Don't Canadians have to pay a surcharge on recordable media to offset the effects of piracy? If so, couldn't this be the same type of thing? The government implementing a tax to offset some perceived injustice made available by wide-spread WiFI?
Although, more than likely, as others have pointed out, it's simply supply and demand.
The correct abbreviation for pedofile[sic] is "pedo" (as you will see very quickly if you happen to stumble upon alt.sex.stories). PDF is "portable document format".
--
gnaughty [sourceforge.net] - easy free porn
The correct abbreviation for pedophile coming from someone who's pimping his own porn gathering software. Now I've seen it all.
Yes, in about 20 years big blue has changed from the evil empire (with some saying it was beeing challenged by upstart Microsoft-although I never would have thought) to a worthy comrade in open-source armor. Way to go, IBM, for taking the final plunge.
Yes, but realize that IBM has been around since about 1914, that they have been the "bad guy" before, and just because they are supporting open source now doesn't mean that they couldn't find a way to exploit it for their own selfish good later.
Again, glad they're supporting open-source software, but I wonder how much of their support is in recognition of the value of open-source, and how much is just to spite Microsoft?
Perhaps, but any respectable IT professional will recall Microsoft's "history" and lovely business practices, especially with their hate for Linux and keep that in consideration when reading this FUD (or should I more appropriately say: BS)
Yes, because after all, IBM's "history" is flawless, right? I mean, no one has ever gone after IBM for being an abusive monopolistic player. </sarcasm>
Note: I'm not saying that this study funded by Microsoft and published by IDG is definately unbiased. I'm only saying that Microsoft isn't the first (and I doubt it will be the last) company to promote "research" such as this.
While I agree that "real" Linux supporters would be helpful, I've seen quite a few new users who may stumble upon a bad forum or newsgroup (comp.os.linux.advocacy) and get flamed to a crisp.
Slightly OT: while I realize that C.O.L.A. isn't really the place to be asking for help, questions along the lines of "I want to try Linux, but I want to know if my WinModem will work and my USB scanner too" often get met with the kinds of responses I posted above.
Proprietary binary modules for the Linux kernel can be written in some circumstances because in those circumstances the Linux license (the GNU GPL) is irrelevant. The situation with the Hurd is exactly the same. What Linux developers and Hurd developers think about binary modules that are not derived from Linux and Hurd, is irrelevant.
From the article (with my emphasis):
For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux? Should we thank the developers for this "support" for our system, or should we regard this non-free program like any other--
as an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?
If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free programs some of the time, you might think those non-free program are helpful contributions to that goal. It is hard to dispute the claim that their availability helps make GNU/Linux more popular. If the widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community, we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether free or not.
But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.
To me, this seems to say that Hurd will never support loading a Non-Free driver, regardless of the licensing behind the kernel code.
Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)? If not, does Stallman think that developers can create drivers for proprietary hardware that are at least as good as, if not better than, those provided by the manufacturer?
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
Pound for pound, Asterisk is the best solution for computer telephony in the Linux arena. Bayonne is progressing, but it's not to the level yet that Asterisk has had for half a year now.
Shouldn't that read:
# for #, * is the best solution for computer telephony in the Linux arena. Bayonne is progressing, but it's not to the level yet that * has had for half a year now.
But of course, the correct technique for using rubber cement is to apply it to both surfaces, let it cure, and then take advantage of rubber cement's property of sticking to itself. You don't just slop it on there and then mash the two pieces of paper together. You let it dry on both surfaces, then put a slip
shit[sic] made of something like tracing paper in between them while you position them, then pull out the slip sheet, press, and voila! A venerable, time-honored technique, but I'm afraid it does take a little more than five minutes longer than spray adhesive.
I know that's just a typo, but it makes for an interesting set of instructions. What exactly is the recommended way to make slip shit?
[] I am a communist
[] I am a terrorist
[] All of the above
[] I think different (Penciled in)
[] I don't shower
[] I don't have a girlfriend
[] I have a poster of Linus Torvalds
While this seems funny, I doubt it would work for one simple reason; if someone is submitting bad patches, breaking modules, etc., I would hope that Linus, Alan, Marcello, (insert maintainer here) would quit accepting this person's patches.
After all, that's what the reputation game is all about. Those with talent are revered, those without are shunned until they can prove themselves worthy (probably through a stand-alone project).
While I agree that Apple won't probably port Quicktime to Linux, I have to say that any Linux user that's going to buy a TiBook just to use QT hasn't installed Mplayer. It plays QT movie files just fine.
I think the deal is, OS X has some hooks to the hardware that controls the fans for cooling. If that software doesn't exist in Linux, then the fans may not run, the system could overheat, and that wouldn't be covered under warranty.
