I remember reading an article back in 1995, or 1996 detailing the "serious security implications" of the then new ActiveX. Can't say I remember the author, or the site it was on. As a demonstration the author wrote an ActiveX control that would reboot your 95/NT box just by clicking on the link in IE. It was scary back then.
Sounds to me like specialization. "Educated people" might not be as computer savvy because their jobs might not require it. The most the reporter has to do is probably use some form of text editor or word processor, maybe a page layout program if that, and come up with words about what they're reporting. Then again, I don't know, I'm not a reporter. The perspective is probably "Let the 'computer guy/gal' make it go."
The GPL prohibits placing any other restrictions on the distribution of GPLed software. Thus, the GPL'ed components that come with your most expensive product can be copied and distributed freely to whoever wants it, correct?
Isn't there absolutely nothing stopping someone from subscribing to RHN with an ES or AS system, and then distributing a derivative work based on ES or AS, without Red Hat trademarks or non-free code?
The GPL overrides any EULA, if it didn't, then Red Hat would be violating the GPL and would not have the right to distribute the software, right?
"Pink Tie" Linux is an example of Red Hat that has been stripped of trademarks. Once someone was distributing this derivative RHEL work, couldn't they sell the update service for say $50 a year per seat?
Or does the EULA just simply violate the GPL completely?
The argument is that you can download and install all the open source parts of RH advanced server under the GPL without ever agreeing to this EULA.
The interesting side effect of all this is that you are free to run as many copies of RHAS as you want until you buy even one copy. Once you 'taint' your company with even one fully licensed and supported copy of RHAS, you have agreed to this per-server licensing, and audits to make sure that you have enough licenses to cover all of your servers.
This may violate the GPL in the part that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Except that the GPL doesn't really apply to the owner of the code, only people distributing code they don't own.
For something large with a lot of authors like the kernel, this pretty much means what you said, since no one owns enough to be useful.
For one person projects, or projects that only accept code with assigned copyright, it doesn't quite apply the way you indicated.
You really should set up X to do window focus the right way, moving the mouse over a window changes focus, clicking a window brings it to the top.
That way you can put the instructions on top, and just move your mouse over the window you need to type in.
"No way, you are insane. IDE is horribly unreliable and you will surely lose your data. You need a $6000 tape drive, if you can't afford it you are better off with no backups at all"
Oh really? Can you back that up? Even if someone plugs up a 200GB drive once a month for a year (without dropping it) I seriously doubt they'd have a problem getting data a year or two from now.
Even if one wanted to keep the data around 10 years, which realistically isn't going to happen on the *exact same* media, he/she probably will change capacities/interface types every few years just for bigger capacities.
- Camus, The Stranger (Wow. Never read this either. Sat down and read it straight through. Renault is one interesting dude. This is the book where he kills an Arab for no (apparent) reason. But I guess that's the question: why did he kill the Arab on the beach?)
Didn't the Cure base a song off that book? I might be wrong.
... and it was also not common sense to do it the more traditional Mac way and use the top menu which changes as you move around select things to include the stuff which you might otherwise get by right-clicking, etc.
Or the keyboard shortcuts, since that what the Mac users around me prefer. Just being used to a multi -button mouse and the features associated with it, it was nice under OS X to have it work.
You want to be able to do things without having to think.
I think (no pun intended) it's not about being able to think about how to do stuff, it's more about usability, and being able to use it efficiently....or I'm probably just lazy:-)
Where I work, we recently purchased a new Mac so we'd have something we could separately test OS X with reasonable performance. I tried plugged a usb wheel mouse in and it worked. Now having that extra button was great because it actually pulled a menu like I've grown accustomed to on other OS's and desktop environments. Having rarely used a Mac, it wasn't common sense to hold down the Control key and click (2 steps). Seems easier to right click (1 step).
Funny, I just bought a PS2 last night, one of my friends came over and told me I should have gotten a GameCube. I responded by, saying they'll drop the price in a couple of weeks to compete with the Xbox and PS2 price drops.
Next thing I know he wanted to bet $50 bucks on whether Nintendo would drop their price. I should have taken that bet. Could have used the money to pay for 1/3 of it. Just a few more days till payday....
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading an article back in 1995, or 1996 detailing the "serious security implications" of the then new ActiveX. Can't say I remember the author, or the site it was on. As a demonstration the author wrote an ActiveX control that would reboot your 95/NT box just by clicking on the link in IE. It was scary back then.
