everytime you boot!? Last time I checked(using regmon) Just the real player system tray program accesses the registry dozens of times every second.
That's when real player is NOT running!!!
Re:I used to hate RealNetworks
on
Real's Reality
·
· Score: 1
I always hated real player. The thing that really made me abandon it though was the amount of ressources it took from my computer while it was just sitting in the tray. A few years ago I was playing with a utility called regmon (registry monitor) which monitor queries to the windows registry. I noticed that most of the registry activity was performed by the real player systray program. It was doing something like 50 queries every few seconds. Real player was NOT running it was only sitting in the tray. How can a program that is not running be constantly accessing the registry? Anyways I have rarely seen software so badly designed and bloated.
read a few years ago that the Gillette sensor excel cost 150 000 000$ to develop. (And as much to advertise) I don't know how much the mach 3 series cost but I think they deserve some kind of patent for that investment.lop.
Yes it is a crime. BUT! there are some grey areas like fair use and historical practices.
I mean people have been copying ausio cassettes for non commercial purposes for long time. No one has been sued. Hence the companies have set a precedent of this practice being acceptable. It is also considered to be an acceptable practice by the public. Everyone has done it.
Selling the songs commercially would be obviouslly illegal. Givind a copy to your friend is that illigal? Technically the law says yes, but then again there is a precedent of it being accepted. Precedents do count for something in court.
Now the internet enables to do copying on a very large scale. Even commercial scale. There is a debate on how different this is from copying a cassette.
I see that inherently don't requirer a lot of power. I'd like to comment on that.
I used to be anti-java because of poor performance. But with computers getting faster and faster every year I thing its starting to make sense for ligthweight applications like text editors.
I use JEdit on my new athlon 2600 and it runs flawlessly. No difference from a c app.
Granted text editors written in c can run flawlessly on a 286.
So performance seems to be 10 years behind for java apps. That means in ten years we will be able to run full scale applications at the speed we run c++ versions today.
People say that java is fast I think they are full of crap. I mean there are easelly 50 background c++ applications running on my machine at all time that don't use noticable resources. 50 java programs would consume a LOT of ressources.
But since it is so much easyer and cheaper to develop in Java I think it makes more and more sense to use it.
Java includes more and more stuff that is pre compiled in machine code. The crossplatform libraries are what make it so usefull.
I don't know why this isn't available for (cross platform) c++. I mean it isn't that difficult to write c++ that can be compiled on multiple platforms. I wonder if it would be possible to create a complete standard library of components including some for GUI like java. it would make c++ a lot more usefull I think.
No I think when most people say capitalistic they mean, that the market and competition determine how organisions and people get ressources. Let their fate be determined by the natural flow of money. That is capitalism.
Am I the only one who thinks that text is a much better medium that television for political campaigning? With television parties are force to blurt out only the catchy slogans that alure the general public because of time constraints.
With text, tey can explain much more what their vision is. They can put links to more information. They can educate the public on their views much better.
I mean it depends on what they do with it, but I think it could have potential.
Please someone tell me why I have been moderated as troll(parent post). I am just curious. Has this problem been solve already? Am I worrying for nothing?
I don't understant it seems like a legitimate concern to me. I search in google and found the following things concerning this issue:
I was seriously considering buying a mac until yesterday when I downloaded and tried Mandrake 10 Beta 2 with the new 2.6 kernel.
Man, the 2.6 kernel rules!!! I can't beleive it. They must have been some crappy code in 2.4 because everything is twice as fast in 2.6. My computer boots (almost) twice as fast as Mandrake 9.2. And you know how we use to have to ignore the fact that in a linux desktop you have to wait a few noticable miliseconds for every that hapens? I was sorta achamed to say it but everything seemed a lot more instantanous in windows or OSX. Everyone seemed to blame it on Xwindows. Well no more!!! All mouse clics and program load times, everything is lightening quik all because of 2.6.(unless they also considerably changed Xwindows)
Anyways I'm very impressed. In my mind linux was gona be desktop mature for the general public in about two years. Since yesterday I reduced my prediction to one year.
