Start thinking of a general boycott of the U.S by the rest of the world. It won't happen yet, but it's looking like it might have to happen soon. What's the U.S. going to do? Impose sanctions on EVERYONE? Just like unions make workers strong, I think a united front against U.S. bullying may be appropriate.
True, but as a tactful programmer with your own goals (I assume here that you want to make Linux the best OS for everyone), you should take ALL the input you can get, even from jerks, for your own benefit and the benefit of those who aren't jerks to you.
If somebody yelled, "LINUS! 2.4.15 CAUSES FILE CORRUPTION!!! YOUR IDIOT WAYS F***ED UP MY FILESYSTEM!!!" on the lkml, Linus *should* take the knowledge gained and apply it, rather than griping about how the person reported a major kernel flaw.
The other think is that when you are using public forums (mailing lists, etc), your attitude will scare away other people who could have been very helpful.
Summary: I'm not justifying these people's attitudes, but their crappy attitude doesn't justify yours.
given that future versions of Linux are going to replace XP, perhaps it's time to think less about bloat, and require memory, like the other guys
I completely disagree. Given that Microsoft's software is shoddy and bloated, one of the biggest selling points for Linux could be that "you don't have to spend $$$ for a new computer to use a word processor".
I love how people will criticize others work, but never contribute.
Quite bitching and do something about it
I love how arrogant programmers tell their users to do things themselves. Yes, I know those programmers are volounteers. No, that doesn't change anything.
It depends on how you see the question. Should Aunt Tillie ever be required to build her own kernels to get certain features? I think not. However, if Aunt Tillie wants to optimize her kernel for her particular system and configuration, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to make this easy for her.
Yes... if you receive code under the BSD license, you can re-release it yourself under GPL.. that may be true (I have no idea, sounds reasonable)
Not quite. You can release BSD code as part of a GPL'd work, since the the BSDL is compatible with the GPL. However, the BSD code is still under the BSDL, so someone could strip off the GPL'd code and distribute the original BSDL code under the BSDL.
For example:
---BEGIN GPL CODE---- A
----BEGIN BSDL CODE---- B
----END BSDL CODE---- C
---END GPL CODE----
If you received the above program, you could only distribute the whole work (A+B+C) under the GPL. However, if you only wanted to distribute (B), you could distribute it under the BSDL.
Do you honestly think Microsft can say "Nobody is allowed to use Windows anymore, under penalty of law. We are revoking the license?" no. They can't. Because they already GRANTED that license to everyone.
Actually, they didn't need to grant use rights. It's implied.
To summarize, Minix's original license would be beneficial to consumers, while protecting the profiteers' interests. Combine that with a 5-10-year software copyright term and a 3-year software patent term, and the software industry might actually start progressing again.
I always thought copyright was the ability to execute control over what you wrote, painted, sculpted, or said. Where did your definition come from?
I may have control over over the paper I wrote a program on, but as soon as I let you borrow that paper, and you pay to have it photocopied, that piece of paper is yours. If I demanded to have my piece of paper back, I would be (arguably) executing control over my paper. However, if I compel you in some way to not do whatever you want with that paper, including reading it, drawing on it, copying it, tearing it into little pieces, or using it as toilet paper, then I am executing power over you not "my paper" (which is actually your paper, anyway).
Just to throw it in for discussion, I would like to note that "property rights" are not inalienable. This might be tough for someone raised in a pure capitalist society, but there have been many cultures in the past that had very little concept of the idea of private ownership. (I'm thinking of North American aboriginal cultures.)
Under current copyright law, the GPL does not impose any restrictions. It only gives you the additional privilege of distributing copies (including modified copies) of the GPL'd program, if follow certain guidelines. Unlike most shrink-wrap licences, you don't have to agree to the GPL to read/use/modify the program, but (presumably) nothing else gives you the privilege of distributing copies of the program.
Just because it says "No part of this work may be reprinted in any form, physical, electronic, or otherwise, without written consent from the author." doesn't mean that it's actually enforcable by law. Remeber the pre-DMCA "you may not reverse-engineer" clauses?
I don't know if you can weigh antimatter in the traditional sense, but since mass is proportional to the amount of force required to accelerate a body a given amount (or something like that), I would say that if you can move antimatter, you can figure out its mass.
I mean, 16 bit processors are finally being used for many missions and 8 bit processors are still common.
It's very costly to mathematically prove that a program has zero errors (which is presumably what NASA does -- the data they input is another story). Once you've proven a given program works perfectly, there's no reason to "upgrade" it. Besides, most things would be simple physics calculations (trajectories, fuel consumption, etc), which don't change very much over time, so, again, there would be no need to re-invent the wheel.
The problem is that sound cards do not always
record at the exact same frequencies. Normally
this is fine, because every channel is being
recorded at the same rate -- in synch with every
other channel you are recording. If you put two
cards into your box and their sampling frequencies
deviate enough, by the end of a song, the two streams may have de-synchronized a noticeable amount.
Slashdot Mirror
Try Debian (or even Mandrake, which I've used once, which has a GUI package manager that's O.K.)
