And I can hardly see how independent developers creating XPIs affects 1.0. Presumably you disapprove of people creating add-ons for IE, because it slows down their next (stable?) release?!?!?
So let's get this straight. In return for the money you pay to Napster, they're going to give you a catalogue of mp3s you can download, right...?
Nope, they're still going to let USERS, paying for the system provide the actual files - so the users will be providing the service. Napster will just be getting lots of money (at least that's what they want) for being a middle man.
Erm, isn't this simply because Java runs in a virtual machine. The point is that Java runs in a sandbox, which is supposedly separate from the rest of the processes running on your machine, so that it should be more secure, and can't run arbitrary code on your machine.
If you're talking about simply letting a browser run any code on a computer simply by going to a page, then it's fairly obvious why this is a terrible idea - it lets a web page author run any code they like on the computers of anyone that goes to their page.
Perhaps I'm being dim, and missing something, but if I'm not, that seems blindingly obvious to me.
Oh, sorry if that came across as anger - it's more a little disappointment.I really am smiley!
My point, you see, is that even if you missed it, it isn't news. There isn't anything new about this mod, it's months (years?) old. We have serious tech news, stuff that's really important (that matters), about things as they happen, and bizarre noise running through the news feed of stuff that just isn't about new stuff, just sorta things that are going on...
What is going on? Where is *any* evidence of 'news' in the item? Where does it say 'Yesterday, NPRQuake was announced' or 'Congratulations, NPRQuake has hit revolutionary milestone which will change the face of technology'? There isn't any evidence of this item even attempting to be news. And this is probably a good thing, because there isn't any respect in which it *is* news. For one thing, this site has even been featured on Slashdot before, and therefore by definition would have to have something major happen before it could be news on this site...
People all say 'That's why I've gone to K5', but the reason I haven't abandoned Slashdot whilst also reading K5 is that K5 actually isn't trying to do the same thing, and I don't see it as somewhere where I can get all my tech news. I don't necessarily agree with the calls for a user moderated queue, but part of the reason for that is that Slashdot used to be vaguely user moderated - if people hadn't bothered to submit an article, or had been rejected, after a few days of its publish, it never went up. This is no longer the case, and we frequently have people asking why something six months old was posted.
Come on! Surely one advantage of paid editors rather than user sustainability is that the editors can be expected to check out for a second the sources, preview links, etc. before posting, and do a simple archive search to determine if it actually is *news*...
Erm. You just totally showed why you're wrong. If you do something wrong, the next layer up should always be able to cope. It isn't acceptable to say that the database did something illegal, because the operating system should determine what it *can* do, and should have a way of reacting to any output a program produces.
In case you're confused, the poster you replied to isn't saying that the database crashing was the problem, but that the database crashing the operating system was the problem. A program running on an operating system shouldn't be able to crash the operating system, and it's the OS's fault if it does.
But this is exacctly my point. You can forget completely about the fact that the GPL was ever involved. Who cares that it was licenced under the GPL - doesn't matter, they're violating copyright. The point of the GPL isn't that it tells you that you aren't allowed to do stuff, but that it might as well not exist if you don't follow it. Legally speaking, if you break the licence, you don't 'violate the GPL' you use someone else's code without licensing it.
I don't know if that's clear. The point I'm trying to put across is that RTLinux has no licence to use the Linux kernel - which is very different from them having a licence and applying it incorrectly.
I wish people would stop calling these things 'GPL violations'. What this is is a copyright violation. RTLinux is using someone else's copyright material without permission - no more, no less. That is illegal. Calling it a 'GPL violation', something which won't appear in any law anywhere seems silly, and just confuses the issue - which is plain and simple, and a matter of copyright.
You're damn straight it was especially cruel to the US - the US emits 25% of the worlds CO2, with just 5% of the population. It wasn't that there were different rules for the US, simply that the US is currently, far and away, the worst offender.
But of course, the Bush administration's view was 'We won't do anyhting that would harm American interests'. At least, I suppose, he's honest in his blindness to ever consider the world beyond his back yard...
But this *is* the single issue that everyone disagrees with Bush on. They disagree that he cops out of Kyoto because big business doesn't want it, that he cuts taxes because the millionaires want it, that he lets criminals off because Microsoft wants it.
Explain how this is a *different* policy, not another instance of the same policy so many hate?
