RMS is more like the tribal elder reminding you of your ideals - especially during those times when you consider putting them aside because they seem impossible to live up to.
No, not at all, the tribal elders would be the BSD folks. RMS is the witch doctor blowing smoke into your face telling you that it will cure all your problems.;-)
"If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the Library will still fall under Section 6.)"
That's not general understanding or simple intent. That's pretty cut-and-dry.
I don't think so. That could, and perhaps should, be interpreted to mean that you can copy constants, structs, etc. into your proprietary code and not be in violation of the GPL. It may not be blanket permission to include headers without consequences. Again, regrettably, a lawyer may be necessary.
... just exactly what is the point of the LGPL versus the GPL? It seems the essence of your argument points to the two licenses being effectively the same animal
You are effectively arguing that the original poster must be wrong because the *intent* is something else. *Intent* means nothing, only the implementation specified in the license matters.
To me the first line of section 5 contradicts the argument the parent poster wanted to make.
You may simply misunderstand it. "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library..." could be interpreted to mean that including a header file into your project violates this. You are assuming this is not the case. I'll agree that this would be against the general understanding of the intent of the LGPL but how does the license define this? If it does not then a project's source is at the mercy of a court ruling that does clarify this issue?
FWIW, I'm not arguing against the GPL or LGPL. What I'm arguing against is accepting conventional wisdom, intent, etc. If you want to use the LGPL and not release your source have your lawyer read the LGPL and provide you with advice.
And you completely ignore the whole point. good windows slave.
Pot, kettle, black. You are hardly one to be accusing someone else of being biased.
The whole conversations is on installations...
No, it is on overhead. And setting up things is part of the Linux overhead, but it is a red herring for Windows. When you order your box from Dell it already has Windows, service packs, Office, etc. The small business owner unpacks the box, plugs it in, spends a fews minutes letting it download the post-SP2 patches and is ready to go. Hell the latter part might be automatic since Windows Update seems to be scheduled to run automatically every so often, I don't recall if that includes right after the first boot.
If you would like to advocate Linux dump this installation red herring, it only reduces your credibility. The only meaningful cost saving for a small business is the day-to-day improved efficience, OS license fees and setup times are largely irrelevant.
I can't install XP on my P4 Dell It won't work
As if a P4 shipped by Dell in the last few years didn't ship with WinXP on it. An aberration, possibly user error like not using the OS CD you got from Dell on a laptop. Also, this is not a road you want to go down. Linux issues are far more common, for example I had various flat panels being supported out-of-the-box far earlier on Windows than on Linux. When a "user" has to search the web to get the necessary info to configure X properly you really don't want to bring up the topic.
You cannot compare a G4 at 1.25GHz to a x86 at 1.25 GHz. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
However you can compare a Pentium 4 1.5GHz to a G4 1.25. PowerPC CPUs tend to get a 25-30% performance improvement over their x86 counterparts. The applications that are well tailored to a RISC architecture are few and far between. If you are running one great, but all folks should really expect is the 25-30% boost.
You are assuming everyone is popping the extra $100 for the WiFi and Bluetooth. Wireless for my laptop, absolutely, for a machine that's deskbound and already has easy access to cat5s, its a waste. Call me a luddite but the ongoing cost of havng to put batteries into my keyboard and mouse is not attractive.;)
Why would anyone waste hardware and time doing this?
You need to think of something beyond (or below) the desktop. For example look at the Navy's sonar image processing, Mac hardware running yellow dog Linux.
Having your children abducted by a human predator is far more likely than a wolf and the precautions would be very similar.
Unless you typed "wolf" by accident you need to re-read my post, wolves are currently not a problem, barring rabies. Moutain lions and other cats are currently the problem. Hell the cats take adults every so often not just kids. Witness the bicyclist attack in southern california last year.
before it split. That made it just a little depressing when it was down to $4 around a year later.
Then again, I'm just whining about a $1K investement I made on a lark with their IPO. The dot bomb was obviously MUCH crueler to others than this. I'll shut up now.
Look at it as a relatively inexpensive lesson in "get rich quick" and/or IPO speculation. I waited until after it came crashing down, I didn't realize how far it would go but I did realize triple digit was insane.