Also everything is well integrated. Evolution is as good as (if not better than) Outlook. The web browswer deals really well with multimedia. When clicking on movies and stuff it is automatically opened in a movie player and streamed if possible. I have not tried business software yet but have heard good things about it.
And I really think the new kernel is going to bring a lot more of games to Linux now that it performs so well.
I really think Linux is going to be a huge threat to Windose and OSX in the years to come.
Just the fact that Linux comes bundled with all this free software utilities. PLenty of stuff that you don't get in the other OSs.
Hey I notice that the trend in open source GPL software lately is to have to pay for it and not get the source. Red Hat enterprise for example, or mandrake Powerpack. Or even worst: the Nvidia video drivers.
It seems free software is becoming proprietary little by little because the companies stretch the meaning of the GPL Licence.
The GPL says:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. [...] These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
So I can see that Red Hat can argue that the things it adds to fedora to make it RH Enterprise Linux could be reasonably considered independent and thus it is not subjected to the GPL.
I personnaly don't see how it can be considered independent. I mean would it be usefull to port on another platform to get the benefits of these componants. I have difficulty beleiving that these components add "independent" features to Linux, they rather try to enhance Linux itself which would then make them GPL. I mean Red Hat doesn't say we sell "Linux + these programs" They say they sell "RH enterprise Linux" has a whole. If it is considered a work as a hole it should be all GPL.
It is even worst with the NVidia drivers where its actually compiled into the Linux kernel. This is proprietary code compiled into the kernel people!!. Now Nvidia Justifies it by saying that its their code made for windows, and they just wrote a GPL wrapper around it. The code was seperate and not designe for Linux. Now if that is true its not so bad, but I have difficulty believing they didn't had to addapt their code to Linux.
Now this is not so bad because Nvidia is being nice, its giving away the driver for free. Red Had plays nice with the community in general.
I hate to put these restrictions on good companies that play fair with the community. The fact that people seem to be ignoring these issues worries me noneotheless because it weakens the GPL. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to apply contracts selectivelly, that is if you let go of some rights in your contracts for some group you let it go for everyone. That is if some compagnie with bad intentions try to release a lot of proprietary modifications to Linux thus making there product useless without their proprietary code basicely making a proprietary Linux, we will have no legal recourses. Maybe they will have put all their modifications to the kernel in wrappers. And they will be able to say "You guys let Nvidia do it for many years hence you set a precedent which say that this practice is perfectly acceptable." And I'm pretty sure that is accepted in court.
He's right. Its very easy to break Mandrake's GUI tools. I expect these things will be fixed in a year or two and Linux will then be a very good desktop.
Yes but we do not choose what is on TV, we do not choose what is on the radio. That is the loophole the industry exploit. They give money to the media so that their factory produced artist have all the media coverage. Sure you can change the channel. But still, everywhere you go there will be a radio station playing or a TV that you don't own or control. The reason they can so easily exploit these loopholes is that it is very difficult to prove in court that they are just manipulating the public since music quality is so subjective.
I think that free downloads is a way to reverse that competition crushing effect that the media loopholes have created. People will tend to purshase the good quality stuff a lot more than the factory produced crap. Real good CD's have more value than mp3's or copied CDs. The industry should have to rely on quality products to make profit, not media loopholes.
And that's what downloading does. It forces the industry to make quality products.
"I do think, however, that the companies are justified in defending their property even if they are big evil corporations representing talentless pop pansies."
You see that's what the problem is. The reason we are irritated at companies defending their property is that these companies are trying to force "talentless pop pansies" onto the public not quality artistic music. I beleive if corporations were trying to protect something of quality, something people think is worth the money we would not be upset.
It is a problem that companies use marketing techniques that include psychological manipulation so that unoriginal music that have no real value become popular. This music has no value because basic musician could make it on their home computer. It's the marketing that makes it popular. That is, these companie are getting insane amounts of money on marketing only.