Why is it that nobody seems to recall that right after Lovebug,/all/ the newspapers happily printed articles (presumably swallowed verbatim from MS) hailing the fact that Microsoft was improving Outlook and Outlook Express so as to prevent this happening again. What did they do? Hardwire it not to arbitrarily execute code in emails with 'I love you' in?!?!? And much more importantly, why did the entirely of the media fall for it? An 'everything's just dandy' mentality?
Apparently if 'Wine is not an emulator it shouldn't need Windows'. What?!? Because we so often want emulators that need the thing they're trying to emulate? There is a reason why Wine shouldn't need Windows - and that's because it's an alternative implementation of the Win32 API, and because that's what it's designed for.
I think the term 'Emulator' is slightly misleading for VMWare et al - I understand what, say, a Spectrum emulator is - it runs games written for a Speccie on a completely different system. Surely VMWare, which just runs Windows 'inside' other OSes is doing something different - after all you can run Windows on x86 hardware last time I looked.
Seem fine to me. I mean there are plenty of people that want to be able to use QuickTime NOW, and paying 20 dollars isn't terribly much, even if it is for only 6 months or a year. Something that is interesting is if you think about software-for-hire - if people really do end up renting software, it may in fact make it much easier to move over to an open source version if one becomes available later.
Many would think it was proof that KDE is difficult for effectively reusing old code, whereas Gnome is not. Of course you can use this as proof that Gnome is doing well.
So do you think it is better to start writing from scratch, rather than Gnomising or KDEifying applications? I know that's not what you mean, but surely you can't complain that this is an unfair comparison because Gnome builds on the existing free software codebase, whereas KDE goes their own way?
I was joking! The article seemed to suggest that ten years was ages to wait, but this is an ABSURDLY revolutionary step in terms of computing and how we view the world, and to be told that it'll happen in ten years is almost frightening for it being so soon...
God! TEN WHOLE YEARS for something that will revolutionise computing, and perhaps even make us reassess every way in which we view the world! So long! What are these scientists wasting our time for, surely they should have produced this yesterday - it sounds easy enough.
I've actually had a really good experience of using NTL. They have just about the only free-free-free ISP that is actually just that. I had a student phone line for 5.50 a month, and could use ntlworld as much as I liked for free (though annoying 2 hr cut-offs). Their connectivity and bandwidth was better than Demon is now - I never had any problems...
Ah, but at least then the movie studios will be able to declare movies over the internet a failed experiment, and persuade the legislators to pass bills banning movies being distributed over the internet, or in fact in any form the studios don't want!
Well on a serious note, this does hint at what RMS means. Most (including me) think he's barmy for insisting on GNU/Linux, but if this system works much like (GNU/)Linux just without the kernel, perhaps he's just being mad for trying to change the way everyone speaks, rather than being wrong. Sounds to me that GNU/Linux without the Linux could be as similar or as different as without the GNU. If that makes sense;-)
I think one of my favourite things about the free software community is that really you shouldn't have to ask people here if this is insulting - free software developers tend to like responses, and engaging with their users, so asking *them* is the answer - or just sending a cheque if you know where to, and 99% of OSS developers you'll meet will politely set you straight if they don't want it. The most likely response (after cashing the cheque) - if they didn't want it - would probably be to tell you which charity they'd like it donated to.
Could we please, just once, not have all the dull 'This is late posts'. I could understand them if in the time between Netscape 4 and 6 IE had leapt ahead, and left Netscape in the dust, but the fact is there have been minimal facelifts in that time. In fact, every time someone says 'But IE isn't stable!!!' and someone says 'IE5.5 / 6 is very stable' they just prove the point, that Mozilla is up to speed with the current iteration of browsers. And with the speed (and yes, it is there) of improvement recently of Mozilla, I have every confidence that built on these secure, stable foundations, whatever they come up with next (e.g. 2.0) will be way ahead.
I wish they would stop treating Babylon 5 like it were Star Trek, in just the area where it was different. The really great thing about Babylon 5 was that it wasn't bitty and independent, it had a contained, thought-through, and predecided story-arc. This made for compulsive viewing, where you wanted to see just what happened next, rather than tuning in simply for a diversion for 45 minutes (which is a noble aim, don't get me wrong!). I really hope they don't go the Star Trek route, where it is acceptable to fob fans off with unrelated random episodes, and claim they're part of B5 just because they have the same characters / ideas in. More B5 would be great, but that means actual B5, not just B5-universe spin-offs...
Slashdot Mirror
Ooooh! So your first name is 'Lee', then?
