Because there ARE other browsers in the world.. I use Opera when I have to use 95, and sometimes the tables come out hugely indented, or other wierdness crops up. Why should we follow the spec when the crap we got works in the most common place? Sounds an aweful like the "this webpage only works on win 95" type things everyone has been up in arms about..
Trolling has been increasing quite a bit as of late. Is there any plan to increase moderator points, or perhaps give the 5 points + an additional few points that can only be used to beat down the trollers?
Not to mention that making mild wine is a great way to keep water potable for long journies or storage..
Re:I suspect that the hype prevented the disaster
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, I have been thinking about this quite a bit now.. When are we going to make a Y2.038K complient distro of linux? I would say the time is now.. Besides, how hard can it be to define all time structures as "long long"? Might as well get this out of the way as soon as possible..
Argh... No, the point is that this program has nothing to do with piracy... The programs that have allowed piracy for the past 2-3 years haven't been challenged in court, but one comes along that allows interoptability, and they try to squash it like a bug... If I wanted to decode movies and save a digital copy, I could have done it long ago on my Windows based computer... Till this program was released, there was no way for Linux users to even watch the movies they have bought.. This is not copy protection, as copying is easily accomplished in at least 3 major ways already listed on slashdot to copy.(bit-for-bit copies, video driver capture, copy after decoding and output by video card)(though bit-for-bit copies are the only ones that directly end up as a DVD...) This is anti-interopterability information hiding, pure and simple.
How about the freedom to link to things without being held liable? How about the right to "fair use"? The freedom to reverse engineer? The freedom from EULA's you must agree to AFTER the transation to purchase a program has been made? The freedom from rediculous EULA's at all?(I mean, give me a break.. you paid for this crap, and you should have certain liberties with it, especially ones the courts have already granted..)
The EFF evidently thought this case had enough potential to set precident to throw togeather a legal team in 24 hours for a preliminary hearing that hardly has any impact on the actual trial, so I assume they think there's a lot to lose here also.
Also, Tom, I believe we should call all attempt to take away our liberties as such, and not reserve such words for "big things", lest they take away so much only a very few "big things" are left. Call all your freedoms as they are, and you should be able to enjoy them much longer....
Define "standard hardware". Perhaps the consumer hardware we can get in the US is crippled thusly.. Does that mean hardware can't be created without this limitation? I believe that hardware to make a perfect copy is avalible now, at a price of $4000 or so. This is quite a bit higher then the $100 or so most DVD drives go, but not out of reach for commercial pirates. The issue addresed here is that CSS isn't really copy protection, as exact copies can be made with the CSS intact that are indistinguishable from the original to the player, and can be distributed to all. CSS is a limiter on free use of the product, and not an anti-copying device at all.
(the above hardware discussion does not take into account that every time such tricks have been tried with keeping drives from accessing parts of the media, a mod chip has been made avalible to get around it. There are chips to mod DVD players to get around region locking, and chips to mod Playstations to get around the same sort of "you can't access this part of the disk, but I can" garbage. However, the legality of such devices is uncertain.)
The EFF (the Electronic Freedom Foundation, www.eff.org) is the legal council for this group. They have taken it upon themselves to defend cases that they believe sets important policy for computer related law. Basically due to this action I have decided to join the EFF ($35 donation, or as much as you please;-)
AFter watching the EFF for a while, I have finally decided to join based on this case. They seem to have decent insight into what cases are important in setting policy, and have a very good response time to such cases. If nothing else, I just spent $35 in the hope of DVD software for Linux;-)
Not this debate again... In the coder community, hacker means "one who codes in an excellent fashion", and a cracker is one who breaks security. In the security community, a cracker is one who breaks copy protection, and a hacker is one who breaks into networked computers. In the engineer community, a hacker is one who does crappy work. While I respect ESR, but I believe that in banging his jargon on the heads of everyone else because that's the way he likes it he is just being stubborn. He is a VERY smart guy, but not everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel... Different groups have used different jargon. All are useful. Get over it.