There are exeptions. If the music is really good. That it be a real original work of art, a lot of people want to own the original CD. A little bit like jewelry, people don't like cheap imitations of quality products. They want to have the packaging artwork that comes with it. They want to be able to read the credits and song lyrics. They even want to support the artists.
So in a way the fact that music is freely distributed on the internet SOLVES a problem which there was no solution before. It stops the companies at being able to manipulate the public through marketing at buying low quality products. Only products which demonstrates real value can make money now.
Hey I notice that the trend in open source GPL software lately is to have to pay for in and not get the source. Red Hat enterprise for example, or mandrake Powerpack. Or even worst: the Nvidia video drivers.
It seems free software is becoming proprietary little by little because the companies stretch the meaning of the GPL Licence.
The GPL says:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. [...] These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
So I can see that Red Hat can argue that the things it adds to fedora to make it RH Enterprise Linux could be reasonably considered independent and thus it is not subjected to the GPL.
I personnaly don't see how it can be considered independent. I mean would it be usefull to port on another platform to get the benefits of these componants. I have difficulty beleiving that these components add "independent" features to Linux, they rather try to enhance Linux itself which would then make them GPL. I mean Red Hat doesn't say we sell "Linux + these programs" They say they sell "RH enterprise Linux" has a whole. If it is considered a work as a hole it should be all GPL.
It is even worst with the NVidia drivers where its actually compiled into the Linux kernel. This is proprietary code compiled into the kernel people!!. Now Nvidia Justifies it by saying that its their code made for windows, and they just wrote a GPL wrapper around it. The code was seperate and not designe for Linux. Now if that is true its not so bad, but I have difficulty believing they didn't had to addapt their code to Linux.
Now this is not so bad because Nvidia is being nice, its giving away the driver for free. Red Had plays nice with the community in general.
I hate to put these restrictions on good companies that play fair with the community. The fact that people seem to be ignoring these issues worries me noneotheless because it weakens the GPL. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to apply contracts selectivelly, that is if you let go of some rights in your contracts for some group you let it go for everyone. That is if some compagnie with bad intentions try to release a lot of proprietary modifications to Linux thus making there product useless without their proprietary code basicely making a proprietary Linux, we will have no legal recourses. Maybe they will have put all their modifications to the kernel in wrappers. And they will be able to say "You guys let Nvidia do it for many years hence you set a precedent which say that this practice is perfectly acceptable." And I'm pretty sure that is accepted in court.
Man, the 2.6 kernel rules!!! I can't beleive it. They must have been some crappy code in 2.4 because everything is twice as fast in 2.6. I just downloaded Mandrake 10 beta 2. My computer boots (almost) twice as fast. And you know how we use to have to ignore the fact that in X you have to wait a few noticable miliseconds for every actions? I was sorta achamed to say it but everything seemed a lot more instantanous in windows. Everyone seemed to blame it on X. Well no more!!! All mouse clics programs load times, everything is lightning quik all because of 2.6.(unless they also change Xwindows)
I agree. Linux doesn't need marketing. Just the fact that it costs 0$ is enough to make people try it.
The problem is when they try it and its so difficult tu use because of the issues you mentioned.
I think it just needs to mature a little before it becomes a general public thing. I'm sure in two years a lot of the issues will have been fixed and some Linux distros will be has easy to use as windows or OSX.
Numerous scientific studies have shown that animals can learn thing and act as teachers to other animals passing knowledge from generation to generation. Crows can count, Chimps can learn sign language and even teach it to their kids. Dolphins mimic humans around them, birds learn songs that become parts of their society. Beavers find elaborate solutions to patch their dams. Squids can learn to open jars.
In 1920 a bird learned to open milk bottles in England. A few weeks later all of that bird specie knew how to open these bottles. Human had to redesign the bottle so that the birds wouldn't drink their milk.
It makes you think of how when you separate a young animal from its natural society he doesn't get to learn the culture he's suppose to learn and cannot necessarily survive well later. Or when you change animals habitats they have to relearn how to live in this new habitat. In the old habitat they had all the knowledge about it that was passed from generation to generation.