You *do* realize that the MAC can be spoofed, right?
Start thinking of a general boycott of the U.S by the rest of the world. It won't happen yet, but it's looking like it might have to happen soon. What's the U.S. going to do? Impose sanctions on EVERYONE? Just like unions make workers strong, I think a united front against U.S. bullying may be appropriate.
I think we really need a complete prohibition of calling anything less secure than a 128-bit symmetric cipher "secure". It is fraudulent advertising.
If somebody yelled, "LINUS! 2.4.15 CAUSES FILE CORRUPTION!!! YOUR IDIOT WAYS F***ED UP MY FILESYSTEM!!!" on the lkml, Linus *should* take the knowledge gained and apply it, rather than griping about how the person reported a major kernel flaw.
The other think is that when you are using public forums (mailing lists, etc), your attitude will scare away other people who could have been very helpful.
Summary: I'm not justifying these people's attitudes, but their crappy attitude doesn't justify yours.
given that future versions of Linux are going to replace XP, perhaps it's time to think less about bloat, and require memory, like the other guys I completely disagree. Given that Microsoft's software is shoddy and bloated, one of the biggest selling points for Linux could be that "you don't have to spend $$$ for a new computer to use a word processor".
debbugs.
I love how arrogant programmers tell their users to do things themselves. Yes, I know those programmers are volounteers. No, that doesn't change anything.
It depends on how you see the question. Should Aunt Tillie ever be required to build her own kernels to get certain features? I think not. However, if Aunt Tillie wants to optimize her kernel for her particular system and configuration, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to make this easy for her.
From what I understand of your protocol, the keys can be pre-calculated, which would GREATLY reduce the effectiveness of the scheme.
Ah. I thought it was a system to waste spammers' CPU cycles.
This is broken. People will simply start selling CD-ROMS with pre-calculated hashes.
Or maybe it's a restriction of your freedom to restrict others...
Not quite. You can release BSD code as part of a GPL'd work, since the the BSDL is compatible with the GPL. However, the BSD code is still under the BSDL, so someone could strip off the GPL'd code and distribute the original BSDL code under the BSDL.
For example:
---BEGIN GPL CODE----
A
----BEGIN BSDL CODE----
B
----END BSDL CODE----
C
---END GPL CODE----
If you received the above program, you could only distribute the whole work (A+B+C) under the GPL. However, if you only wanted to distribute (B), you could distribute it under the BSDL.
Actually, they didn't need to grant use rights. It's implied.
To summarize, Minix's original license would be beneficial to consumers, while protecting the profiteers' interests. Combine that with a 5-10-year software copyright term and a 3-year software patent term, and the software industry might actually start progressing again.
I may have control over over the paper I wrote a program on, but as soon as I let you borrow that paper, and you pay to have it photocopied, that piece of paper is yours. If I demanded to have my piece of paper back, I would be (arguably) executing control over my paper. However, if I compel you in some way to not do whatever you want with that paper, including reading it, drawing on it, copying it, tearing it into little pieces, or using it as toilet paper, then I am executing power over you not "my paper" (which is actually your paper, anyway).
Just to throw it in for discussion, I would like to note that "property rights" are not inalienable. This might be tough for someone raised in a pure capitalist society, but there have been many cultures in the past that had very little concept of the idea of private ownership. (I'm thinking of North American aboriginal cultures.)
Under current copyright law, the GPL does not impose any restrictions. It only gives you the additional privilege of distributing copies (including modified copies) of the GPL'd program, if follow certain guidelines. Unlike most shrink-wrap licences, you don't have to agree to the GPL to read/use/modify the program, but (presumably) nothing else gives you the privilege of distributing copies of the program.
Just because it says "No part of this work may be reprinted in any form, physical, electronic, or otherwise, without written consent from the author." doesn't mean that it's actually enforcable by law. Remeber the pre-DMCA "you may not reverse-engineer" clauses?
I don't know if you can weigh antimatter in the traditional sense, but since mass is proportional to the amount of force required to accelerate a body a given amount (or something like that), I would say that if you can move antimatter, you can figure out its mass.
It's very costly to mathematically prove that a program has zero errors (which is presumably what NASA does -- the data they input is another story). Once you've proven a given program works perfectly, there's no reason to "upgrade" it. Besides, most things would be simple physics calculations (trajectories, fuel consumption, etc), which don't change very much over time, so, again, there would be no need to re-invent the wheel.
Indeed. We all know how they handled the almighty new, improved, secure version of Windows... We'll have to see about that, indeed...
apt-get install apache php4 and uncommenting 3 lines in httpd.conf was simple enough for me. Of course, I'm a spoiled Debian user.
The problem is that sound cards do not always record at the exact same frequencies. Normally this is fine, because every channel is being recorded at the same rate -- in synch with every other channel you are recording. If you put two cards into your box and their sampling frequencies deviate enough, by the end of a song, the two streams may have de-synchronized a noticeable amount.
You don't GET a STOP error by default in XP... at least so I've been told by an XP user.