So you bought a Slashdot banner ad, and got to write an article about your product. I know that Microsoft have advertised Visual Studio here, so do you know when we get to see an article by Bill Gates saying how great his product is?
According to the GPL though, you can't charge for source if it requires GPL software (in this case Linux) to run. I should know, I've been researching licenses for a product I am writing. It seems that some people don't know anything about the licenses they are so happy to promote.
This viral nature is what makes the GPL such a powerful license - a normal license would let these people use the free software (speech and beer) that the OSS community has worked on, and then charge for their contribution.
This is clearly unfair, and why RMS wrote the license as he did
Hehe - I've been wondering where you were. Are you being a good boy and taking your Lithium? Is that why they let you out of the asylum?
See you're posting at -1 nowadays....tough break. It's almost as if/.ers don't like to listen to a rambling lunatic. Well don't worry, we'll show them. When Arthur (my JavaScript AI lifeform) takes over the world, only you and me will be left. AHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
You should have listened to JordanH above. Then you would look less of a fool. Still, it's nice of you to have come out and admit that you will write any old crap just to defend something.
Many of us would be embarassed about doing that and wait until we had a real argument.
...and also if the newer version happens to sign all copyright over to the FSF, that can be done with little or no hassle.
It doesn't allow for the possibility of the license being superceded by a new version, it mandates it. The new version could state anything - even if the original software author disagrees.
Yup, Micro$$$oft0rZ is proven wrong, because the counsel of the FSF said so. And as we know, it is *actually impossible* for lawyers to be biased, wrong or untruthful. Time and time again we hear of people's cases being thrown out because the lawyer stands up and announces 'Your Honour, I have decided that my client does not have a case, so will save time by announcing it now.'
Perhaps my mathematical outlook on life gives me a different definition of the word 'proof'.
You've never managed to get a hard crash out of Linux? You've not been working it hard enough. I realise that an obvious comeback is 'hardware fault' but
I'm not talking about cheap home PC hardware
It's a bit of a catch-all anyway; it's impossible to say for certain whether hardware or software is at fault.
There was a time when the OS was rock solid and if your program crashed, it was because of bugs in the program.
No. No there wasn't. Or maybe there was, and since then Windows, Linux, *BSD, all Unices have all forgotten how to do this. Oh no, that's right. in the above list only Windows ever crashes; not like any of the other OSs *ever* do.
Also, out of curiosity, since you seem to know a lot about this golden age of solid OSs, could you tell me whether this was before or after the concept of protected mode CPUs?
Well, your uid implies you're not exactly new around here, so you should know that 'PUTTING TEH $ AS S IN TEH MMIRCO$$$OFT IS TEH FUNNY MUNOPULY!!!!!!!!' This is just an extension, and seems now to be recognised as standard practice.
Just be sure to remember that it's not childish or tired, nor does it show the author to be a prick.
It's not a real post thought. It starts off ostensibly on topic but with little or no point. It then meanders into the Slashdot playground that is the DMCA, before flowing into the great ocean that is 'Linux is ready for the desktop'.
Really, anything in that post except the first paragraph is off topic karma whoring, and the first paragraph is pretty crap too.
I think this is an excellent idea. Whenever/. remind us why we'll never pay them (by posting duplicates), we get to talk about anything. Here's my advice:
Be blunt with her. When you say something that she takes as an insult and starts being whiny and self-conscious, just squarely say 'shut up' or 'stop being stupid' Initially she'll think that you're being a bastard and get upset, but eventually she'll take it as the ultimate 'I am not ridiculing you' and stop being upset. Then when you do insult her deliberately, she'll know that she's really done something wrong.
Phew! That was exciting, and informative - I hope it will be modded as such. Any more questions for Dr. Gazbo's advice column should be posted as a reply to this comment for a speedy response. Kthx!
Why are you boasting about a 13 day uptime? I've had a Win95 system running for over a fortnight doing some genetic programming stuff and general PC stuff when I was awake - no crashes and worked *very* hard. Remember that 95 is notoriously unstable.
Win2K is far better; no figures come to mind, but they trounce 13 days.
Looking at a few of our Linux servers, the lowest uptime is 13 days (took it down to replace the power supply (no, it's not hot swappable)) the next is 172 days (took it down to physically relocate it) and the longest is 232 days (dunno - maybe it was genuinely unstable). And none of these are exceptional in any way!
I realise you may read comments along the lines of 'LOLOL!!! Windoze is teh reboot evert hour @ROFL!', but that doesn't mean that 13 days is even slightly interesting.
But hey, maybe you're used to OS9, with it's GNU-style philosophy of 'Software should be free (not as in speech, or beer, but free to write on whatever memory it feels like)'
I also read the/. writeup as being some miracle cure for OS crashes or the like. In fact, it's just non-volatile memory.
So, when you turn off/on your PC, you don't need to reboot, it can just put you right back where you were instantly. Unfortunately, in the context of a crash/instability, this would put you right back in an inoperable/unstable environment.