Sounds to me like specialization. "Educated people" might not be as computer savvy because their jobs might not require it. The most the reporter has to do is probably use some form of text editor or word processor, maybe a page layout program if that, and come up with words about what they're reporting. Then again, I don't know, I'm not a reporter. The perspective is probably "Let the 'computer guy/gal' make it go."
This is a prime candidate for the "Captain Obvious Award".
I have just one thing to say about that.
I have just one thing to say about that.
I have just one thing to say about that.
I have just one thing to say about that.
I'm sure it's way better than that waste of celluloid Suspiria.
The GPL prohibits placing any other restrictions on the distribution of GPLed software. Thus, the GPL'ed components that come with your most expensive product can be copied and distributed freely to whoever wants it, correct? Isn't there absolutely nothing stopping someone from subscribing to RHN with an ES or AS system, and then distributing a derivative work based on ES or AS, without Red Hat trademarks or non-free code? The GPL overrides any EULA, if it didn't, then Red Hat would be violating the GPL and would not have the right to distribute the software, right? "Pink Tie" Linux is an example of Red Hat that has been stripped of trademarks. Once someone was distributing this derivative RHEL work, couldn't they sell the update service for say $50 a year per seat? Or does the EULA just simply violate the GPL completely?
It's just NOT the same.
When you are a public company, you have a duty to protect shareholder value. If you blatently disregard this duty, you can get into serious trouble.
:-) In the year 2525!
The argument is that you can download and install all the open source parts of RH advanced server under the GPL without ever agreeing to this EULA.
The interesting side effect of all this is that you are free to run as many copies of RHAS as you want until you buy even one copy. Once you 'taint' your company with even one fully licensed and supported copy of RHAS, you have agreed to this per-server licensing, and audits to make sure that you have enough licenses to cover all of your servers.
This may violate the GPL in the part that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Except that the GPL doesn't really apply to the owner of the code, only people distributing code they don't own. For something large with a lot of authors like the kernel, this pretty much means what you said, since no one owns enough to be useful. For one person projects, or projects that only accept code with assigned copyright, it doesn't quite apply the way you indicated.
Nah, you have:
s t-Wide-Intrustive
and coming soon:
Ultra-Intrusive
Ultra-Wide-Intrusive
Ultra-Fa
Ultra-Fast-Wide-Intrustive160
Ultra-Fast-Wide-Intrustive320
You really should set up X to do window focus the right way, moving the mouse over a window changes focus, clicking a window brings it to the top. That way you can put the instructions on top, and just move your mouse over the window you need to type in.
Doh.....sorry....posting frenzy, didn't see the quotes.
"No way, you are insane. IDE is horribly unreliable and you will surely lose your data. You need a $6000 tape drive, if you can't afford it you are better off with no backups at all"
Oh really? Can you back that up? Even if someone plugs up a 200GB drive once a month for a year (without dropping it) I seriously doubt they'd have a problem getting data a year or two from now.
Even if one wanted to keep the data around 10 years, which realistically isn't going to happen on the *exact same* media, he/she probably will change capacities/interface types every few years just for bigger capacities.
- Camus, The Stranger (Wow. Never read this either. Sat down and read it straight through. Renault is one interesting dude. This is the book where he kills an Arab for no (apparent) reason. But I guess that's the question: why did he kill the Arab on the beach?)
Didn't the Cure base a song off that book? I might be wrong.
Or the keyboard shortcuts, since that what the Mac users around me prefer. Just being used to a multi -button mouse and the features associated with it, it was nice under OS X to have it work.
I think (no pun intended) it's not about being able to think about how to do stuff, it's more about usability, and being able to use it efficiently....or I'm probably just lazy :-)
Where I work, we recently purchased a new Mac so we'd have something we could separately test OS X with reasonable performance. I tried plugged a usb wheel mouse in and it worked. Now having that extra button was great because it actually pulled a menu like I've grown accustomed to on other OS's and desktop environments. Having rarely used a Mac, it wasn't common sense to hold down the Control key and click (2 steps). Seems easier to right click (1 step).
Remember, it's like you were saying a while ago, it's all about salsa boy.
Not to sound completely smart ass, but shouldn't there be a #4 where son says:
"But I have grey eyes!"
Funny, I just bought a PS2 last night, one of my friends came over and told me I should have gotten a GameCube. I responded by, saying they'll drop the price in a couple of weeks to compete with the Xbox and PS2 price drops.
Next thing I know he wanted to bet $50 bucks on whether Nintendo would drop their price. I should have taken that bet. Could have used the money to pay for 1/3 of it. Just a few more days till payday....