Maybe he is hoping the stock goes back up to $29 where it was a year ago.... (its at 11 now)
RHAT is a very volatile stock, big price swings. 29 was at the high end of one of those speculative swings. Its sort of idling in the middle right now. It could go to 5 or 30 in the short term, it all depends on the new and what the speculators think, but in the longer term (say a couple of years) it will probably hit the mid to high 20s again.
How about doubling or tripling that $100M? RHAT is a volative stock that has some pretty big swings. If you time your purchase right sometime over the next couple of years you may be able to realize a pretty big gain. Linux is becoming more important (fwiw I'm not referring to the desktop) and Red Hat is well poised to benefit from that. I think it is a good medium term investment.
Also to assume some sort of conspiracy is ignorant. Dell is a business. They offer Linux when it is profitable to do so. If you can't order it pre-installed on your desktop box it is because there are not enough of you to pay Dell for adjusting their highly streamlined assembly process. If you think offering Linux is as simple as having a hard drive image handly you are in over your head here.
Being a long time target and skeet shooter I find it odd to be saying this, but here goes: We need a new gun law.
We should just outlaw remotely operated guns, assuming it is not outlawed already. It is not a technology they we need developed and marketed towards civilians. Going after this one application of the technology does not make sense, except that it will get legislators good PR.
Now those of you in a bunker in Montana don't get all preachy on me. I am well aware of what a poor track record politicians have writing legislation relating to technology, especially gun technology. Perhaps this is one of those rare occasions where they could get it right. Have the NRA help draft the legislation, the NRA helped with gun legislation in the past. For those of you shaking your head I believe the original incarnation of the "cop killer" bullet ban was so poorly worded it would have outlawed nearly all rifle ammunition. The NRA provided the technical expertise so that the legislation only addressed the ammunition it intended to address. There were similar problems with legislation to outlaw "plastic" guns. Again, the NRA helped.
People can exists with cougars and wolfs just fine with the proper precautions.
Not really, at least with cougars. Unless you consider not letting kids freely ride bikes on trails, play in backyards, etc. to be a "proper precaution". Seems extreme to me. The fact that you toss out cougars and wolves together like that suggests you don't really know what you are talking about. While attacks by healthy wolves are virtually non-existent attacks by healthy mountain lions are far more common. We have a 100+ years of good documentation on that. Now that it not a predictor of future events. As wolves breed with feral dogs and are subject to greater exposure to people as they grow up that may change. But that change will be for the worse.
whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine
I lived in a part of the country where deer are abundant, overly abundant, as in sometimes there is only enough food to get the population half way through winter. Most will starve unless herds are thinned. Deer are a prey species, nature intends them to be subject to predation. Modern hunters fill the ecological niche formerly filled by predatory species. Hunting helps the herd survive the coming winter. Humans aren't as talented as a wolves so we need rifles. Then again, a rifle can be far more humane than a wolf pack.
Newsflash: Huting on foot doesn't make you "elite" or more of a man either.
However it does give you a clue about the sport, it does make you more likely to finance conservation efforts, unlike the clueless urban newb who reads a website and gets all "political". Here's reality: I lived in a part of the country where deer are abundant, overly abundant, as in there is only enough food to get the population half way through winter. Most will starve. Deer are a prey species, nature intends them to be subject to predation. Modern hunters fill the ecological niche formerly filled by predatory species. Hunting helps the herd survive the coming winter. Humans aren't as talented as a wolves so we need rifles. Then again, a rifle can be far more humane. A wolf pack will cause its prey to attempt to escape. One member will attack the real quarter of the fleeing animal to inflict a gaping wound or to at least start severe bleeding. When the animal falls another animal will bite down on its muzzle to secure it. Another will then tear open its throat. That's how nature worked before our intervention.
this seems like an incredibly stupid and public way of locking customers into paying for information they were already previously getting for free.
You are assuming civilian applications only. If they are making equipment for the military, or hope to, then this makes sense. As for doing so in civilian equipment the parts may be common, or will be, with military equipment, or this may be a test. If the appropriate maintenance and investigatory personnel are given unfettered access to the actual data this would be a non-issue.
"This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase".
The logical conclusion to this rationale is that children shouldn't be able to buy anything.
