Why don't you do yourself a favour and read Tesla Motor's website? They explain why it's named "Tesla": because it uses motor first devised by Tesla himself: one based on induction.
Seriously, I know it's a lenghty process, but... sooner or later the Moon's mass will diminish significactly enough to have visible effects on Earth. Then what?
Browser plugins are libraries. If you run a 64bit executable version of your browser, you can't use Flash.
Write a plugin which spawns a 32 bit process which loads the 32 bit flash plugin and communicates with the 64bit library via shared memory?
So, what is so "crackpotting" about it? The fact you say so?
If it were true, wouldn't it actually give a scientific meaning to things like soul, which some people believe exist regardless of Heine? Are you claiming all religious people are crackpotters too?
I'm not claiming Heine is right or wrong here, but disregarding a theory just because it happens to explain everything we've ever experienced or heard of, seams quite silly IMHO.
Honestly people like you claiming that things like this are caused by the war on terror remind me of rapists claiming their victims were "asking for it". You do realize that's what you did right? Blame the victims of a horrible atrocity for the actions of a few wackos.
It's a war, dude, in war everyone thinks they're right. USA killed thousand of civils in IRAQ and elsewhere with the excuse they were fighting terrorism... now the terrorists fire back.
Who's right and who's wrong? Who started all this first? Does it really matter?
What amazes me is that he is in minority, in the OSS world. Am I mistaken, or is he the only one complaining so loudly and so veemently about such things? If he were part of the majority, surely the problem he talks about wouldn't even exist, as the majority would have adopted his line of thinking already.
So he basically got into a paradox: he complains about the whining minority, yet he is the whining minority!
that's not the issue here. What happens if I charge for the source AND the binaries? If it is in violation, then my point still stands.
Excuse me? Didn't I just say that you can charge for binaries and you are not forced to give binaries also for free?
In other words, the GPL grants you the right to sell binaries and never make them available for free. Moreover, it also asks you to give sources for free only to those people who got the binaries, if they ask them.
However, you cannot charge for sources alone, but you are not forced to give them away to anyone either.
If you solely charged for linux (without giving it away for free as in beer) you would be violating the GNU.
I'd suggest you to revise the GPL: is nowhere stated that you have to give the source for free, what is stated is that you have to give the source to whoever you give the binary too, and is nowhere stated that you have to give the binary for free.
If you give binaries for free, that's just your choice, you are not forced to.
But this is not the point. The GNU filosofy, as you says, may not bring money to software makers, but it brings value, thus indirectly money, to the software users.
There are things which only money can give you, like R&D. Without R&D you are stuck with implementations of old concepts or bad copies of new concepts brought to the masses by closed source SH. There's no innovation that comes from the FS crew. Not so far, at least.
I'll be glad to be proven wrong.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
You guys completely miss the point: if everyone downloads ISOs, and no one buys distributions anymore, pretty soon there won't be any distributions to buy nor to download anymore.
If sales go down, and therefore distribution makers go belly up, who's gonna make the distribution for you to download?
> The whole point of free (as in beer) software is > that you don't *need* money to get it... I'd much > rather see numbers pointing to actual in-use > comparisons than money comparisons.
Too bad Linux is "free as in speech, not as in beer".
Hum... I have a, maybe stupid, question: once you build a clockless chip, how do you make it faster? I mean... usually, before redesigning the chip's internal structure, the "advance" is speed is obtained by merely increasing the clock's speed. There have been versions of the Pentium(TM) chip ranging from 60 to 200 and more MHz, the same has been for PII and all the other processors usually follow the same path.
Correct me if I'm wrong: wouldn't a clockless chip have to be completely redesigned to see a speed increase in it?
So I ask: ok, 3 times faster, but 3 times faster than what?
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you do yourself a favour and read Tesla Motor's website? They explain why it's named "Tesla": because it uses motor first devised by Tesla himself: one based on induction.
Till the moon is no more, that is.
Seriously, I know it's a lenghty process, but... sooner or later the Moon's mass will diminish significactly enough to have visible effects on Earth. Then what?
Browser plugins are libraries. If you run a 64bit executable version of your browser, you can't use Flash. Write a plugin which spawns a 32 bit process which loads the 32 bit flash plugin and communicates with the 64bit library via shared memory?
If it were true, wouldn't it actually give a scientific meaning to things like soul, which some people believe exist regardless of Heine? Are you claiming all religious people are crackpotters too?
I'm not claiming Heine is right or wrong here, but disregarding a theory just because it happens to explain everything we've ever experienced or heard of, seams quite silly IMHO.
...a revolution in France already? Looks like this is the right time to make a revival.
I know it shouldn't be me the one saying this, but what exactly there is that can be deemed "trolling" about my previous message?
What amazes me is that he is in minority, in the OSS world. Am I mistaken, or is he the only one complaining so loudly and so veemently about such things? If he were part of the majority, surely the problem he talks about wouldn't even exist, as the majority would have adopted his line of thinking already.
So he basically got into a paradox: he complains about the whining minority, yet he is the whining minority!
In other words, the GPL grants you the right to sell binaries and never make them available for free. Moreover, it also asks you to give sources for free only to those people who got the binaries, if they ask them.
However, you cannot charge for sources alone, but you are not forced to give them away to anyone either.
If you give binaries for free, that's just your choice, you are not forced to.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Therefore you all are admitting that the GNU filosofy, in the long run, doesn't bring money to people and it's not viable as a marketing strategy?
You guys completely miss the point: if everyone downloads ISOs, and no one buys distributions anymore, pretty soon there won't be any distributions to buy nor to download anymore. If sales go down, and therefore distribution makers go belly up, who's gonna make the distribution for you to download?
Correct me if I'm wrong: wouldn't a clockless chip have to be completely redesigned to see a speed increase in it?
So I ask: ok, 3 times faster, but 3 times faster than what?