Using Mason or Ax Kit or (insert templating system here) in perl will get you that much beloved separation of code and presentation that PHP tries so hard to discourage.
Yes, it's certainly silly to make a distro without GNU tools.
In your original post, though, you seemed to equate the usefulness of his released code with the validity of his ideas. They're completely separate - I appreciate his contribution to the Linux community (e.g. his GNU tools), but I think his ranting and irrationality does the community a disservice.
I consider "Free" software to be software you can do anything with - and that includes making proprietary changes. The original code is always available.
Calling the GPL free is like calling mandatory voting freedom.
I think what rubs people the wrong way isn't that RMS uses the GPL license. I think the problem most people (including me) have with him is his attempt to make everyone else use it, as well.
I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
No Linux distro runs without FSF code.
I believe there's a distro out there that runs without any of the FSF tools (gcc etc). Don't remember the name, though - perhaps someone will post a link.
Without the statements, however, the CEO is not guilty of fraud - the company is, and pays a relatively insignificant penalty (as a company cannot be jailed).
Correction: it shouldn't have had anything to do with the DMCA.
Unfortunately, Scientology did use the DMCA, and Google semi-capitulated. They did, however, get the last laugh - they just posted a message about it, with plain text URLs (no links) - ensuring even more traffic to them.
p.s. Mods, please moderate only if you have a fucking clue about the subject matter?
Different situation - the anti-Scientology sites posted Scientology materials that were copywritten by the Church. Thus, Google linking to them was considered circumventing copyright and thus a DMCA violation.
As far as the "execs to sign off on their financial reports": It's another waste of time. A feel-good, but that's it.
Read up on the plan - statements that are proven to be false result in criminal charges.
For example, Ken Lay of Enron could be charged - IIRC the penalty is 20 years in jail. That's better than he and his wife giving tearful interviews about how they've "lost everything" from their $6 million house.
I think executives should be made to sign the agreement, as well. IIRC the Bush administration is pushing a new law forcing execs to sign off on their financial reports - a nice step in the right direction, I'd say.
As for it being a waste of time, it takes less than 5 seconds to sign. You'll probably want to read it first, but that's not all that much extra time. If you're ethical, you'll have no problems following it, and if you're not, then you're probably going to break the agreement anyways.
The GPL does not disallow proprietary changes to software. It merely requires those changes to be distributed in the form of source code IF the company distributes the binaries.
If a company does not distribute their GPLed binaries, they're under no obligation to distribute the changed source code either.
Thus, an ASP would be fine - they're selling temporary use of the program, not the actual binaries, and thus they do not need to share the source.
Doesn't that say something about your choice of operating systems?
If it does, then it says something about both WinXP and Mandrake8. Thus, I'm assuming it's a hardware issue - the computer just won't stay turned off, whenever I turn it off it'll start back up again (essentially, it treats every shut down as a restart).
Keep trolling if you want to, though.
Re:ZDNet is on drugs
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 3, Informative
NTFS, while rather robust in its overall operation, CANNOT handle more than one improper shutdown without requiring massive amounts of repair and/or formatting
Really? That's funny... 'cause my computer, for some reason, won't shut down properly - I have to just yank the plug. I've done it dozens of times, and guess what - NTFS is just fine, no problems.
Why not code valid XHTML? It renders perfectly in IE, as well as any other modern browser.
Really what we need to is (I know I'll get killed for saying it) for all broswers to impliment DOM, CSS and javascript the way MS does.
No, we need idiot web designers to code valid XHTML. I do it, it's easy - in fact, it's entirely automated - I send everything through Tidy and it does all the work for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Using Mason or Ax Kit or (insert templating system here) in perl will get you that much beloved separation of code and presentation that PHP tries so hard to discourage.
http://smarty.php.net/
PHP's trying to discourage templating?
Yes, it's certainly silly to make a distro without GNU tools.
In your original post, though, you seemed to equate the usefulness of his released code with the validity of his ideas. They're completely separate - I appreciate his contribution to the Linux community (e.g. his GNU tools), but I think his ranting and irrationality does the community a disservice.
Depends on your definition of "freedom".
I consider "Free" software to be software you can do anything with - and that includes making proprietary changes. The original code is always available.
Calling the GPL free is like calling mandatory voting freedom.
I think what rubs people the wrong way isn't that RMS uses the GPL license. I think the problem most people (including me) have with him is his attempt to make everyone else use it, as well.
I also dislike the "Free" software term - GPL is restricted and non-Free, too. Public-domain (and BSD-style licensing, to a slightly lesser extent) are more "Free".
