Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So, if redistribution of modified code is permitted provided "redistributions of(/in) source code(/binary form) must retain(/reproduce) the above copyright notice..." how can you magically change one license into another license?
"Compatible license" as listed on the GNU site does not mean wholesale theft of licensed code.
What you people need to do is stop complaining about our "arrogance", and admit that out of some 180 countries none of you can get it together long enough to accomplish anything.
Arrogance? 'nough said!
BTW The US has not been isolationalist since WWII.
There are many reasons powerful states decline. They become lazy, corrupt, riven with internal strife, destroy their farmland, overpopulate, as well as war. The empires you mention above often faced danger equal to the one that finally ended them but defeated it with organisation or luck.
So what makes you think the US even needs to be invaded to decline? What if the confederates decided they wanted to have another go? What if George Dubbya destroyed the economy and the US began a decline into poverty? Asteroid anyone? What makes you so arrogant to think that the USA will absolutely be king of the hill in even 100 years?
You obviously didn't read the previous poster very well. I'm not going to speculate about the future, many hollywood movies have. You may have read the poem "Ozymandias" at school (I don't know what they teach in US schools), maybe you should read it again:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Actually there are some who do think it is Islamic Culture that is to blame to a large extent including some who came from there (eg. Ibn Warraq).
The traditional way to teach children how to read is with the Koran, a text with statements that encourage followers to kill infidels etc.. The bible contains similar tracts too but in the West we have outgrown these silly ideas to a great extent.
Recent Saudi Arabian history is of a partnership between the house of al-Saud and Wahhabism, an Islamic fundamentalist movement only existing since the mid 1700s. With the sudden explosion of oil wealth this century, Wahhabists have found themselves with the resources to spread their particular form of strict Islam around the world (even assasinating leaders of more moderate Islamic strands).
Wahhabism was created by Shaykh Mohammed bin Abdul-Wahhab because he did not think muslims of his day followed the word of the Koran literally enough. Now would you like your country living in a medieval-style relationship with a fire and brimestone fundamentalist church?
Luckily we had a reformation and our society is much better for it.
I have also seen an article where he states he created emacs. I think he meant he created the first UNIX port or something but that's not how it comes across.
Most posters dissing FreeBSD do so because because it doesn't work some piece of their desktop hardware or because a piece of software wasn't installed by default. Most people complimenting FreeBSD are doing so on the basis of its server perfomance/stability. I think it shows where a lot of this tension is coming from. The Linux posters appear to be mostly desktop users and the FreeBSD posters mostly server users, so is there any wonder that there are going to be differences in what each is looking for in the OS?
I could not bring myself to run an OS full time on my machine that costs money.
I've read Stallman's philosophy too, but quality software developed commercially takes effort from good programmers who have worked hard to earn their position. How are they going to be compensated by the product being given away for no cost? The cost of most OSes is nominal compared to the cost of a car or house or even the computer itself. I am becoming disappointed at the gimme gimme gimme free software (as in free beer) attitude that seems to be arising.
Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. How did Apple produce a quality desktop in a few small years while Gnome and KDE still struggle with the little things (like clipboard) that make a good desktop?
Open source shines at server development where savvy users are contributors. Desktop development tends to need money to produce in time because users are not generally skilled enough to produce bug patches etc..
I have used open source software for several years but I don't expect everything to be free. And I am not surprised when quality sometimes costs a little money and is worth paying for.
Re:Read Eric Hoffer's "True Believer"
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
Actually most *BSD people seem far less adversarial than many Linux people with their overarching fixation on Microsoft. Why is there a comp.os.linux.advocacy in which a large percentage of the volumous posts are anti-MS? About half the cross-postings in the *.ms-windows.advocacy groups are actually crossposted from c.o.l.a! I'm subscribed to the freebsd advocacy mailing list; not much traffic there at all and rarely anything adversarial.
Me thinks you exagerate.
How trivial is it to keep a floppy image on another computer? Floppies are disposable media, I'm always chucking them out and getting a new box. They have become a boot image tool rather than a storage media.
The bios password is probably enough to stop a thief making your computer usable (but who does that anyway?).
The problem with the rest of your solution is that the thief isn't stealing your computer to read your secret data files, he's doing it to make a few dollars from the illegal sale of your hardware. If he's got a copy of a DOS system disk with fdisk and format lying around, all your Linux data protection schemes will mean nothing.
Ian
At last year's rally of 400,000 black men in Washington, D.C., Farrakhan led a mass pledge to "never raise my hand with a knife or a gun to beat or cut or shoot any member of my family or any human being."
Slashdot Mirror
He plans to have a working mockup this fall.
His first step is to find an old blue Police Box.
Problem is you're talking about "paper-money", C. is talking about real money.