Dude, a combination of the two is what current compilers/chips do.. Even in gcc there are different schedulers for different cpu cores which focus on ordering instructions for maximum paralism in that cpu core, and all cpu's pentuim and above have out of order execution. This is how it has been done for a while, and I believe that if IA64 really can't do OOE like Compaq claims, performance will be markedly decreased...
>What the hell are you talking about with the military thing? We MUST place children in the front line? Last time I checked, it was a voluntary thing to join the military or police force.
You must be a young-un... In war time, this thing called the Draft often rears it's ugly head...
I have started a project at sourceforge.net called GNUquake that will be aiming to GNUify quake, make building for multiple platforms easier, improve the sound code so it works with ALSA, and whatever else you all want to add. The project will remain compatible with the binary quake release, but eventually I would like to add more features that can be used with other GNUquake servers and clients such as a "blessed binary" system to minimize cheats, perhaps protocal improvements, and again whatever is concidered needful. I am curently looking for a few people who want to help administer. Email me at "spinkham at users.sourceforge.net" if you are interested. Note that CVS hasn't been updated, as the domain isn't quite active yet.. It should be up in the next 4-6 hours...
I have applied for a project at sourceforge. Should get comfirmation within 24 hours.. In lieu of coming up with a good name, I called it GNUquake.;-)
Re:releasing source code isn't always a GOOD THING
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 2
Here's my question/solution from another post I made: OK, now that the whole source code is released, I can forsee quite a few more bot problems. Would it be a good idea to implement another master server list that uses the "blessed binaries" system much like netrek does? For those not familiar, anyone can get source and mess with their own code, but to play on most servers, you must use one of the binaries that are certified to be cheat free and contain an encrypted key. There would have to be a team that would spend time checking modified code for cheats.. Is this worthwhile, or should I get used to playing with more bot-enhanced lamerz?
OK, now that the whole source code is released, I can forsee quite a few more bot problems. Would it be a good idea to implement another master server list that uses the "blessed binaries" system much like netrek does? For those not familiar, anyone can get source and mess with their own code, but to play on most servers, you must use one of the binaries that are certified and contain an encrypted key. There would have to be a team that would spend time checking modified code for cheats.. Is this worthwhile, or should I get used to playing with more bot-enhanced lamerz?
I have seen a lot of whining about quake1 data file here(an dumb arguement), but no one has addresed the issue of GPL'd quake1 + mods. I believe quake1 doesn't directly link with mod code, but has a sort of c interpreter built in. The mod code must then be parsed and run on that interpreter. Is it legal to: 1) Use GPL'd quake1 with non-open mods? 2) Distribue quake1 with non-open mod code files?
Re:Thats great but what about other OS's?
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
They are NOT essential components. Total conversions are avalible for quake 2, I think quake1 has at least one too.. Also, anyone can make their own maps and textures, what you are saying is like complaining that less doesn't come with al the authors text files, or gimp doesn't come with all the authors pictures. If what you were saying was true, all GPL'd toolkits would be illegal
The bison thing was about code. This is about data. Check out the whole thread started by post 146.
Re:You know what this means...
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 1
Ok, maybe that wasn't the best example..
/'text editor'/less less requires text files to work, therefore since less is GPL'd, all of the author's text files are GPL'd. The above is the same situation as the quake situation, as running less without text files only gives you errors. You are free to create your own text files or maps for less or quake1 respectively. Also, none of this changes the fact that id is the copyright holder, and can release portions of source to whomever under whatever license they choose..
Re:You know what this means...
on
Quake 1 GPL'ed
·
· Score: 3
1st, the GPL applies to Code. The levels are data files, and not code. Saying ID must open source them is like saying anyone who open sources a text editor has to give you all their text files.
2nd, id software is the copyright holder, and is free to give away or not give away whatever they want. They can license their property under any license they want. They couldn't link their GPL'd code with non-GPL'd code (but we already established all their code is already GPL'd) but they could issue another version under another license, as long as it is all their copyright. In this version, no GPL'd code at all could be used, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there ARE other browsers in the world.. I use Opera when I have to use 95, and sometimes the tables come out hugely indented, or other wierdness crops up.