No, that is an extreme misapplication of this rationale.
There's a difference between good parenting and pointless totalitarianism.
As there is a difference between a good rebuttal and a red herring.
t's been said many times before, but legislation != substitute for good parenting.
This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase.
Your argument is misapplied. It might be valid if minors were prohibited from *playing* some games, but that's not the case.
Its only relevant if you are under 18. If you are under 18 and think this is a problem then you have far greater problems than this bill/potential law.
Haha, I work at a very large university. I spend much of my time with senior and junior faculty members...
And of course technical faculty members know what they're doing...
I find the two statements contradictory.
Regarding the second statement, "famous last words" comes to mind.
Yes I should have been more specific. I was thinking of the technical fields, as suggested by my mentioning of turning in the source code for an assignment.
I don't care how many remote root vulnerabilities there are if the services that have said vulnerabilities are never even enabled...
On this subject, last year I answered a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. I believe it touches on the major issues here...
Your premise is severely flawed. While "Joe User" may never turn these services on "Joe Faculty" is somewhat likely to do so. The Universities point that exploits do exist is completely valid. Then add to this the fact that a University environment is an extremely hostile environment, trojans abound, some possibly even in source code submitted with assignments. Ddon't assume submitter did this intentionally, someone may have gained access to his/her account. As a student I never got a copy a class roll, tried first and last names as password, got into 1/3 of the accounts, but I'm sure someone out there has.;-) Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Chex cereal had an FPS for kids, ChexQuest, based on Doom. CDs were in the boxes of cereal. When you "shot" a creature it was not killed, it was teleported back to it's homeworld, or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS is more like the tribal elder reminding you of your ideals - especially during those times when you consider putting them aside because they seem impossible to live up to.
;-)
No, not at all, the tribal elders would be the BSD folks. RMS is the witch doctor blowing smoke into your face telling you that it will cure all your problems.
"If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the Library will still fall under Section 6.)"
That's not general understanding or simple intent. That's pretty cut-and-dry.
I don't think so. That could, and perhaps should, be interpreted to mean that you can copy constants, structs, etc. into your proprietary code and not be in violation of the GPL. It may not be blanket permission to include headers without consequences. Again, regrettably, a lawyer may be necessary.
... just exactly what is the point of the LGPL versus the GPL? It seems the essence of your argument points to the two licenses being effectively the same animal
..." could be interpreted to mean that including a header file into your project violates this. You are assuming this is not the case. I'll agree that this would be against the general understanding of the intent of the LGPL but how does the license define this? If it does not then a project's source is at the mercy of a court ruling that does clarify this issue?
You are effectively arguing that the original poster must be wrong because the *intent* is something else. *Intent* means nothing, only the implementation specified in the license matters.
To me the first line of section 5 contradicts the argument the parent poster wanted to make.
You may simply misunderstand it. "A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library
FWIW, I'm not arguing against the GPL or LGPL. What I'm arguing against is accepting conventional wisdom, intent, etc. If you want to use the LGPL and not release your source have your lawyer read the LGPL and provide you with advice.
And you completely ignore the whole point. good windows slave.
...
Pot, kettle, black. You are hardly one to be accusing someone else of being biased.
The whole conversations is on installations
No, it is on overhead. And setting up things is part of the Linux overhead, but it is a red herring for Windows. When you order your box from Dell it already has Windows, service packs, Office, etc. The small business owner unpacks the box, plugs it in, spends a fews minutes letting it download the post-SP2 patches and is ready to go. Hell the latter part might be automatic since Windows Update seems to be scheduled to run automatically every so often, I don't recall if that includes right after the first boot.
If you would like to advocate Linux dump this installation red herring, it only reduces your credibility. The only meaningful cost saving for a small business is the day-to-day improved efficience, OS license fees and setup times are largely irrelevant.
I can't install XP on my P4 Dell It won't work
As if a P4 shipped by Dell in the last few years didn't ship with WinXP on it. An aberration, possibly user error like not using the OS CD you got from Dell on a laptop. Also, this is not a road you want to go down. Linux issues are far more common, for example I had various flat panels being supported out-of-the-box far earlier on Windows than on Linux. When a "user" has to search the web to get the necessary info to configure X properly you really don't want to bring up the topic.
