Don't call Microsoft "Microsloth". It just makes you look biased and unreliable. (Yes, I hate Microsoft too, but if you want people to agree with you, you have to look respectable.) ------
Well, one thing I know about old chips is that you can't even hold a soldering iron to them or they'll melt. I hardly think a blow torch will help. ------
No, the InstallShield way of doing things is a POS that is the reason why Windows programs can trash DLL versions and such.
Most of the modern unices have a central package management system that I would never trade for any per-package installation program. In fact, anyone could distribute a deb package, and all you'd have to do is run dpkg --force-depends -i commercialapp.deb && apt-get -f -y install, and the package and all its dependencies would get installed. ------
I was hoping to get a nice review of Progeny Debian, which (although it's a 1.0 release, so there's some bugs) I think is pretty slick, and it's totally Debian-compatible (you can apt-get from one to the other). ------
Why do you (anti-GPL people) constantly feel the need to insult people like me? Some people don't like Microsoft and want to have nothing to do with them. What's wrong with that?
There's also the "embrace, extend, and extinguish" argument -- that they don't want Microsoft to use their code to keep it free of Microsoft's "innovations". ------
As much as I hate to say it, spam has a use, after all. You should probably have an abundant supply of it by now, so you can use it to teach your kids about false advertising and netiquette. ------
Yes. Yes I do. However, in certain cases, and only in those cases, I am willing to trade a bit of freedom for security. I am willing to say that people should be prevented from or punished for doing things that deprive people of life, health, or property. But that's all. So, yes, being able to do anything you want is total freedom, but total freedom may not be a good thing.
The developers of GPLed software usually want the security of not having their software used by Microsoft.
On the other hand, I remain open to the position that total freedom is in fact a good thing. Unlike you, who just wants to push the GNU "non-GPL software is tainted" ideology.
Now you've offended me. I have never pushed the "`non-GPL software is tainted' ideology". I have absolutely no problem with people distributing software in the public-domain (or BSDL, which is almost the same thing). In fact, I advocate it when the goal is for the software to become an industry standard, or if the code is so trivial that nobody should have to rewrite it because of copyright issues. Heck, if it weren't for BSD, Darwin wouldn't exist. My central complaint is that anti-GPL/anti-RMS people keep pushing the "GPL software is tainted/viral/etc" ideology. ------
Slashdot Mirror
Moderators: I can understand moderating me down because you disagree, but "Troll"?? I hardly think so.
------
Excuse me while I duck from the moderators. Low karma, here I come!
------
No, he meant spelt, the grain.
------
s/bjectivity/objectivity/
------
ERTW
------
This post deserves to be modded up to +10.
------
Don't call Microsoft "Microsloth". It just makes you look biased and unreliable. (Yes, I hate Microsoft too, but if you want people to agree with you, you have to look respectable.)
------
What's wrong with HTTP? I thought it was pretty effective. Connect, send request, receive response, end transmission.
------
Well, one thing I know about old chips is that you can't even hold a soldering iron to them or they'll melt. I hardly think a blow torch will help.
------
Bloody vikings...
------
No, the InstallShield way of doing things is a POS that is the reason why Windows programs can trash DLL versions and such.
Most of the modern unices have a central package management system that I would never trade for any per-package installation program. In fact, anyone could distribute a deb package, and all you'd have to do is run dpkg --force-depends -i commercialapp.deb && apt-get -f -y install, and the package and all its dependencies would get installed.
------
What makes you think that your clients can't change the microcode anyway, just because you don't give them source code?
------
Like ntpdate?
------
I was hoping to get a nice review of Progeny Debian, which (although it's a 1.0 release, so there's some bugs) I think is pretty slick, and it's totally Debian-compatible (you can apt-get from one to the other).
------
There's also the "embrace, extend, and extinguish" argument -- that they don't want Microsoft to use their code to keep it free of Microsoft's "innovations".
------
Could it be a weird interaction between Linux and a Y2K bug?
------
I know this won't fix the problem, but it does render it moot: try installing ntpd and ntpdate. (NTP - Network Time Protocol).
------
What about the user-space NFS daemon? (Or, is it the NFS client that's broken?)
------
It's a lot easier to tell someone in person that "I didn't sign that" than it is over the internet to someone who has never met you.
------
As much as I hate to say it, spam has a use, after all. You should probably have an abundant supply of it by now, so you can use it to teach your kids about false advertising and netiquette.
------
*cough* DeCSS *cough*
------
Yes. Yes I do. However, in certain cases, and only in those cases, I am willing to trade a bit of freedom for security. I am willing to say that people should be prevented from or punished for doing things that deprive people of life, health, or property. But that's all. So, yes, being able to do anything you want is total freedom, but total freedom may not be a good thing.
The developers of GPLed software usually want the security of not having their software used by Microsoft.
On the other hand, I remain open to the position that total freedom is in fact a good thing. Unlike you, who just wants to push the GNU "non-GPL software is tainted" ideology.
Now you've offended me. I have never pushed the "`non-GPL software is tainted' ideology". I have absolutely no problem with people distributing software in the public-domain (or BSDL, which is almost the same thing). In fact, I advocate it when the goal is for the software to become an industry standard, or if the code is so trivial that nobody should have to rewrite it because of copyright issues. Heck, if it weren't for BSD, Darwin wouldn't exist. My central complaint is that anti-GPL/anti-RMS people keep pushing the "GPL software is tainted/viral/etc" ideology.
------
Didn't the PET have a VHF RF modulator built in (i.e. you connect it straight to the TV)? That would make reception a little easier.
------
A screw driver and a soldering iron will fix that.
------
Not the GNU definition, the OSD (Open Source Definition) and/or the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines).
------