Isn't Gentoo compiled specifically for your machine, with all sorts of optomizations and such? Doesn't that contradict the concept of burning a cd that can run on (almost) any system?
Typically, yes, Gentoo is compiled for your machine. However, nothing prevents you from setting the architecture to i386 and making a universal system. Gentoo is almost a "meta" disto, in that you could use it to build a secure distro, web server only distro, desktop system, etc.
And of course, since it's open source, it doesn't cost anything more than a little of your time to try it out.
No, I wouldn't call an Anon. Coward a Karma Whore. That would be impossible. I think it's funny, yet sad, that moderators can't be bothered to actually read the whole post, just see that it's long, and moderate it up as informative (which, for the most part, it is, despite the stupid troll).
And please tell me, how does someone posting random interjections about Cmdrtaco's love sausage (another one I've seen) or casual sex with Cmdrtaco entice one to read the posting?
I've seen recommendations for Finale, which is available for Windows and Mac platforms. Is there any open-source software that also does the same thing, for the Linux/BSD crowd?
Will you have to pay your bandwidth bills with your campaign money? And, if so, will you have anything left to actually campaign with? Do you have a Paypal account that we could contribute to, to make up for the vicious slashdotting that you just received?
How do you feel about companies such as PanIP using patents as a basis for lawsuits rather than innovation?
Question not to the candidate, but to you: How do you feel about companies like IBM using patents as a defense against frivolous lawsuits, such as those brought forth by SCO?
As for my opinion on it, patents are a double-edged sword. When used offensively against another company over something simple and obvious (one-click shopping, hypertext, etc.), patents are a bad thing. However, if you have a novel idea and hold a patent on the implementation of that idea, and someone violates that patent, then it's a great defense mechanism. In other words, IBM using its patents against SCO is a good thing (by trying to prevent SCO from overstepping its boundries). IBM using its patents against, for example only, Linus for something that's in the Linux kernel would be bad, if what Linus did was "obvious" (loadable modules, maybe)
Well, it would be possible. However, it would cost VA, Taco, and crew the bandwidth, which they already bitch about spending on people who don't subscribe. So, in conclusion, no Slashdot will not host a bittorrent tracker, or files to prevent slashdotting.
I'm not a radio geek, or lawyer, but, doesn't every device that has an FCC label on it basically say that you have to accept any interference that occurs? Therefore, if it bothered the 802.11 spectrum, we'd be irritated about it, and probably contact someone to get it changed. But, until things changed, we'd have to deal with it, either by filtering the noise, changing frequencies, etc.
This is the same thing that the HAM operators need to do. Eventually, they'll move things to the point that someone doesn't complain, or realize that they aren't bothering enough users to justify changing things. Either way, the ball is in the court of the HAM operators. Get together and start writing letters, making phone calls, etc.
Sure, SCO is down in Germany but they are STILL hurting SUSE nonetheless with their broadside attack on linux itself. SUSE should sue in Germany, Mandrake in France, and RedFlag in China(?). Get SCO scrambling to simultaneously defend themselves in independent courts around the world.
Except for the fact that SuSE is part of United Linux, along with Connectiva, TurboLinux, and SCO. Therefore, I doubt that SuSE would sue one of its partners, and as a courtesy, SuSE users probably will get off without being attacked by SCO.
#find/lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep smp
#find/lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep numa
#find/lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep rtc
#grep NUMA/usr/src/linux/.config
#grep RTC/usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_RTC is not set
#grep SMP/usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_SMP=n
Nothing found. The software isn't on my system. I'm not paying SCO a dime.
As to your blender analogy, if you take my blender, I don't have access to it. If I have SCO's IP, they still have access to it.
As to the illegal copy of Photoshop, that's a little closer. However, since I'm not using it, I could just as easily delete it, and therefore not be out of compliance. If, however, I use the software, then yes, I owe Adobe the license fee for the use of the software. The point being, since I'm not using any of SCO's IP, I don't owe them anything.
These are what SCO claims that IBM "stole" and put into the 2.4 kernel code. My question is, if I'm not using NUMA, RTC, SMP, etc.; does SCO really have any business wanting money from me? After all, I'm not using their IP. Just because it's in the code base doesn't mean it's being used.