Often people assume that if you take a few animals relocate them because you want to build over their home everything will be fine. They will reproduce and live in their new place. But these animals are forced to leave their home their social network, friends and teachers. They may not have the resources to survive.
I bilive tere is no poynt in riting corectely as long as it is understandable. Of course that just aplies to informal/. discusions where I don't have time to re-read what I typed in.
Anyways when you start analysing the more complicated structures in english, there aren't really any rules just suggestions. Linguists don't agree with how things should be written. grammer books are either silent about some facts or they don't say the same thing.
Because of all these inconsistencies I started taking grammar as more of a suggestion of how things should be written, not a rule. If the expert don't know how to write why sould I?
It is even more of a problem with newer words. Like how do you pluralize a computer mouse?? would you say:keyboards and mouses,keyboards and mice? When you make new words you tend to regularize them but not always. If you look in the store advertisements you will often see "input devivces" because they just don't know how to pluralize computer mouse.
"And yes, the government (remember: not *a* government, or *our* government) is simply an agreement between people. Our agreement is called the U.S. Constitution. Other countries have their own agreements. And extra-national governments such as the E.U. or the U.N. are just agreements between nations."
Yes but this agreement contains much more than the internet protocol agreement. Therefore you can't say that goverment is the following agreement "I agree to give up some of my freedoms and in return you give up some of yours".That doesn't cover even 1% of the constitution whereas you can say the internet is an agreement:"The internet" is just an agreement between two people where one agrees to send data to the other" describes pretty much the whole internet protocol because it is so simple.
And they are other inter-networks but they are not called "internet". To be called internet you have to follow the internet protocol. Now I am not saying there is just one internet because its easy to use the ip to connect 2 networks independently of the "real internet". In fact there is something called the internet 2 which uses ipv6 and is a seperate internet.
Main Entry: pragmatics Pronunciation: prag-'ma-tiks Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction 1 : a branch of semiotic that deals with the relation between signs or linguistic expressions and their users 2 : linguistics concerned with the relationship of sentences to the environment in which they occur
Slashdot Mirror
everytime you boot!? Last time I checked(using regmon) Just the real player system tray program accesses the registry dozens of times every second.
That's when real player is NOT running!!!
I always hated real player. The thing that really made me abandon it though was the amount of ressources it took from my computer while it was just sitting in the tray. A few years ago I was playing with a utility called regmon (registry monitor) which monitor queries to the windows registry. I noticed that most of the registry activity was performed by the real player systray program. It was doing something like 50 queries every few seconds. Real player was NOT running it was only sitting in the tray. How can a program that is not running be constantly accessing the registry? Anyways I have rarely seen software so badly designed and bloated.
read a few years ago that the Gillette sensor excel cost 150 000 000$ to develop. (And as much to advertise) I don't know how much the mach 3 series cost but I think they deserve some kind of patent for that investment.lop.
Yes it is a crime. BUT! there are some grey areas like fair use and historical practices.
I mean people have been copying ausio cassettes for non commercial purposes for long time. No one has been sued. Hence the companies have set a precedent of this practice being acceptable. It is also considered to be an acceptable practice by the public. Everyone has done it.
Selling the songs commercially would be obviouslly illegal. Givind a copy to your friend is that illigal? Technically the law says yes, but then again there is a precedent of it being accepted. Precedents do count for something in court.
Now the internet enables to do copying on a very large scale. Even commercial scale. There is a debate on how different this is from copying a cassette.
I see that inherently don't requirer a lot of power. I'd like to comment on that.
I used to be anti-java because of poor performance. But with computers getting faster and faster every year I thing its starting to make sense for ligthweight applications like text editors.
I use JEdit on my new athlon 2600 and it runs flawlessly. No difference from a c app.
Granted text editors written in c can run flawlessly on a 286.
So performance seems to be 10 years behind for java apps. That means in ten years we will be able to run full scale applications at the speed we run c++ versions today.