You cannot compare a G4 at 1.25GHz to a x86 at 1.25 GHz. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
However you can compare a Pentium 4 1.5GHz to a G4 1.25. PowerPC CPUs tend to get a 25-30% performance improvement over their x86 counterparts. The applications that are well tailored to a RISC architecture are few and far between. If you are running one great, but all folks should really expect is the 25-30% boost.
You are assuming everyone is popping the extra $100 for the WiFi and Bluetooth. Wireless for my laptop, absolutely, for a machine that's deskbound and already has easy access to cat5s, its a waste. Call me a luddite but the ongoing cost of havng to put batteries into my keyboard and mouse is not attractive. ;)
Why would anyone waste hardware and time doing this?
You need to think of something beyond (or below) the desktop. For example look at the Navy's sonar image processing, Mac hardware running yellow dog Linux.
Having your children abducted by a human predator is far more likely than a wolf and the precautions would be very similar.
Unless you typed "wolf" by accident you need to re-read my post, wolves are currently not a problem, barring rabies. Moutain lions and other cats are currently the problem. Hell the cats take adults every so often not just kids. Witness the bicyclist attack in southern california last year.
before it split. That made it just a little depressing when it was down to $4 around a year later. Then again, I'm just whining about a $1K investement I made on a lark with their IPO. The dot bomb was obviously MUCH crueler to others than this. I'll shut up now.
Look at it as a relatively inexpensive lesson in "get rich quick" and/or IPO speculation. I waited until after it came crashing down, I didn't realize how far it would go but I did realize triple digit was insane.
Maybe he is hoping the stock goes back up to $29 where it was a year ago.... (its at 11 now)
RHAT is a very volatile stock, big price swings. 29 was at the high end of one of those speculative swings. Its sort of idling in the middle right now. It could go to 5 or 30 in the short term, it all depends on the new and what the speculators think, but in the longer term (say a couple of years) it will probably hit the mid to high 20s again.
... but one wonders what's behind of this move ...
How about doubling or tripling that $100M? RHAT is a volative stock that has some pretty big swings. If you time your purchase right sometime over the next couple of years you may be able to realize a pretty big gain. Linux is becoming more important (fwiw I'm not referring to the desktop) and Red Hat is well poised to benefit from that. I think it is a good medium term investment.
Also to assume some sort of conspiracy is ignorant. Dell is a business. They offer Linux when it is profitable to do so. If you can't order it pre-installed on your desktop box it is because there are not enough of you to pay Dell for adjusting their highly streamlined assembly process. If you think offering Linux is as simple as having a hard drive image handly you are in over your head here.
Being a long time target and skeet shooter I find it odd to be saying this, but here goes: We need a new gun law.
We should just outlaw remotely operated guns, assuming it is not outlawed already. It is not a technology they we need developed and marketed towards civilians. Going after this one application of the technology does not make sense, except that it will get legislators good PR.
Now those of you in a bunker in Montana don't get all preachy on me. I am well aware of what a poor track record politicians have writing legislation relating to technology, especially gun technology. Perhaps this is one of those rare occasions where they could get it right. Have the NRA help draft the legislation, the NRA helped with gun legislation in the past. For those of you shaking your head I believe the original incarnation of the "cop killer" bullet ban was so poorly worded it would have outlawed nearly all rifle ammunition. The NRA provided the technical expertise so that the legislation only addressed the ammunition it intended to address. There were similar problems with legislation to outlaw "plastic" guns. Again, the NRA helped.
People can exists with cougars and wolfs just fine with the proper precautions.
Not really, at least with cougars. Unless you consider not letting kids freely ride bikes on trails, play in backyards, etc. to be a "proper precaution". Seems extreme to me. The fact that you toss out cougars and wolves together like that suggests you don't really know what you are talking about. While attacks by healthy wolves are virtually non-existent attacks by healthy mountain lions are far more common. We have a 100+ years of good documentation on that. Now that it not a predictor of future events. As wolves breed with feral dogs and are subject to greater exposure to people as they grow up that may change. But that change will be for the worse.
whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine
I lived in a part of the country where deer are abundant, overly abundant, as in sometimes there is only enough food to get the population half way through winter. Most will starve unless herds are thinned. Deer are a prey species, nature intends them to be subject to predation. Modern hunters fill the ecological niche formerly filled by predatory species. Hunting helps the herd survive the coming winter. Humans aren't as talented as a wolves so we need rifles. Then again, a rifle can be far more humane than a wolf pack.