If you'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, then have you paid for Crossover Office, which runs Photoshop on Linux?
It seems to me that, if Codeweavers has done a good enough job of making a complex application like Photoshop run on Linux, why should Adobe throw huge amounts of money at it, only to appease a small fraction of a small market?
What about running an NNTP server internally? It'd let people reply to others. You'd have threads showing all contact. It could be made available to remote locations, branch offices, etc.
Any chance there could be high resolution tiff/ps/pdf of the runner up entries posted somewhere?
Considering that the ALT text for the images appears to be an obfuscated email address for the author, you could probably contact them for an emailed, FTPed, temporary website, Kazaa, etc. copy of the image.
My guess is, Sun bought Cobalt, which ran its systems on Linux. Therefore, they want people to feel good about Linux and look to the Cobalt entry-level systems from Sun. But, they also want people to be wary of Linux on the high end, and look towards Solaris for those needs.
It's also like the way that Scott talks about the advantages of open source, but won't open up the Java code. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Since Turbolinux is a Japaneese distro, does that mean it will launch its CDs into your servers, killing thousands when you least expect it? Inquiring minds want to know.
I have a quick question, you say that M$ has 80% of the market, I ask, which market do you mean, desktop, yes, they probably have around that.
Since the article was about desktop Linux, then yes, that's the market I'm guessing at.
what about server? 75% of webservers out there are still *nix
Which happens to be able to server Windows clients just fine.
added to the fact that how do you compare a market share of a company that sells it's software for $300 to one that lets you have it for FREE!!!
The only way I can think of is to rely on users informing people voluntarily about their Linux use, which will cause the numbers to be artificially low.
kinda illogical if you ask me, but you didn't. . . o well
Seriously, who thought that people needed to be protected from a portable music player? How much money was spent in the House of Reps. and Senate debating, drafting, and approving this bill? If you want to make a device that plays 125dB through headphones, fine. If people want to listen to it at that level, fine. If a year from now, that person is deaf, too bad. Don't listen to music that loud, dumbass. Can't we just get to government to quit trying to protect us from ourselves?
Slashdot Mirror
Typically, yes, Gentoo is compiled for your machine. However, nothing prevents you from setting the architecture to i386 and making a universal system. Gentoo is almost a "meta" disto, in that you could use it to build a secure distro, web server only distro, desktop system, etc.
And of course, since it's open source, it doesn't cost anything more than a little of your time to try it out.
No, I wouldn't call an Anon. Coward a Karma Whore. That would be impossible. I think it's funny, yet sad, that moderators can't be bothered to actually read the whole post, just see that it's long, and moderate it up as informative (which, for the most part, it is, despite the stupid troll).
And please tell me, how does someone posting random interjections about Cmdrtaco's love sausage (another one I've seen) or casual sex with Cmdrtaco entice one to read the posting?
Search the above post for Cmdrtaco and see the reference to "casual" sex
Is this testing a concept? YES
Could something like this be implemented in Google? YES
Is this supposed to replace Google? NO
Are you a troll? YES
Thanks for playing.
I've seen recommendations for Finale, which is available for Windows and Mac platforms. Is there any open-source software that also does the same thing, for the Linux/BSD crowd?
Will you have to pay your bandwidth bills with your campaign money? And, if so, will you have anything left to actually campaign with? Do you have a Paypal account that we could contribute to, to make up for the vicious slashdotting that you just received?
Question not to the candidate, but to you: How do you feel about companies like IBM using patents as a defense against frivolous lawsuits, such as those brought forth by SCO?
As for my opinion on it, patents are a double-edged sword. When used offensively against another company over something simple and obvious (one-click shopping, hypertext, etc.), patents are a bad thing. However, if you have a novel idea and hold a patent on the implementation of that idea, and someone violates that patent, then it's a great defense mechanism. In other words, IBM using its patents against SCO is a good thing (by trying to prevent SCO from overstepping its boundries). IBM using its patents against, for example only, Linus for something that's in the Linux kernel would be bad, if what Linus did was "obvious" (loadable modules, maybe)
click here for hot galaxy-on-galaxy action
Well, it would be possible. However, it would cost VA, Taco, and crew the bandwidth, which they already bitch about spending on people who don't subscribe. So, in conclusion, no Slashdot will not host a bittorrent tracker, or files to prevent slashdotting.