What bugs me is that they also keep trying to get me to install Windows Media Player 9 and the.NET runtime, neither of which I want, particularly on a production server. Can't they take the hint that a box running W2K Advanced Server probably doesn't want WMP9? At least they don't have them selected for installation by default, but still, they should keep Windows Update to stuff that's actually updating the OS/drivers/etc. rather than applications they want me to use.
Yes, but, in the eyes of Microsoft, WMP9,.NET runtime, etc. are part of the OS. That's the difference between the mindset of Microsoft (one big tool that does everything) and that of the *nix world (many small tools, each that does something in particular)
Face it, Microsoft hasn't changed its viewpoint in this long, it's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't Canadians have to pay a surcharge on recordable media to offset the effects of piracy? If so, couldn't this be the same type of thing? The government implementing a tax to offset some perceived injustice made available by wide-spread WiFI?
Although, more than likely, as others have pointed out, it's simply supply and demand.
The correct abbreviation for pedophile coming from someone who's pimping his own porn gathering software. Now I've seen it all.
Other than that, no reason.
Yes, but realize that IBM has been around since about 1914, that they have been the "bad guy" before, and just because they are supporting open source now doesn't mean that they couldn't find a way to exploit it for their own selfish good later.
Again, glad they're supporting open-source software, but I wonder how much of their support is in recognition of the value of open-source, and how much is just to spite Microsoft?
Yes, because after all, IBM's "history" is flawless, right? I mean, no one has ever gone after IBM for being an abusive monopolistic player. </sarcasm>
Note: I'm not saying that this study funded by Microsoft and published by IDG is definately unbiased. I'm only saying that Microsoft isn't the first (and I doubt it will be the last) company to promote "research" such as this.
Ewe are sofa king we Todd Ed
While I agree that "real" Linux supporters would be helpful, I've seen quite a few new users who may stumble upon a bad forum or newsgroup (comp.os.linux.advocacy) and get flamed to a crisp.
Slightly OT: while I realize that C.O.L.A. isn't really the place to be asking for help, questions along the lines of "I want to try Linux, but I want to know if my WinModem will work and my USB scanner too" often get met with the kinds of responses I posted above.
GammaTau said:
From the article (with my emphasis):
To me, this seems to say that Hurd will never support loading a Non-Free driver, regardless of the licensing behind the kernel code.
So, it'll be like trying to get people to migrate from Windows to Linux?
Somehow, I don't see that driving adoption of GNU/Hurd. But, then again, I don't see Hurd coming out any time soon.
Ok, since the Linux kernel allows binary modules, it's not necessarily "free software". Does that mean that the Hurd kernel won't allow binary modules, or open wrappers (Nvidia)? If not, does Stallman think that developers can create drivers for proprietary hardware that are at least as good as, if not better than, those provided by the manufacturer?
Or, is "free software" just the first stepping stone to "free hardware," where every innovation is public, and any competitor is free to use your innovations?
Shouldn't that read:
I know that's just a typo, but it makes for an interesting set of instructions. What exactly is the recommended way to make slip shit?
I don't use the "Preview Button"
[] I am a communist[] I am a terrorist
[] All of the above
[] I think different (Penciled in)
[] I don't shower
[] I don't have a girlfriend
[] I have a poster of Linus Torvalds
[] I am a communist [] I am a terrorist [] All of the above [] I think different (Penciled in) [] I don't shower [] I don't have a girlfriend [] I have a poster of Linus Torvalds
The Office file formats?
"cat /dev/urandom" is more intelligent than most /. trolls.
So, does that mean that EMACS has AI? Or, is it just a research project?
I'd do something that would make her produce, but you'd have to wait 9 months.
While this seems funny, I doubt it would work for one simple reason; if someone is submitting bad patches, breaking modules, etc., I would hope that Linus, Alan, Marcello, (insert maintainer here) would quit accepting this person's patches.
After all, that's what the reputation game is all about. Those with talent are revered, those without are shunned until they can prove themselves worthy (probably through a stand-alone project).
While I agree that Apple won't probably port Quicktime to Linux, I have to say that any Linux user that's going to buy a TiBook just to use QT hasn't installed Mplayer. It plays QT movie files just fine.
I think the deal is, OS X has some hooks to the hardware that controls the fans for cooling. If that software doesn't exist in Linux, then the fans may not run, the system could overheat, and that wouldn't be covered under warranty.
Sounds like BitTorrent and Flooz.com had a bastard child. You distribute bandwidth, and in return, you get points of no value.
Gee, and when the service goes out of business, and you can't redeem your points, well "Thanks for the bandwidth"
You mean like this one from Pioneer
Sure, it's a little pricey right now. However, given the way the market works, in 1-2 years, these should be pretty affordable.
Yes, but, in the eyes of Microsoft, WMP9, .NET runtime, etc. are part of the OS. That's the difference between the mindset of Microsoft (one big tool that does everything) and that of the *nix world (many small tools, each that does something in particular)
Face it, Microsoft hasn't changed its viewpoint in this long, it's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Mr. Anderson, welcome back.