So, vigilantism is ok? I thought the touchy-feely crowd was against it -- you know, Second Amendment, right to self-defense, and those other things they agitate against.
Doh! I get it! It's okay to be a vigilante for lefty causes! For instance, Eco-terrorism is okay!
Silly me. I keep forgetting about the double standard.
well, thats 18 machines, 20 sets of licenses, you're all set -have a nice day
Rather, "Ok, you got us today, but we'll catch you next time."
The BSA is a reprehensible quasi-police marketing agency. Of course, I'm all for them cracking the heads of those people and businesses violating Microsoft's ever-changing, viral-like (in their ability to rapidly mutate), restrictive and invasive license agreements. This is because it can only help free software in the long run, as the BSA offends and penalizes Microsoft's (and Adobe's, etc.) customers.
Writing specifically for Windows gives Microsoft more validity. Supporting WINE implies that you are pretty anti-Microsoft and that your actions are meant to negate the purpose of Microsoft's framework.
This is an extremely Microsoft-centric view. Perhaps he simply wants to make his software usable by more people in the easiest way possible.
By making an application fall under both Windows and WINE, you are supporting Microsoft while trying to lead away Microsoft users, a bad idea.
And why is that? It's not like Microsoft is the Promised Land.
"Too late to work within the system, to early to put them against the wall."
We need to repeal the 17th Amendment, strip all corporations of their "human rights," and return to the setup where corporations are special, rare, and charted by acto of congress -- like the U.S. Postal Service, for instance.
"Ready-to-Run" is a misnomer. I had to deal with the unix FrontRage extensions at my previous company (a web hosting provider), and Ready-to-Run's software was total dreck.
You're right. NT, like its VMS predecessor, is more secure by design. It's just that the Windows User Interface and Windows applications are written under the assumption that users have complete control of the machine. Unix apps are written with the understanding that there are any number of users, none of which are root.
He was my teacher! I wish I'd known about the thumb -- I would have asked about it. We would on occasion freeze his bag lunch in the vat of liquid nitrogen. Hehe. Fun class.
Heh. I switched from GSM (Cingular) to CDMA (Verizon) for largely the same reasons -- my Verizon phone has coverage essentially everwhere that's not inside a faraday cage, it was cheaper, and I can use my minutes for voice, data and fax in any combination.
I would like to see free SMS and caller-pays, though.
We're done. We've developed the last system ever needed in mobile communications. We'll get our first GSM handset on the market before the Americans, so that also means our development system works best. And we'll make it illegal to implement anything else, because we know we're right.
I thought that was pretty much the point of his article -- that higher-level enhancements cannot make up for deficiencies in the RF layer. Hence, GSM was doomed, because it's built on top of TDMA, which is inadequate. The CDMA RF layer is more estensible and more backwards-comaptible, so pretty uch everyone has chosen it for use in the next round of cell phone network architectures.
E.g., he was making an argument about the RF layer, more than the stuff on top of that. In the article, he even compared 56k modems to ethernet, to provide an analogy for the TDMA vs CDMA RF media access layers.
Okay, so if I use your XSLTFilter on a Web site that displays XML-indexed goatse pictures, you'll suddenly become convinced they're the most attractive thing you've ever seen?
Uh, that's a non-sequitur. I'd not be happy about the content of your site, but I'd be happy that you're using XSLTFilter. And, I wouldn't loudly proclaim that you're a moron for debasing XSLTFilter in that way. You could even modify and redistribute XSLTFilter (it's LGPLed) to produce a porn-only XSLT filter, somehow, and I'd think that was kind of cool -- because you're using XSLTFilter.
the confusion so many people have between criticism and censorship
Tell that to the people who are really forceful in their criticism. The people who seem to be morally offended at RedHat's new user interface.
Real free software people wouldn't be emotionally offended by others taking advantage of their own freedoms to modify the software. RedHat is doing what the GPL allows. This is what it's all about, guys -- freedom with the software you use, develop with and distribute.
AFAIK, it is the case. RedHat's trying to do something for people who aren't emotionally involved with either KDE or Gnome -- make a consistent, usable desktop. I think this is a good thing to do. KDE and Gnome are working together these days (see freedesktop.org). This is encouragement from RedHat to make KDE and Gnome more interoperable. If they don't interoperate, then there make as well be two entirely separate types of desktop linux -- KDE linux and Gnome Linux. Vendors would need to pick one (or both) to support.