People say that java is fast I think they are full of crap. I mean there are easelly 50 background c++ applications running on my machine at all time that don't use noticable resources. 50 java programs would consume a LOT of ressources.
But since it is so much easyer and cheaper to develop in Java I think it makes more and more sense to use it.
Java includes more and more stuff that is pre compiled in machine code. The crossplatform libraries are what make it so usefull.
I don't know why this isn't available for (cross platform) c++. I mean it isn't that difficult to write c++ that can be compiled on multiple platforms. I wonder if it would be possible to create a complete standard library of components including some for GUI like java. it would make c++ a lot more usefull I think.
No I think when most people say capitalistic they mean, that the market and competition determine how organisions and people get ressources. Let their fate be determined by the natural flow of money. That is capitalism.
Ya I think it is a goog policy. They just wont stick their nose where they don't need to. Let the market decide what is best. That is true capitalism.
Am I the only one who thinks that text is a much better medium that television for political campaigning? With television parties are force to blurt out only the catchy slogans that alure the general public because of time constraints.
With text, tey can explain much more what their vision is. They can put links to more information. They can educate the public on their views much better.
I mean it depends on what they do with it, but I think it could have potential.
Please someone tell me why I have been moderated as troll(parent post). I am just curious. Has this problem been solve already? Am I worrying for nothing?
I don't understant it seems like a legitimate concern to me. I search in google and found the following things concerning this issue:
this
this
this
this
so it has been discused plenty but it is far from being resolved. Meanwhile the companies try to stretch more and more the meaning of the GPL.
I was seriously considering buying a mac until yesterday when I downloaded and tried Mandrake 10 Beta 2 with the new 2.6 kernel.
.(unless they also considerably changed Xwindows)
Man, the 2.6 kernel rules!!! I can't beleive it. They must have been some crappy code in 2.4 because everything is twice as fast in 2.6. My computer boots (almost) twice as fast as Mandrake 9.2. And you know how we use to have to ignore the fact that in a linux desktop you have to wait a few noticable miliseconds for every that hapens? I was sorta achamed to say it but everything seemed a lot more instantanous in windows or OSX. Everyone seemed to blame it on Xwindows. Well no more!!! All mouse clics and program load times, everything is lightening quik all because of 2.6
Anyways I'm very impressed. In my mind linux was gona be desktop mature for the general public in about two years. Since yesterday I reduced my prediction to one year.
Also everything is well integrated. Evolution is as good as (if not better than) Outlook. The web browswer deals really well with multimedia. When clicking on movies and stuff it is automatically opened in a movie player and streamed if possible.
I have not tried business software yet but have heard good things about it.
And I really think the new kernel is going to bring a lot more of games to Linux now that it performs so well.
I really think Linux is going to be a huge threat to Windose and OSX in the years to come.
Just the fact that Linux comes bundled with all this free software utilities. PLenty of stuff that you don't get in the other OSs.
try it youll see. Its really amazing
Hey I notice that the trend in open source GPL software lately is to have to pay for it and not get the source. Red Hat enterprise for example, or mandrake Powerpack. Or even worst: the Nvidia video drivers.
It seems free software is becoming proprietary little by little because the companies stretch the meaning of the GPL Licence.
The GPL says:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. [...] These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
So I can see that Red Hat can argue that the things it adds to fedora to make it RH Enterprise Linux could be reasonably considered independent and thus it is not subjected to the GPL.
I personnaly don't see how it can be considered independent. I mean would it be usefull to port on another platform to get the benefits of these componants. I have difficulty beleiving that these components add "independent" features to Linux, they rather try to enhance Linux itself which would then make them GPL. I mean Red Hat doesn't say we sell "Linux + these programs" They say they sell "RH enterprise Linux" has a whole. If it is considered a work as a hole it should be all GPL.
It is even worst with the NVidia drivers where its actually compiled into the Linux kernel. This is proprietary code compiled into the kernel people!!. Now Nvidia Justifies it by saying that its their code made for windows, and they just wrote a GPL wrapper around it. The code was seperate and not designe for Linux. Now if that is true its not so bad, but I have difficulty believing they didn't had to addapt their code to Linux.