Why should we follow the spec when the crap we got works in the most common place? Sounds an aweful like the "this webpage only works on win 95" type things everyone has been up in arms about..
Trolling has been increasing quite a bit as of late. Is there any plan to increase moderator points, or perhaps give the 5 points + an additional few points that can only be used to beat down the trollers?
Not to mention that making mild wine is a great way to keep water potable for long journies or storage..
Yeah, I have been thinking about this quite a bit now..
When are we going to make a Y2.038K complient distro of linux? I would say the time is now.. Besides, how hard can it be to define all time structures as "long long"?
Might as well get this out of the way as soon as possible..
There was no 0 AD.. it was 1 AD, the year of Our Lord..
This is only the new millenium if we start counting from 1 BC...
Ever see the Dos/windows to Linux howto? It sounds about like what you are discribing...
Argh... No, the point is that this program has nothing to do with piracy... The programs that have allowed piracy for the past 2-3 years haven't been challenged in court, but one comes along that allows interoptability, and they try to squash it like a bug...
If I wanted to decode movies and save a digital copy, I could have done it long ago on my Windows based computer... Till this program was released, there was no way for Linux users to even watch the movies they have bought..
This is not copy protection, as copying is easily accomplished in at least 3 major ways already listed on slashdot to copy.(bit-for-bit copies, video driver capture, copy after decoding and output by video card)(though bit-for-bit copies are the only ones that directly end up as a DVD...)
This is anti-interopterability information hiding, pure and simple.
How about the freedom to link to things without being held liable?
How about the right to "fair use"?
The freedom to reverse engineer?
The freedom from EULA's you must agree to AFTER the transation to purchase a program has been made?
The freedom from rediculous EULA's at all?(I mean, give me a break.. you paid for this crap, and you should have certain liberties with it, especially ones the courts have already granted..)
The EFF evidently thought this case had enough potential to set precident to throw togeather a legal team in 24 hours for a preliminary hearing that hardly has any impact on the actual trial, so I assume they think there's a lot to lose here also.
Also, Tom, I believe we should call all attempt to take away our liberties as such, and not reserve such words for "big things", lest they take away so much only a very few "big things" are left.
Call all your freedoms as they are, and you should be able to enjoy them much longer....
There are also programs for windows that masqurade as the video driver in order to grab the video while still in digital form.
Define "standard hardware".
Perhaps the consumer hardware we can get in the US is crippled thusly.. Does that mean hardware can't be created without this limitation? I believe that hardware to make a perfect copy is avalible now, at a price of $4000 or so. This is quite a bit higher then the $100 or so most DVD drives go, but not out of reach for commercial pirates.
The issue addresed here is that CSS isn't really copy protection, as exact copies can be made with the CSS intact that are indistinguishable from the original to the player, and can be distributed to all. CSS is a limiter on free use of the product, and not an anti-copying device at all.
(the above hardware discussion does not take into account that every time such tricks have been tried with keeping drives from accessing parts of the media, a mod chip has been made avalible to get around it. There are chips to mod DVD players to get around region locking, and chips to mod Playstations to get around the same sort of "you can't access this part of the disk, but I can" garbage. However, the legality of such devices is uncertain.)
The EFF (the Electronic Freedom Foundation, www.eff.org) is the legal council for this group. ;-)
They have taken it upon themselves to defend cases that they believe sets important policy for computer related law.
Basically due to this action I have decided to join the EFF ($35 donation, or as much as you please
AFter watching the EFF for a while, I have finally decided to join based on this case. They seem to have decent insight into what cases are important in setting policy, and have a very good response time to such cases. If nothing else, I just spent $35 in the hope of DVD software for Linux ;-)
Not this debate again...
In the coder community, hacker means "one who codes in an excellent fashion", and a cracker is one who breaks security.
In the security community, a cracker is one who breaks copy protection, and a hacker is one who breaks into networked computers.
In the engineer community, a hacker is one who does crappy work.
While I respect ESR, but I believe that in banging his jargon on the heads of everyone else because that's the way he likes it he is just being stubborn.