Macs have a default interface. Windows has a default interface. Linux systems should as well. Note that you can run QT programs on Windows and MacOS -- similarly, you can use the toolkit of your own choice on a Linux system. But having a default desktop system would be a good thing for Linux in the desktop arena.
I'm sure that, since he is no longer an employee, he'll have even more influence over RedHat's decisions.
I think it would have been better for him to demonstrate a better way -- such as making a set of RPMs for RedHat 8.0 available for how he thinks KDE should be. I remember downloading RPMs from ~bero in the past.
I'm sure Hollings will be really receptive to my concerns about locking in the DOI to Microsoft-only systems. Not.
But, as you pointed out, my interest does run deeper than making "snide remarks." I am a taxpayer. I live in Raleigh, N.C. I plan to call Senator Jesse Helms' office and ask him to review the DOI's decision to lock out non-Microsoft products in favor of those made by Microsoft -- a monopoly currently being prosecuted by the federal government. I'll point out that there are other U.S. software companies that make fine products, and it's in the government's interest to avoid single sources for their systems. I'll mention RedHat -- based in Raleigh, just like Senator Helms. I'll mention Sun and Apple. I'll mention IBM and Oracle.
Okay, I expect all those people complaining about the "open source must be considered" laws to start complaining about this "nothing but Windows is allowed to be considered" administrative policy.
Troll? Maybe. But I would expect those principled people who go on about the "freedom to innovate" to object to a strict Microsoft-only policy -- simply because they objected to other, less stringent policies, such as the "open source software must be considered" policies. These policies didn't rule out the use of commercial software. This policy rules out the use of anything but Microsoft software. Where's the "freedom to innovate?"
Slashdot Mirror
So, vigilantism is ok? I thought the touchy-feely crowd was against it -- you know, Second Amendment, right to self-defense, and those other things they agitate against.
Doh! I get it! It's okay to be a vigilante for lefty causes! For instance, Eco-terrorism is okay!
Silly me. I keep forgetting about the double standard.
Busybodies are all basically the same -- annoying fucks who think they know better than you do.
well, thats 18 machines, 20 sets of licenses, you're all set -have a nice day
Rather, "Ok, you got us today, but we'll catch you next time."
The BSA is a reprehensible quasi-police marketing agency. Of course, I'm all for them cracking the heads of those people and businesses violating Microsoft's ever-changing, viral-like (in their ability to rapidly mutate), restrictive and invasive license agreements. This is because it can only help free software in the long run, as the BSA offends and penalizes Microsoft's (and Adobe's, etc.) customers.
How fast is Jag in MOL? Can it take advantage of 3d hardware?
Writing specifically for Windows gives Microsoft more validity. Supporting WINE implies that you are pretty anti-Microsoft and that your actions are meant to negate the purpose of Microsoft's framework.
This is an extremely Microsoft-centric view. Perhaps he simply wants to make his software usable by more people in the easiest way possible.
By making an application fall under both Windows and WINE, you are supporting Microsoft while trying to lead away Microsoft users, a bad idea.
And why is that? It's not like Microsoft is the Promised Land.
"Too late to work within the system, to early to put them against the wall."
We need to repeal the 17th Amendment, strip all corporations of their "human rights," and return to the setup where corporations are special, rare, and charted by acto of congress -- like the U.S. Postal Service, for instance.
VNC!
"Ready-to-Run" is a misnomer. I had to deal with the unix FrontRage extensions at my previous company (a web hosting provider), and Ready-to-Run's software was total dreck.
You're right. NT, like its VMS predecessor, is more secure by design. It's just that the Windows User Interface and Windows applications are written under the assumption that users have complete control of the machine. Unix apps are written with the understanding that there are any number of users, none of which are root.
I think Canon makes a full-page flatbed USB scanner that's powered by the USB connection. That would do the trick.
He was my teacher! I wish I'd known about the thumb -- I would have asked about it. We would on occasion freeze his bag lunch in the vat of liquid nitrogen. Hehe. Fun class.
How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?
Apparently all the way up my ass.
Heh. I switched from GSM (Cingular) to CDMA (Verizon) for largely the same reasons -- my Verizon phone has coverage essentially everwhere that's not inside a faraday cage, it was cheaper, and I can use my minutes for voice, data and fax in any combination.
I would like to see free SMS and caller-pays, though.
