventually managed to get a president elected (Abraham Lincoln). Note that these same Republicans started the national parks/monuments movement to protect the environment (Teddy Roosevelt)
> If the software is a work made for hire -- which, according to your account, it is
Actually, it's not clear if it was a work for hire or a contract basis - and they're different in terms of copyright. Even if it's a work-for-hire, he did receive permission to GPL. This may or may not be correctly done (IANAL, and would advise consulting a lawyer).
> The GPL prevents commercial reuse of the code
Still spewing FUD on the GPL? Cygnus made lots of money on GCC, which was under that nasty GPL. Learn the difference between commercial & proprietary.
Yep, it's a piece of the Constitution. In particular, the piece of the US Constitution that grants Congress the right to create patents. If they don't meet that clause, they're unconstitutional. You can define it however you want, but that's the little sentance that empowers the whole thing (in the US).
Nope, they don't have full rights to determine how it's distributed & presented. We have this little law called Copyright (derived from the constitutional right granted to congress to promote progress in the useful arts & sciences). One of it's features is that copyright is, well, the right to create original copies. What people do with the copies (aside from creating new copies to distribute by sale or giving away) is not restricted.
Which, of course, explains used book stores, used CD stores, libraries (who give them away), your right to sell the works at a garage sale, etc.
BTW: Back early this century, book publishers tried to pull some restrictions on resale of books. The Supreme Court ruled that they may want it, but they couldn't have it - feel free to sell that book for $.01 if you want.
(All of the above for US folks - non-US, check your laws for what rights you have. Also, IANAL, etc).
Sounds great. One slight catch - without a license, only the owner can distribute the code or derivitive works of the code (copyright law). That's why you need a license - for the redistribution, not for use.
Actually, in copyright law (which is what we're talking about here), there's only one sense - a work with no copyright (either through explicit release of copyright, or through expiration of copyright).
> Additionally, the other poster comparing IP laws with housing laws are completely misguided. These are two different set of laws.
Well, yes and no. IP is different from contract law, but the GPL is a contract that extends copyright. So, yes, contract law (equity) would, I think, play a role. Note that equity is different from law in terms of the court.
1. MS EULA takes away rights.
2. GPL grants rights.
Also, although neither has been fully testing in court, given the nature of contract law, it's questionable whether the MS EULA is enforcable (was there compensation from both sides, was it agreed to by both sides, etc). GPL, on the other hand, includes clauses that cover all the aspects of contract law I studied in my one term of it (offer & acceptance, consideration, lawful purpose, proper form. The only questionable one would be competence of the parties, since it depends on whether or not you're competent).
Slashdot Mirror
You're trolling, obviously. As an MIT grad, I can assure you they have a strong humanities program (8 humanities courses are required to graduate). I graduated with a music major.
In terms of CS students doing CS from day one - only if they choose to. In fact, you don't even choose your major until Sophomore year - freshman are doing the basic courses (physics, calculus, chemistry, etc), and getting a feel for what they want to go into.
In terms of uniformity of students, well, yes, they are uniformly smart enough to get in. Other than that, they come from around the world, all cultures, all income levels, all (you name it).
Most valuable about the MIT education was learning to solve problems, and getting direct info from some of the best folks doing research in the fields (of course, some were good teachers, some weren't). You can't beat getting the latest & greatest info from the person doing the research in the labs there (I took courses from people who literally wrote the textbooks, and they gave more info, because the textbook was out-of-date by the time it was published).
With "Open Source" specificly "GNU" you have the right to USE the software, but you are guranteed NO SUPPORT. Your guranteed NOTHING really.
Unless you choose to purchase it (try looking for it, many companies are selling support). Of course, with MS, you pay for the licensing AND for the support.
Atleast with Microsoft and Windows NT advanced server on specific hardware your guranteed 99.99 percent availability.
Read the EULA recently? They guarantee nothing. They claim 4-9's, but then don't show anyone actually getting it. BTW: Anyone guaranteeing 99.99% without including HW & apps is lying through their teeth - that's a max of 1 hour of donwtime PER YEAR.