IIRC one of the chemicals essential to concrete is highly hygroscopic, so it could easily damage skin in this way. The fact that (as you said) it is exothermic isn't going to help matters either.
Someone tries to call me on this every time I use that word. No, it is not a typo. There is a key separating the 'g' and 'd' keys, so you can assume I meant to type that.
It does have a lot of bugfixes, and IMHO the beautiful look and feel really proves wrong all of the FUD about GNU/Linux not being ready for the desktop.
As you say, it was bound to break something (in your case useradd) but that's a small trade-off. Also as another poster pointed out, the only problems the author had were because he hadn't followed the installation instructions exactly, and so had dependency problems - of course you need to install the packages in the right order, any idiot could tell him that
An even better point though is that though useradd was broken, because it is Linux you are able to take a template copy of a home directory, and write a script so that when you want add a user you can replicate the functionality. I'd love to see you try that when the new user on Windoze breaks after an update.
Every day Linux just gets so much easier for newby desktop use - surely we've now reached the same level of ease of use as Windoze?
I agree. Especially given Slashdot is such a pro Linux site, where the order of the day is little apps that do a specific task. Adding IM into a mail client is nothing more than bloat.
Even adding PGP support is against this policy - an extensible API to allow integration yes, but built in support? (actually, it would be useful, but hey)
And yes, I agree about the pop-up contact info; I often curse Outlook for not doing that. In fact, pathetic though it is, I think that is the single best feature they came up with.
In response to the other poster: OK, you have a point that there is no reason that there should be radical improvements. It's just if I follow a link to some thinktank who've come up with 'the ultmate mail client' then I expect something slightly more groundbreaking than 'Well, kinda like Outlook. But with different colours. And incorporate some extra bloat'
Frankly no. The majority of the features they list I would turn off (they would have that option, right?) Some are good but obvious (integrate PGP - no-one's said *that* before)
Some just show that these people do not understand UI design (all powerful right-click. Yup, nice idea, but when you say how many options there are in modern clients, I wonder how you expect them all to fit in a context menu? As an example they give 'send all mail from this user to folder x' Well great, but to be all powerful they also need 'block email from this user','automatically reply to this user with x', direct all email with this subject to x' etc. all in the context menu)
Overall, a couple of nice ideas, a couple of dumb ideas, and a rehash of some oft-mentioned ideas. Hardly anything groundbreaking.
Re:I don't expect I'll ever sync a Zaurus to Outlo
on
Bad Review for the Zaurus
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Its amazing what some people do with things that they are not designed for.
No, it's amazing that the manufacturers of a PDA didn't allow for syncing to one of the (maybe the) most popular contacts/appointments management tools in use.
I guess you intimated that with your second statement, I'm just saying that it was never a misuse by the user, just a lacking feature from the manufacturer. If users want to sync to Outlook, then 'but it's Linux!' should be met by the valid argument 'Then don't use Linux!'
I realise that Linux as an OS does not prevent the syncing, and that a bridge could be written, but you get my point.
Sorry to be so insistent, but when talking about the opperating system as a hole could you PLEASE referr to it as GNU/Linux. Although the colonel of the GNU/Linux system is called 'Linux' the colonel is just a small part of the whole thing!! Most of the work was done by Richard Stallman as part of his GNUopperating system. Linus Torvalds took advantage of Richard Stallmans genorosity to give his opperating system away for free.
Richard Stallman is not angry that GNU/Linux uses the software he wrote, because he is one of the hero's of free (as in beer AND speech) software. But he does get upset that he is not creddited for his work that is been used and most people would of been upset as well. Read his side of the argument here. I didnt used to know about this untill I read that and now I know why he is upset and am trying to explain to people. Im sure you didnt know about this because no one writes GNU/Linux on./ so PLEASE people read Richard Stallmans side of the story. This isnt directed at you on you're own but at everyone on./ sorry if it sounds like Im having a go at you.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I'm lying. I've just remembered something even funnier, involving a C64 and a chicken coop in Afghanistan...
So you bought a Slashdot banner ad, and got to write an article about your product. I know that Microsoft have advertised Visual Studio here, so do you know when we get to see an article by Bill Gates saying how great his product is?
This viral nature is what makes the GPL such a powerful license - a normal license would let these people use the free software (speech and beer) that the OSS community has worked on, and then charge for their contribution.
This is clearly unfair, and why RMS wrote the license as he did
See you're posting at -1 nowadays....tough break. It's almost as if /.ers don't like to listen to a rambling lunatic. Well don't worry, we'll show them. When Arthur (my JavaScript AI lifeform) takes over the world, only you and me will be left. AHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Many of us would be embarassed about doing that and wait until we had a real argument.
It doesn't allow for the possibility of the license being superceded by a new version, it mandates it. The new version could state anything - even if the original software author disagrees.
Perhaps my mathematical outlook on life gives me a different definition of the word 'proof'.
You are such a fucking wanker.
Cheers for the insightful name, Tom, it really gives me confidence in your tech reports.