No Linux distro runs without FSF code.
I believe there's a distro out there that runs without any of the FSF tools (gcc etc). Don't remember the name, though - perhaps someone will post a link.
I feel really sorry for me@me.com - if you're reading slashdot, I'm sorry! :-p
It's also fun to put a real.com e-mail address in...
Are you honestly telling me you'd put your credit card number into a site that's just been (visibly!) hacked?
You're either more daring or more stupid than I.
If Slashdot starts using it, NYT/Google will add a referrer check or something.
Without the statements, however, the CEO is not guilty of fraud - the company is, and pays a relatively insignificant penalty (as a company cannot be jailed).
Correction: it shouldn't have had anything to do with the DMCA.
Unfortunately, Scientology did use the DMCA, and Google semi-capitulated. They did, however, get the last laugh - they just posted a message about it, with plain text URLs (no links) - ensuring even more traffic to them.
p.s. Mods, please moderate only if you have a fucking clue about the subject matter?
Different situation - the anti-Scientology sites posted Scientology materials that were copywritten by the Church. Thus, Google linking to them was considered circumventing copyright and thus a DMCA violation.
Very poor analogy, actually. Microsoft is in a very special class of companies: monopolies.
Not to mention being in an even more special class of companies, abusive monopolies - ones that use their monopoly power to crush competition.
So, Google is neither a monopoly nor an abusive monopoly.
As far as the "execs to sign off on their financial reports": It's another waste of time. A feel-good, but that's it.
Read up on the plan - statements that are proven to be false result in criminal charges.
For example, Ken Lay of Enron could be charged - IIRC the penalty is 20 years in jail. That's better than he and his wife giving tearful interviews about how they've "lost everything" from their $6 million house.
Fun solution - give them a list of every employee at every competitor. Tell them that you consider Adam & Eve your original ancestors.
My answers, though, would be Yes Yes No.
It definitely happens at other companies.
I think executives should be made to sign the agreement, as well. IIRC the Bush administration is pushing a new law forcing execs to sign off on their financial reports - a nice step in the right direction, I'd say.
As for it being a waste of time, it takes less than 5 seconds to sign. You'll probably want to read it first, but that's not all that much extra time. If you're ethical, you'll have no problems following it, and if you're not, then you're probably going to break the agreement anyways.
The GPL does not disallow proprietary changes to software. It merely requires those changes to be distributed in the form of source code IF the company distributes the binaries.
If a company does not distribute their GPLed binaries, they're under no obligation to distribute the changed source code either.
Thus, an ASP would be fine - they're selling temporary use of the program, not the actual binaries, and thus they do not need to share the source.
Okay, just how much money does Microsoft have in the bank? That goes beyond rewarding developers and moves into being a leech.
No, I'd call it good business sense.
If the Next Big Thing (TM) came out tomorrow, Microsoft could quickly move to get a substantial foothold, instead of having to wait for cash.
It's also a nice protection against a bad economy.
I dunno, knowing the SW fanbase, I'd say it's more like:
1. Natalie Portman
2. Profit!
It all depends - you could get it on the first try, or it could take trillions and trillions of calculations.
Doesn't that say something about your choice of
operating systems?
If it does, then it says something about both WinXP and Mandrake8. Thus, I'm assuming it's a hardware issue - the computer just won't stay turned off, whenever I turn it off it'll start back up again (essentially, it treats every shut down as a restart).
Keep trolling if you want to, though.
NTFS, while rather robust in its overall operation, CANNOT handle more than one improper shutdown without requiring massive amounts of repair and/or formatting
Really? That's funny... 'cause my computer, for some reason, won't shut down properly - I have to just yank the plug. I've done it dozens of times, and guess what - NTFS is just fine, no problems.
Lets not go making stuff up, eh?
The radiation detectors doctors wear aren't real time detectors - the watch is.
Or you could use a more versatile system like MoveableType... :-)
And once in a while, you get a good recommendation that totally changes your listening habits. I'd say it's worth it :-)
I code for IE and IE only now...
Why not code valid XHTML? It renders perfectly in IE, as well as any other modern browser.
Really what we need to is (I know I'll get killed for saying it) for all broswers to impliment DOM, CSS and javascript the way MS does.
No, we need idiot web designers to code valid XHTML. I do it, it's easy - in fact, it's entirely automated - I send everything through Tidy and it does all the work for me.
To me, Open Source is more philosophical than technical.
You'd likely be better off presenting it as a practical alternative, not a quasi-religion.
There are good, legitimate, practical reasons for using OSS - don't gloss over them in favor of dogma.