I'm not a radio geek, or lawyer, but, doesn't every device that has an FCC label on it basically say that you have to accept any interference that occurs? Therefore, if it bothered the 802.11 spectrum, we'd be irritated about it, and probably contact someone to get it changed. But, until things changed, we'd have to deal with it, either by filtering the noise, changing frequencies, etc.
This is the same thing that the HAM operators need to do. Eventually, they'll move things to the point that someone doesn't complain, or realize that they aren't bothering enough users to justify changing things. Either way, the ball is in the court of the HAM operators. Get together and start writing letters, making phone calls, etc.
Well, that would require that DNF gets released.
Except for the fact that SuSE is part of United Linux, along with Connectiva, TurboLinux, and SCO. Therefore, I doubt that SuSE would sue one of its partners, and as a courtesy, SuSE users probably will get off without being attacked by SCO.
On my system:
Nothing found. The software isn't on my system. I'm not paying SCO a dime.
As to your blender analogy, if you take my blender, I don't have access to it. If I have SCO's IP, they still have access to it.
As to the illegal copy of Photoshop, that's a little closer. However, since I'm not using it, I could just as easily delete it, and therefore not be out of compliance. If, however, I use the software, then yes, I owe Adobe the license fee for the use of the software. The point being, since I'm not using any of SCO's IP, I don't owe them anything.
These are what SCO claims that IBM "stole" and put into the 2.4 kernel code. My question is, if I'm not using NUMA, RTC, SMP, etc.; does SCO really have any business wanting money from me? After all, I'm not using their IP. Just because it's in the code base doesn't mean it's being used.
If you'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, then have you paid for Crossover Office, which runs Photoshop on Linux?
It seems to me that, if Codeweavers has done a good enough job of making a complex application like Photoshop run on Linux, why should Adobe throw huge amounts of money at it, only to appease a small fraction of a small market?
What about running an NNTP server internally? It'd let people reply to others. You'd have threads showing all contact. It could be made available to remote locations, branch offices, etc.
Considering that the ALT text for the images appears to be an obfuscated email address for the author, you could probably contact them for an emailed, FTPed, temporary website, Kazaa, etc. copy of the image.
And, as my old .sig used to say:
My guess is, Sun bought Cobalt, which ran its systems on Linux. Therefore, they want people to feel good about Linux and look to the Cobalt entry-level systems from Sun. But, they also want people to be wary of Linux on the high end, and look towards Solaris for those needs.
It's also like the way that Scott talks about the advantages of open source, but won't open up the Java code. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Since Turbolinux is a Japaneese distro, does that mean it will launch its CDs into your servers, killing thousands when you least expect it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Since SuSE is a German distro, will it gather and slaughter millions of innocent people based only on their religion? Inquiring minds want to know.
I have a quick question, you say that M$ has 80% of the market, I ask, which market do you mean, desktop, yes, they probably have around that.
Since the article was about desktop Linux, then yes, that's the market I'm guessing at.
what about server? 75% of webservers out there are still *nix
Which happens to be able to server Windows clients just fine.
added to the fact that how do you compare a market share of a company that sells it's software for $300 to one that lets you have it for FREE!!!
The only way I can think of is to rely on users informing people voluntarily about their Linux use, which will cause the numbers to be artificially low.
kinda illogical if you ask me, but you didn't. . . o well
Thanks to all who pointed out that it's a European regulation. Guess I spent too much time listening to music at 125dB and scrambled my brains.
Then, they would be the ones collecting royalties from SONY.
Seriously, who thought that people needed to be protected from a portable music player? How much money was spent in the House of Reps. and Senate debating, drafting, and approving this bill? If you want to make a device that plays 125dB through headphones, fine. If people want to listen to it at that level, fine. If a year from now, that person is deaf, too bad. Don't listen to music that loud, dumbass. Can't we just get to government to quit trying to protect us from ourselves?