Now this is not so bad because Nvidia is being nice, its giving away the driver for free. Red Had plays nice with the community in general.
I hate to put these restrictions on good companies that play fair with the community. The fact that people seem to be ignoring these issues worries me noneotheless because it weakens the GPL. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to apply contracts selectivelly, that is if you let go of some rights in your contracts for some group you let it go for everyone. That is if some compagnie with bad intentions try to release a lot of proprietary modifications to Linux thus making there product useless without their proprietary code basicely making a proprietary Linux, we will have no legal recourses. Maybe they will have put all their modifications to the kernel in wrappers. And they will be able to say "You guys let Nvidia do it for many years hence you set a precedent which say that this practice is perfectly acceptable." And I'm pretty sure that is accepted in court.
ah but if these chemicals are so cheap we can just spray them everywhere effectively jamming the signal
He's right. Its very easy to break Mandrake's GUI tools. I expect these things will be fixed in a year or two and Linux will then be a very good desktop.
Yes but we do not choose what is on TV, we do not choose what is on the radio. That is the loophole the industry exploit. They give money to the media so that their factory produced artist have all the media coverage. Sure you can change the channel. But still, everywhere you go there will be a radio station playing or a TV that you don't own or control. The reason they can so easily exploit these loopholes is that it is very difficult to prove in court that they are just manipulating the public since music quality is so subjective.
I think that free downloads is a way to reverse that competition crushing effect that the media loopholes have created. People will tend to purshase the good quality stuff a lot more than the factory produced crap. Real good CD's have more value than mp3's or copied CDs. The industry should have to rely on quality products to make profit, not media loopholes.
And that's what downloading does. It forces the industry to make quality products.
"I do think, however, that the companies are justified in defending their property even if they are big evil corporations representing talentless pop pansies."
You see that's what the problem is. The reason we are irritated at companies defending their property is that these companies are trying to force "talentless pop pansies" onto the public not quality artistic music. I beleive if corporations were trying to protect something of quality, something people think is worth the money we would not be upset.
It is a problem that companies use marketing techniques that include psychological manipulation so that unoriginal music that have no real value become popular. This music has no value because basic musician could make it on their home computer. It's the marketing that makes it popular. That is, these companie are getting insane amounts of money on marketing only.
There are exeptions. If the music is really good. That it be a real original work of art, a lot of people want to own the original CD. A little bit like jewelry, people don't like cheap imitations of quality products. They want to have the packaging artwork that comes with it. They want to be able to read the credits and song lyrics. They even want to support the artists.
So in a way the fact that music is freely distributed on the internet SOLVES a problem which there was no solution before. It stops the companies at being able to manipulate the public through marketing at buying low quality products. Only products which demonstrates real value can make money now.
Hey I notice that the trend in open source GPL software lately is to have to pay for in and not get the source. Red Hat enterprise for example, or mandrake Powerpack. Or even worst: the Nvidia video drivers.
It seems free software is becoming proprietary little by little because the companies stretch the meaning of the GPL Licence.
The GPL says:
"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. [...] These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
So I can see that Red Hat can argue that the things it adds to fedora to make it RH Enterprise Linux could be reasonably considered independent and thus it is not subjected to the GPL.
I personnaly don't see how it can be considered independent. I mean would it be usefull to port on another platform to get the benefits of these componants. I have difficulty beleiving that these components add "independent" features to Linux, they rather try to enhance Linux itself which would then make them GPL. I mean Red Hat doesn't say we sell "Linux + these programs" They say they sell "RH enterprise Linux" has a whole. If it is considered a work as a hole it should be all GPL.
It is even worst with the NVidia drivers where its actually compiled into the Linux kernel. This is proprietary code compiled into the kernel people!!. Now Nvidia Justifies it by saying that its their code made for windows, and they just wrote a GPL wrapper around it. The code was seperate and not designe for Linux. Now if that is true its not so bad, but I have difficulty believing they didn't had to addapt their code to Linux.