And I can hardly see how independent developers creating XPIs affects 1.0. Presumably you disapprove of people creating add-ons for IE, because it slows down their next (stable?) release?!?!?
So let's get this straight. In return for the money you pay to Napster, they're going to give you a catalogue of mp3s you can download, right...?
Nope, they're still going to let USERS, paying for the system provide the actual files - so the users will be providing the service. Napster will just be getting lots of money (at least that's what they want) for being a middle man.
Can anyone say 'pimp'?
Erm, isn't this simply because Java runs in a virtual machine. The point is that Java runs in a sandbox, which is supposedly separate from the rest of the processes running on your machine, so that it should be more secure, and can't run arbitrary code on your machine.
If you're talking about simply letting a browser run any code on a computer simply by going to a page, then it's fairly obvious why this is a terrible idea - it lets a web page author run any code they like on the computers of anyone that goes to their page.
Perhaps I'm being dim, and missing something, but if I'm not, that seems blindingly obvious to me.
Oh, sorry if that came across as anger - it's more a little disappointment.I really am smiley!
My point, you see, is that even if you missed it, it isn't news. There isn't anything new about this mod, it's months (years?) old. We have serious tech news, stuff that's really important (that matters), about things as they happen, and bizarre noise running through the news feed of stuff that just isn't about new stuff, just sorta things that are going on...
What is going on? Where is *any* evidence of 'news' in the item? Where does it say 'Yesterday, NPRQuake was announced' or 'Congratulations, NPRQuake has hit revolutionary milestone which will change the face of technology'? There isn't any evidence of this item even attempting to be news. And this is probably a good thing, because there isn't any respect in which it *is* news. For one thing, this site has even been featured on Slashdot before, and therefore by definition would have to have something major happen before it could be news on this site...
People all say 'That's why I've gone to K5', but the reason I haven't abandoned Slashdot whilst also reading K5 is that K5 actually isn't trying to do the same thing, and I don't see it as somewhere where I can get all my tech news. I don't necessarily agree with the calls for a user moderated queue, but part of the reason for that is that Slashdot used to be vaguely user moderated - if people hadn't bothered to submit an article, or had been rejected, after a few days of its publish, it never went up. This is no longer the case, and we frequently have people asking why something six months old was posted.
Come on! Surely one advantage of paid editors rather than user sustainability is that the editors can be expected to check out for a second the sources, preview links, etc. before posting, and do a simple archive search to determine if it actually is *news*...
Erm. You just totally showed why you're wrong. If you do something wrong, the next layer up should always be able to cope. It isn't acceptable to say that the database did something illegal, because the operating system should determine what it *can* do, and should have a way of reacting to any output a program produces.
In case you're confused, the poster you replied to isn't saying that the database crashing was the problem, but that the database crashing the operating system was the problem. A program running on an operating system shouldn't be able to crash the operating system, and it's the OS's fault if it does.
But this is exacctly my point. You can forget completely about the fact that the GPL was ever involved. Who cares that it was licenced under the GPL - doesn't matter, they're violating copyright. The point of the GPL isn't that it tells you that you aren't allowed to do stuff, but that it might as well not exist if you don't follow it. Legally speaking, if you break the licence, you don't 'violate the GPL' you use someone else's code without licensing it.
I don't know if that's clear. The point I'm trying to put across is that RTLinux has no licence to use the Linux kernel - which is very different from them having a licence and applying it incorrectly.
I wish people would stop calling these things 'GPL violations'. What this is is a copyright violation. RTLinux is using someone else's copyright material without permission - no more, no less. That is illegal. Calling it a 'GPL violation', something which won't appear in any law anywhere seems silly, and just confuses the issue - which is plain and simple, and a matter of copyright.
You're damn straight it was especially cruel to the US - the US emits 25% of the worlds CO2, with just 5% of the population. It wasn't that there were different rules for the US, simply that the US is currently, far and away, the worst offender.
But of course, the Bush administration's view was 'We won't do anyhting that would harm American interests'. At least, I suppose, he's honest in his blindness to ever consider the world beyond his back yard...
But this *is* the single issue that everyone disagrees with Bush on. They disagree that he cops out of Kyoto because big business doesn't want it, that he cuts taxes because the millionaires want it, that he lets criminals off because Microsoft wants it.
Explain how this is a *different* policy, not another instance of the same policy so many hate?