Newsflash: Huting on foot doesn't make you "elite" or more of a man either.
However it does give you a clue about the sport, it does make you more likely to finance conservation efforts, unlike the clueless urban newb who reads a website and gets all "political". Here's reality: I lived in a part of the country where deer are abundant, overly abundant, as in there is only enough food to get the population half way through winter. Most will starve. Deer are a prey species, nature intends them to be subject to predation. Modern hunters fill the ecological niche formerly filled by predatory species. Hunting helps the herd survive the coming winter. Humans aren't as talented as a wolves so we need rifles. Then again, a rifle can be far more humane. A wolf pack will cause its prey to attempt to escape. One member will attack the real quarter of the fleeing animal to inflict a gaping wound or to at least start severe bleeding. When the animal falls another animal will bite down on its muzzle to secure it. Another will then tear open its throat. That's how nature worked before our intervention.
this seems like an incredibly stupid and public way of locking customers into paying for information they were already previously getting for free.
You are assuming civilian applications only. If they are making equipment for the military, or hope to, then this makes sense. As for doing so in civilian equipment the parts may be common, or will be, with military equipment, or this may be a test. If the appropriate maintenance and investigatory personnel are given unfettered access to the actual data this would be a non-issue.
"This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase".
The logical conclusion to this rationale is that children shouldn't be able to buy anything.
No, that is an extreme misapplication of this rationale.
There's a difference between good parenting and pointless totalitarianism.
As there is a difference between a good rebuttal and a red herring.
t's been said many times before, but legislation != substitute for good parenting.
This legislation is a tool for good parenting, it brings the parent into the equation. Currently they are excluded and not able to offer a parental judgement at the time of purchase.
Your argument is misapplied. It might be valid if minors were prohibited from *playing* some games, but that's not the case.
And somehow trying to protect them from everything is going to make them gain life experience?
Telling a child "no" is a lesson. It's something they need to become accustomed to without throwing a tantrum or otherwise behaving childishly.
Its only relevant if you are under 18. If you are under 18 and think this is a problem then you have far greater problems than this bill/potential law.
Haha, I work at a very large university. I spend much of my time with senior and junior faculty members ... ...
;-)
And of course technical faculty members know what they're doing
I find the two statements contradictory.
Regarding the second statement, "famous last words" comes to mind.
Good luck.
Yes I should have been more specific. I was thinking of the technical fields, as suggested by my mentioning of turning in the source code for an assignment.
I don't care how many remote root vulnerabilities there are if the services that have said vulnerabilities are never even enabled ... ...
;-) Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
On this subject, last year I answered a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. I believe it touches on the major issues here
Your premise is severely flawed. While "Joe User" may never turn these services on "Joe Faculty" is somewhat likely to do so. The Universities point that exploits do exist is completely valid. Then add to this the fact that a University environment is an extremely hostile environment, trojans abound, some possibly even in source code submitted with assignments. Ddon't assume submitter did this intentionally, someone may have gained access to his/her account. As a student I never got a copy a class roll, tried first and last names as password, got into 1/3 of the accounts, but I'm sure someone out there has.
If I had a nickel for every time someone declared that AMD has won the "War" I would be able to afford an AMD dual-core. Prices from pricewatch.com.
$2655 - Opteron 875 Dual-Core 2.2GHz
$2155 - Opteron 870 Dual-Core 2.0GHz
$922 - Opteron 865 Dual-Core 1.8GHz
$1305 - Opteron 275 Dual-Core 2.2GHz
$1057 - Opteron 270 Dual-Core 2.0GHz
$857 - Opteron 265 Dual-Core 1.8GHz
Chex cereal had an FPS for kids, ChexQuest, based on Doom. CDs were in the boxes of cereal. When you "shot" a creature it was not killed, it was teleported back to it's homeworld, or something like that.