No. No there wasn't. Or maybe there was, and since then Windows, Linux, *BSD, all Unices have all forgotten how to do this. Oh no, that's right. in the above list only Windows ever crashes; not like any of the other OSs *ever* do.
Also, out of curiosity, since you seem to know a lot about this golden age of solid OSs, could you tell me whether this was before or after the concept of protected mode CPUs?
Just be sure to remember that it's not childish or tired, nor does it show the author to be a prick.
Really, anything in that post except the first paragraph is off topic karma whoring, and the first paragraph is pretty crap too.
Yes it is obvious, but I was arguing against the misleading title, not the usefulness of the non-volatile RAM.
Be blunt with her. When you say something that she takes as an insult and starts being whiny and self-conscious, just squarely say 'shut up' or 'stop being stupid' Initially she'll think that you're being a bastard and get upset, but eventually she'll take it as the ultimate 'I am not ridiculing you' and stop being upset. Then when you do insult her deliberately, she'll know that she's really done something wrong.
Phew! That was exciting, and informative - I hope it will be modded as such. Any more questions for Dr. Gazbo's advice column should be posted as a reply to this comment for a speedy response. Kthx!
Win2K is far better; no figures come to mind, but they trounce 13 days.
Looking at a few of our Linux servers, the lowest uptime is 13 days (took it down to replace the power supply (no, it's not hot swappable)) the next is 172 days (took it down to physically relocate it) and the longest is 232 days (dunno - maybe it was genuinely unstable). And none of these are exceptional in any way!
I realise you may read comments along the lines of 'LOLOL!!! Windoze is teh reboot evert hour @ROFL!', but that doesn't mean that 13 days is even slightly interesting.
But hey, maybe you're used to OS9, with it's GNU-style philosophy of 'Software should be free (not as in speech, or beer, but free to write on whatever memory it feels like)'
So, when you turn off/on your PC, you don't need to reboot, it can just put you right back where you were instantly. Unfortunately, in the context of a crash/instability, this would put you right back in an inoperable/unstable environment.
Bad writeup.
I once tried to fork the web. I ended up drowning a spider in my semen.
Someone tries to call me on this every time I use that word. No, it is not a typo. There is a key separating the 'g' and 'd' keys, so you can assume I meant to type that.
As you say, it was bound to break something (in your case useradd) but that's a small trade-off. Also as another poster pointed out, the only problems the author had were because he hadn't followed the installation instructions exactly, and so had dependency problems - of course you need to install the packages in the right order, any idiot could tell him that
An even better point though is that though useradd was broken, because it is Linux you are able to take a template copy of a home directory, and write a script so that when you want add a user you can replicate the functionality. I'd love to see you try that when the new user on Windoze breaks after an update.
Every day Linux just gets so much easier for newby desktop use - surely we've now reached the same level of ease of use as Windoze?
Even adding PGP support is against this policy - an extensible API to allow integration yes, but built in support? (actually, it would be useful, but hey)
And yes, I agree about the pop-up contact info; I often curse Outlook for not doing that. In fact, pathetic though it is, I think that is the single best feature they came up with.
In response to the other poster: OK, you have a point that there is no reason that there should be radical improvements. It's just if I follow a link to some thinktank who've come up with 'the ultmate mail client' then I expect something slightly more groundbreaking than 'Well, kinda like Outlook. But with different colours. And incorporate some extra bloat'
Some just show that these people do not understand UI design (all powerful right-click. Yup, nice idea, but when you say how many options there are in modern clients, I wonder how you expect them all to fit in a context menu? As an example they give 'send all mail from this user to folder x' Well great, but to be all powerful they also need 'block email from this user','automatically reply to this user with x', direct all email with this subject to x' etc. all in the context menu)
Overall, a couple of nice ideas, a couple of dumb ideas, and a rehash of some oft-mentioned ideas. Hardly anything groundbreaking.
I guess you intimated that with your second statement, I'm just saying that it was never a misuse by the user, just a lacking feature from the manufacturer. If users want to sync to Outlook, then 'but it's Linux!' should be met by the valid argument 'Then don't use Linux!'
I realise that Linux as an OS does not prevent the syncing, and that a bridge could be written, but you get my point.
Sorry to be so insistent, but when talking about the opperating system as a hole could you PLEASE referr to it as GNU/Linux. Although the colonel of the GNU/Linux system is called 'Linux' the colonel is just a small part of the whole thing!! Most of the work was done by Richard Stallman as part of his GNUopperating system. Linus Torvalds took advantage of Richard Stallmans genorosity to give his opperating system away for free.
./ so PLEASE people read Richard Stallmans side of the story. This isnt directed at you on you're own but at everyone on ./ sorry if it sounds like Im having a go at you.
Richard Stallman is not angry that GNU/Linux uses the software he wrote, because he is one of the hero's of free (as in beer AND speech) software. But he does get upset that he is not creddited for his work that is been used and most people would of been upset as well. Read his side of the argument here. I didnt used to know about this untill I read that and now I know why he is upset and am trying to explain to people. Im sure you didnt know about this because no one writes GNU/Linux on
Really? Was Stephen King inside at the time?