Why is it that nobody seems to recall that right after Lovebug, /all/ the newspapers happily printed articles (presumably swallowed verbatim from MS) hailing the fact that Microsoft was improving Outlook and Outlook Express so as to prevent this happening again. What did they do? Hardwire it not to arbitrarily execute code in emails with 'I love you' in?!?!? And much more importantly, why did the entirely of the media fall for it? An 'everything's just dandy' mentality?
Apparently if 'Wine is not an emulator it shouldn't need Windows'. What?!? Because we so often want emulators that need the thing they're trying to emulate? There is a reason why Wine shouldn't need Windows - and that's because it's an alternative implementation of the Win32 API, and because that's what it's designed for.
I think the term 'Emulator' is slightly misleading for VMWare et al - I understand what, say, a Spectrum emulator is - it runs games written for a Speccie on a completely different system. Surely VMWare, which just runs Windows 'inside' other OSes is doing something different - after all you can run Windows on x86 hardware last time I looked.
Seem fine to me. I mean there are plenty of people that want to be able to use QuickTime NOW, and paying 20 dollars isn't terribly much, even if it is for only 6 months or a year. Something that is interesting is if you think about software-for-hire - if people really do end up renting software, it may in fact make it much easier to move over to an open source version if one becomes available later.
Many would think it was proof that KDE is difficult for effectively reusing old code, whereas Gnome is not. Of course you can use this as proof that Gnome is doing well.
So do you think it is better to start writing from scratch, rather than Gnomising or KDEifying applications? I know that's not what you mean, but surely you can't complain that this is an unfair comparison because Gnome builds on the existing free software codebase, whereas KDE goes their own way?
I was joking! The article seemed to suggest that ten years was ages to wait, but this is an ABSURDLY revolutionary step in terms of computing and how we view the world, and to be told that it'll happen in ten years is almost frightening for it being so soon...
God! TEN WHOLE YEARS for something that will revolutionise computing, and perhaps even make us reassess every way in which we view the world! So long! What are these scientists wasting our time for, surely they should have produced this yesterday - it sounds easy enough.
I've actually had a really good experience of using NTL. They have just about the only free-free-free ISP that is actually just that. I had a student phone line for 5.50 a month, and could use ntlworld as much as I liked for free (though annoying 2 hr cut-offs). Their connectivity and bandwidth was better than Demon is now - I never had any problems...
Actually, the divine right of kings was revoked a few hundred years ago...
Ah, but at least then the movie studios will be able to declare movies over the internet a failed experiment, and persuade the legislators to pass bills banning movies being distributed over the internet, or in fact in any form the studios don't want!
Well on a serious note, this does hint at what RMS means. Most (including me) think he's barmy for insisting on GNU/Linux, but if this system works much like (GNU/)Linux just without the kernel, perhaps he's just being mad for trying to change the way everyone speaks, rather than being wrong. Sounds to me that GNU/Linux without the Linux could be as similar or as different as without the GNU. If that makes sense ;-)
I think one of my favourite things about the free software community is that really you shouldn't have to ask people here if this is insulting - free software developers tend to like responses, and engaging with their users, so asking *them* is the answer - or just sending a cheque if you know where to, and 99% of OSS developers you'll meet will politely set you straight if they don't want it. The most likely response (after cashing the cheque) - if they didn't want it - would probably be to tell you which charity they'd like it donated to.
Could we please, just once, not have all the dull 'This is late posts'. I could understand them if in the time between Netscape 4 and 6 IE had leapt ahead, and left Netscape in the dust, but the fact is there have been minimal facelifts in that time. In fact, every time someone says 'But IE isn't stable!!!' and someone says 'IE5.5 / 6 is very stable' they just prove the point, that Mozilla is up to speed with the current iteration of browsers. And with the speed (and yes, it is there) of improvement recently of Mozilla, I have every confidence that built on these secure, stable foundations, whatever they come up with next (e.g. 2.0) will be way ahead.
So sit back, download, and enjoy!
I wish they would stop treating Babylon 5 like it were Star Trek, in just the area where it was different. The really great thing about Babylon 5 was that it wasn't bitty and independent, it had a contained, thought-through, and predecided story-arc. This made for compulsive viewing, where you wanted to see just what happened next, rather than tuning in simply for a diversion for 45 minutes (which is a noble aim, don't get me wrong!). I really hope they don't go the Star Trek route, where it is acceptable to fob fans off with unrelated random episodes, and claim they're part of B5 just because they have the same characters / ideas in. More B5 would be great, but that means actual B5, not just B5-universe spin-offs...
...and what's more, this is the court that is usually favourable towards MS...