He is a VERY smart guy, but not everything that comes out of his mouth is gospel...
Different groups have used different jargon. All are useful. Get over it.
Dude, a combination of the two is what current compilers/chips do..
Even in gcc there are different schedulers for different cpu cores which focus on ordering instructions for maximum paralism in that cpu core, and all cpu's pentuim and above have out of order execution. This is how it has been done for a while, and I believe that if IA64 really can't do OOE like Compaq claims, performance will be markedly decreased...
>What the hell are you talking about with the military thing? We MUST place children in the front line? Last time I checked, it was a voluntary thing to join the military or police force.
You must be a young-un... In war time, this thing called the Draft often rears it's ugly head...
I have started a project at sourceforge.net called GNUquake that will be aiming to GNUify quake, make building for multiple platforms easier, improve the sound code so it works with ALSA, and whatever else you all want to add.
The project will remain compatible with the binary quake release, but eventually I would like to add more features that can be used with other GNUquake servers and clients such as a "blessed binary" system to minimize cheats, perhaps protocal improvements, and again whatever is concidered needful.
I am curently looking for a few people who want to help administer. Email me at "spinkham at users.sourceforge.net" if you are interested.
Note that CVS hasn't been updated, as the domain isn't quite active yet.. It should be up in the next 4-6 hours...
I have applied for a project at sourceforge. Should get comfirmation within 24 hours.. ;-)
In lieu of coming up with a good name, I called it GNUquake.
Here's my question/solution from another post I made:
OK, now that the whole source code is released, I can forsee quite a few more bot problems. Would it be a good idea to implement another master server list that uses the "blessed binaries" system much like netrek does?
For those not familiar, anyone can get source and mess with their own code, but to play on most servers, you must use one of the binaries that are certified to be cheat free and contain an encrypted key. There would have to be a team that would spend time checking modified code for cheats.. Is this worthwhile, or should I get used to playing with more
bot-enhanced lamerz?
OK, now that the whole source code is released, I can forsee quite a few more bot problems. Would it be a good idea to implement another master server list that uses the "blessed binaries" system much like netrek does?
For those not familiar, anyone can get source and mess with their own code, but to play on most servers, you must use one of the binaries that are certified and contain an encrypted key. There would have to be a team that would spend time checking modified code for cheats.. Is this worthwhile, or should I get used to playing with more bot-enhanced lamerz?
;-)
Why thank you!
I was actually concerned about playing mods that others have made, not creating non-free ones myself.
I have seen a lot of whining about quake1 data file here(an dumb arguement), but no one has addresed the issue of GPL'd quake1 + mods.
I believe quake1 doesn't directly link with mod code, but has a sort of c interpreter built in.
The mod code must then be parsed and run on that interpreter.
Is it legal to:
1) Use GPL'd quake1 with non-open mods?
2) Distribue quake1 with non-open mod code files?
They are NOT essential components.
Total conversions are avalible for quake 2, I think quake1 has at least one too..
Also, anyone can make their own maps and textures, what you are saying is like complaining that less doesn't come with al the authors text files, or gimp doesn't come with all the authors pictures.
If what you were saying was true, all GPL'd toolkits would be illegal
The bison thing was about code. This is about data.
Check out the whole thread started by post 146.
Ok, maybe that wasn't the best example..
/'text editor'/less
less requires text files to work, therefore since less is GPL'd, all of the author's text files are GPL'd.
The above is the same situation as the quake situation, as running less without text files only gives you errors. You are free to create your own text files or maps for less or quake1 respectively.
Also, none of this changes the fact that id is the copyright holder, and can release portions of source to whomever under whatever license they choose..
1st, the GPL applies to Code.
The levels are data files, and not code.
Saying ID must open source them is like saying anyone who open sources a text editor has to give you all their text files.
2nd, id software is the copyright holder, and is free to give away or not give away whatever they want. They can license their property under any license they want. They couldn't link their GPL'd code with non-GPL'd code (but we already established all their code is already GPL'd) but they could issue another version under another license, as long as it is all their copyright. In this version, no GPL'd code at all could be used, however.