It doesnt require you to use the BSD license for derivative works
The "simplified" BSD license (FreeBSD license)
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So, if redistribution of modified code is permitted provided "redistributions of(/in) source code(/binary form) must retain(/reproduce) the above copyright notice..." how can you magically change one license into another license?
"Compatible license" as listed on the GNU site does not mean wholesale theft of licensed code.
And there was me thinking the Japanese bombed you into WWII.
What you people need to do is stop complaining about our "arrogance", and admit that out of some 180 countries none of you can get it together long enough to accomplish anything.
Arrogance? 'nough said!
BTW The US has not been isolationalist since WWII.
There are many reasons powerful states decline. They become lazy, corrupt, riven with internal strife, destroy their farmland, overpopulate, as well as war. The empires you mention above often faced danger equal to the one that finally ended them but defeated it with organisation or luck.
So what makes you think the US even needs to be invaded to decline? What if the confederates decided they wanted to have another go? What if George Dubbya destroyed the economy and the US began a decline into poverty? Asteroid anyone? What makes you so arrogant to think that the USA will absolutely be king of the hill in even 100 years?
You obviously didn't read the previous poster very well. I'm not going to speculate about the future, many hollywood movies have. You may have read the poem "Ozymandias" at school (I don't know what they teach in US schools), maybe you should read it again:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Actually there are some who do think it is Islamic Culture that is to blame to a large extent including some who came from there (eg. Ibn Warraq).
The traditional way to teach children how to read is with the Koran, a text with statements that encourage followers to kill infidels etc.. The bible contains similar tracts too but in the West we have outgrown these silly ideas to a great extent.
Recent Saudi Arabian history is of a partnership between the house of al-Saud and Wahhabism, an Islamic fundamentalist movement only existing since the mid 1700s. With the sudden explosion of oil wealth this century, Wahhabists have found themselves with the resources to spread their particular form of strict Islam around the world (even assasinating leaders of more moderate Islamic strands).
Wahhabism was created by Shaykh Mohammed bin Abdul-Wahhab because he did not think muslims of his day followed the word of the Koran literally enough. Now would you like your country living in a medieval-style relationship with a fire and brimestone fundamentalist church?
Luckily we had a reformation and our society is much better for it.
It's Microsoft's new stategy: hire all those troublemaking UNIX gurus and pay them to passively play nethack.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I have also seen an article where he states he created emacs. I think he meant he created the first UNIX port or something but that's not how it comes across.
Most posters dissing FreeBSD do so because because it doesn't work some piece of their desktop hardware or because a piece of software wasn't installed by default. Most people complimenting FreeBSD are doing so on the basis of its server perfomance/stability. I think it shows where a lot of this tension is coming from. The Linux posters appear to be mostly desktop users and the FreeBSD posters mostly server users, so is there any wonder that there are going to be differences in what each is looking for in the OS?
I've read Stallman's philosophy too, but quality software developed commercially takes effort from good programmers who have worked hard to earn their position. How are they going to be compensated by the product being given away for no cost? The cost of most OSes is nominal compared to the cost of a car or house or even the computer itself. I am becoming disappointed at the gimme gimme gimme free software (as in free beer) attitude that seems to be arising.
Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. How did Apple produce a quality desktop in a few small years while Gnome and KDE still struggle with the little things (like clipboard) that make a good desktop?
Open source shines at server development where savvy users are contributors. Desktop development tends to need money to produce in time because users are not generally skilled enough to produce bug patches etc..
I have used open source software for several years but I don't expect everything to be free. And I am not surprised when quality sometimes costs a little money and is worth paying for.
Actually most *BSD people seem far less adversarial than many Linux people with their overarching fixation on Microsoft. Why is there a comp.os.linux.advocacy in which a large percentage of the volumous posts are anti-MS? About half the cross-postings in the *.ms-windows.advocacy groups are actually crossposted from c.o.l.a! I'm subscribed to the freebsd advocacy mailing list; not much traffic there at all and rarely anything adversarial. Me thinks you exagerate.
How trivial is it to keep a floppy image on another computer? Floppies are disposable media, I'm always chucking them out and getting a new box. They have become a boot image tool rather than a storage media.
Radars, space guns, rockets, blinking coloured lights, and a little dude in a visored helmet with a spanner at a console... Ian
The bios password is probably enough to stop a thief making your computer usable (but who does that anyway?). The problem with the rest of your solution is that the thief isn't stealing your computer to read your secret data files, he's doing it to make a few dollars from the illegal sale of your hardware. If he's got a copy of a DOS system disk with fdisk and format lying around, all your Linux data protection schemes will mean nothing. Ian
Maybe 'avatar' should be in there too.