Actually, the major problem is the 1KW / m2 max solar insolation at the surface of the earth (i.e. noon, clear skies, etc). After you take into account night (minimum 1/2 of your time, regardless of where you live), the the movement of the sun (divide by 1.44 for average), and clouds, you end up with a pretty lousy average power to start with (at best, 347 W / m2, assuming no clouds, more likely 250 W / m2). Now start figuring efficencies into it (including transmission losses).
Solar is good, and should be a part of the total equation, but people need to understand it's not the "silver bullet" of energy (of course, nothing probably is).
How about the TLA Lookup Archive?
Depends on the contract. If you're selling yearly support contracts, the best way to make money is to be certain your users don't call - they've already paid, and that call is an expense. How do you make certain your customers don't need to call? Make the product very good, with lots of help.
(of course, now the question is, why would they buy a support contract if they're never going to use it, but that's a different issue).
Were you alive in '73? I was, and 55 was about saving fuel (it was called the fuel crisis). Saving lives was secondary.
Where in the GPL does it state you have to change the name? Unless Noonberg trademarked the name "xpdf", GPL gives anyone who wants to the right to modify & distribute changes. That's the same reason Red Hat, Debian, et al, can distribute Linux, including patched versions (Red Hat's 2.2.16-5.0 is not the same as Linus' 2.2.16).
Alas for that theory, what they released was the source to the modified kernel (not even the binary). You have to use your own compiler to compile it. Of course, if they've been actually controlling gcc for the last umpteen years...
>
That's what distros are for. Like GNOME - choose a GNOME distro. Like KDE - choose a KDE distro. I am thinking like a newbie - one who wants things that work his/her way, not the way someone thinks I should.
In terms of standard menu configurations - KDE can choose one way, GNOME another, as long as they interoperate (that I agree with - themeing and ways for apps to signal things to the DE).
As far as "workstation" installs go - all the distros I know have a "workstation" install that defaults to X. So that's there.
In terms of newbies booting into single user - no I don't expect them to. I expect them to eventually become non-newbies (it's called learning, something I always assume people can do). I also expect them to know folks who can fix the system using such things as single user mode.
I'm going to keep harping on this as long as people keep harping on the "one way" for newbies. Standardize so the apps can all work (LSB), but don't think that newbies are incapable of making choices. Let them choose.
Unless you believe it would be better if we only had one standard car, in one standard color.
1. Provides one window manager.
/bin/sh. However, some people like different things. Choice is good.
I see no reason a standards body can't decide on a standard default for the window manager. We aren't saying don't make the rest available. Just pick one for the default, regardless of distro, aside from specializied distro's that need to be different. Most non-tech users will stick with the default which would provide a commonality accross various people's installs.
Why? What I like and what you like are / can be different. My recommendation on KDE/GNOME is for the user to decide what's best for them. Choice is good.
2. Provide one shell.
See above answer. Hopefully the user wont' need the shell, but if they do, it can't hurt to have a
standard default.
There is:
3. Provide a unified Linux "look and feel"
This one really WOULD be nice. Lack of consistancy in user interfaces drives me nuts in linux.
Because what you like isn't what I like? Choice is good.
4. Remove options.
Fine. Make two different sets of config screen. Advanced and simple. Make simple the default. Make it so you can change the default to Advanaced if you so chose. There, done. Newbies and non-techies don't have to worry about it, but with a magical check box we can forever unlock the "Advanced" options. That doesn't sound unreasonable.
That's an install matter. GNOME is moving in this direction in it's gnome-control center. At lest you admit, Choice is Good.
5. Stability stuffs...
Yeah, duh. Of course we want stability. But, duh, the command line needs to be a last resort if all else fails. Seems like she was stating the obvious there...
Unless you like the command line. Choice is Good. (BTW: Command line has nothing to do with stability - stability has to do with the kernel / software, not the UI. Having said that, the advantage of command line (with all config in text files) is that, at worst case, you boot up single user / vi and edit).
> To have the lawyers go over the code you write to make sure it does not infringe on the GPL takes money.
Why? If it's kernel, it's GPL. If it's app, it's whatever you want (note: Oracle runs on Linux. Oracle is not Open Source).
If the concern is GPL'ing of kernel code to make it run well on Jornada's proprietary HW, read esr's paper on driver development in _The Cathedral and The Bazaar_ (hint - you WANT them to copy you, because if they're copying you, they're not innnovating).