Let's reword that:
We're done. We've developed the last system ever needed in mobile communications. We'll get our first GSM handset on the market before the Americans, so that also means our development system works best. And we'll make it illegal to implement anything else, because we know we're right.
I thought that was pretty much the point of his article -- that higher-level enhancements cannot make up for deficiencies in the RF layer. Hence, GSM was doomed, because it's built on top of TDMA, which is inadequate. The CDMA RF layer is more estensible and more backwards-comaptible, so pretty uch everyone has chosen it for use in the next round of cell phone network architectures.
E.g., he was making an argument about the RF layer, more than the stuff on top of that. In the article, he even compared 56k modems to ethernet, to provide an analogy for the TDMA vs CDMA RF media access layers.
I agree. We need a Free Software version of Reagan's "11th Commandment" --
Thou shall not speak ill of other free software developers.
Did you get permission to steal KDE's icon's for your website?!!
LOL! They're Gnome icons, made by Ximian, and available here.
Seeing as how it's IIS crap I'll bet you think you can just walk all over the free software people, eh?
Uh, yeah -- that's why I released XSLTFilter under the LGPL. Yeah. That's it. Oh, I also used the xml and xslt libraries from XMLSoft.
christ!
On a stick!
Okay, so if I use your XSLTFilter on a Web site that displays XML-indexed goatse pictures, you'll suddenly become convinced they're the most attractive thing you've ever seen?
Uh, that's a non-sequitur. I'd not be happy about the content of your site, but I'd be happy that you're using XSLTFilter. And, I wouldn't loudly proclaim that you're a moron for debasing XSLTFilter in that way. You could even modify and redistribute XSLTFilter (it's LGPLed) to produce a porn-only XSLT filter, somehow, and I'd think that was kind of cool -- because you're using XSLTFilter.
the confusion so many people have between criticism and censorship
Tell that to the people who are really forceful in their criticism. The people who seem to be morally offended at RedHat's new user interface.
Real free software people wouldn't be emotionally offended by others taking advantage of their own freedoms to modify the software. RedHat is doing what the GPL allows. This is what it's all about, guys -- freedom with the software you use, develop with and distribute.
AFAIK, it is the case. RedHat's trying to do something for people who aren't emotionally involved with either KDE or Gnome -- make a consistent, usable desktop. I think this is a good thing to do. KDE and Gnome are working together these days (see freedesktop.org). This is encouragement from RedHat to make KDE and Gnome more interoperable. If they don't interoperate, then there make as well be two entirely separate types of desktop linux -- KDE linux and Gnome Linux. Vendors would need to pick one (or both) to support.
Macs have a default interface. Windows has a default interface. Linux systems should as well. Note that you can run QT programs on Windows and MacOS -- similarly, you can use the toolkit of your own choice on a Linux system. But having a default desktop system would be a good thing for Linux in the desktop arena.
I'm sure that, since he is no longer an employee, he'll have even more influence over RedHat's decisions.
I think it would have been better for him to demonstrate a better way -- such as making a set of RPMs for RedHat 8.0 available for how he thinks KDE should be. I remember downloading RPMs from ~bero in the past.
They could ship OSX Server -- with Aqua gui -- for X86. That would give them an entry into the x86 market w/o knifing their desktop hardware unit.
The X-Box is, essentially, the first implementation of Palladium.
I'm sure Hollings will be really receptive to my concerns about locking in the DOI to Microsoft-only systems. Not.
But, as you pointed out, my interest does run deeper than making "snide remarks." I am a taxpayer. I live in Raleigh, N.C. I plan to call Senator Jesse Helms' office and ask him to review the DOI's decision to lock out non-Microsoft products in favor of those made by Microsoft -- a monopoly currently being prosecuted by the federal government. I'll point out that there are other U.S. software companies that make fine products, and it's in the government's interest to avoid single sources for their systems. I'll mention RedHat -- based in Raleigh, just like Senator Helms. I'll mention Sun and Apple. I'll mention IBM and Oracle.
Okay, I expect all those people complaining about the "open source must be considered" laws to start complaining about this "nothing but Windows is allowed to be considered" administrative policy.
Troll? Maybe. But I would expect those principled people who go on about the "freedom to innovate" to object to a strict Microsoft-only policy -- simply because they objected to other, less stringent policies, such as the "open source software must be considered" policies. These policies didn't rule out the use of commercial software. This policy rules out the use of anything but Microsoft software. Where's the "freedom to innovate?"