Took all of 2 seconds, no lawyer needed.
> NetBSD already boots, and doesn't have a long, lengthy license requiring a staff dedicated to preventing the release of company Intellectual Property as expressed in source code.
Neither does Linux.
Actually, the issue is not the GPL, but the fact that the latest mozilla has crypto in it. The Debian folks are in the process of changing things so crypto can go into main (because of changed US law), until then, new mozillas aren't going in. Galeon depends on mozilla, thus galeon is held up. For galeon download, use:
deb http://galeon.euber.net/galeon/ ximian/
or
deb http://galeon.euber.net/galeon/ sid/
Even better for those ads (I just read one in Business Week), having talked about how Window 2000 is "designed for 5 9's" they talk about companies running W2K. Note that they don't say these companies are GETTING 5 9's from W2K. Nice miss-direction there.
Actually, they can have bugs, but not in the security section (all code has bugs - 1st law of programming). However, Trusted Systems are designed to be trusted DESPITE errors / bugs.
Try Security Enhanced Linux.
FYI: All the USPTO OCR stuff runs on Linux. There was a write-up a while ago in Linux Journal.
Third - change the priority of the patent system. Currently, the PTO gets paid to award patents. Instead, award them for NOT issueing patents. Every patent app requires a fee. Successful patenting gets a rebate.
Actually, the original Democratic-Republicans became today's Democrats. They were the state's rights (Thomas Jefferson) party against the Whiggs & Federalists (John Adams) party. In the 1850's, an upstart party called the Republicans (Federalist in nature) appeared, that eventually managed to get a president elected (Abraham Lincoln). Note that these same Republicans started the national parks/monuments movement to protect the environment (Teddy Roosevelt)
Of course, today, lots of thngs are different.
> If the software is a work made for hire -- which, according to your account, it is
Actually, it's not clear if it was a work for hire or a contract basis - and they're different in terms of copyright. Even if it's a work-for-hire, he did receive permission to GPL. This may or may not be correctly done (IANAL, and would advise consulting a lawyer).
> The GPL prevents commercial reuse of the code
Still spewing FUD on the GPL? Cygnus made lots of money on GCC, which was under that nasty GPL. Learn the difference between commercial & proprietary.
Yep, it's a piece of the Constitution. In particular, the piece of the US Constitution that grants Congress the right to create patents. If they don't meet that clause, they're unconstitutional. You can define it however you want, but that's the little sentance that empowers the whole thing (in the US).
Nope, they don't have full rights to determine how it's distributed & presented. We have this little law called Copyright (derived from the constitutional right granted to congress to promote progress in the useful arts & sciences). One of it's features is that copyright is, well, the right to create original copies. What people do with the copies (aside from creating new copies to distribute by sale or giving away) is not restricted.
Which, of course, explains used book stores, used CD stores, libraries (who give them away), your right to sell the works at a garage sale, etc.
BTW: Back early this century, book publishers tried to pull some restrictions on resale of books. The Supreme Court ruled that they may want it, but they couldn't have it - feel free to sell that book for $.01 if you want.
(All of the above for US folks - non-US, check your laws for what rights you have. Also, IANAL, etc).
Sounds great. One slight catch - without a license, only the owner can distribute the code or derivitive works of the code (copyright law). That's why you need a license - for the redistribution, not for use.
Actually, in copyright law (which is what we're talking about here), there's only one sense - a work with no copyright (either through explicit release of copyright, or through expiration of copyright).
> Additionally, the other poster comparing IP laws with housing laws are completely misguided. These are two different set of laws.
Well, yes and no. IP is different from contract law, but the GPL is a contract that extends copyright. So, yes, contract law (equity) would, I think, play a role. Note that equity is different from law in terms of the court.
IANAL, etc.
1. MS EULA takes away rights.
2. GPL grants rights.
Also, although neither has been fully testing in court, given the nature of contract law, it's questionable whether the MS EULA is enforcable (was there compensation from both sides, was it agreed to by both sides, etc). GPL, on the other hand, includes clauses that cover all the aspects of contract law I studied in my one term of it (offer & acceptance, consideration, lawful purpose, proper form. The only questionable one would be competence of the parties, since it depends on whether or not you're competent).