Now this is not so bad because Nvidia is being nice, its giving away the driver for free. Red Had plays nice with the community in general.
I hate to put these restrictions on good companies that play fair with the community. The fact that people seem to be ignoring these issues worries me noneotheless because it weakens the GPL. IANAL but I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to apply contracts selectivelly, that is if you let go of some rights in your contracts for some group you let it go for everyone. That is if some compagnie with bad intentions try to release a lot of proprietary modifications to Linux thus making there product useless without their proprietary code basicely making a proprietary Linux, we will have no legal recourses. Maybe they will have put all their modifications to the kernel in wrappers. And they will be able to say "You guys let Nvidia do it for many years hence you set a precedent which say that this practice is perfectly acceptable." And I'm pretty sure that is accepted in court.
Man, the 2.6 kernel rules!!! I can't beleive it. They must have been some crappy code in 2.4 because everything is twice as fast in 2.6. I just downloaded Mandrake 10 beta 2. My computer boots (almost) twice as fast. And you know how we use to have to ignore the fact that in X you have to wait a few noticable miliseconds for every actions? I was sorta achamed to say it but everything seemed a lot more instantanous in windows. Everyone seemed to blame it on X. Well no more!!! All mouse clics programs load times, everything is lightning quik all because of 2.6 .(unless they also change Xwindows)
anyways I'm very impressed.
try it youll see.
but what if theres kinux code in it??? woukd you pass on that opportunity?
I agree. Linux doesn't need marketing. Just the fact that it costs 0$ is enough to make people try it.
The problem is when they try it and its so difficult tu use because of the issues you mentioned.
I think it just needs to mature a little before it becomes a general public thing. I'm sure in two years a lot of the issues will have been fixed and some Linux distros will be has easy to use as windows or OSX.
Numerous scientific studies have shown that animals can learn thing and act as teachers to other animals passing knowledge from generation to generation. Crows can count, Chimps can learn sign language and even teach it to their kids. Dolphins mimic humans around them, birds learn songs that become parts of their society. Beavers find elaborate solutions to patch their dams. Squids can learn to open jars.
In 1920 a bird learned to open milk bottles in England. A few weeks later all of that bird specie knew how to open these bottles. Human had to redesign the bottle so that the birds wouldn't drink their milk.
It makes you think of how when you separate a young animal from its natural society he doesn't get to learn the culture he's suppose to learn and cannot necessarily survive well later. Or when you change animals habitats they have to relearn how to live in this new habitat. In the old habitat they had all the knowledge about it that was passed from generation to generation.
Often people assume that if you take a few animals relocate them because you want to build over their home everything will be fine. They will reproduce and live in their new place. But these animals are forced to leave their home their social network, friends and teachers. They may not have the resources to survive.
"it was too long!
actually not all humans are advanced enough to claim it in my opinion but thats another matter!"
Specially those who can't get through 2 pages of text.
I bilive tere is no poynt in riting corectely as long as it is understandable. Of course that just aplies to informal /. discusions where I don't have time to re-read what I typed in.
Anyways when you start analysing the more complicated structures in english, there aren't really any rules just suggestions. Linguists don't agree with how things should be written. grammer books are either silent about some facts or they don't say the same thing.
Because of all these inconsistencies I started taking grammar as more of a suggestion of how things should be written, not a rule. If the expert don't know how to write why sould I?
It is even more of a problem with newer words. Like how do you pluralize a computer mouse?? would you say:keyboards and mouses,keyboards and mice? When you make new words you tend to regularize them but not always. If you look in the store advertisements you will often see "input devivces" because they just don't know how to pluralize computer mouse.
I was the parent who initially said it, and that is what I meant. The real definition from the dictionary. Mosly the second part of it.
"And yes, the government (remember: not *a* government, or *our* government) is simply an agreement between people. Our agreement is called the U.S. Constitution. Other countries have their own agreements. And extra-national governments such as the E.U. or the U.N. are just agreements between nations."
.That doesn't cover even 1% of the constitution whereas you can say the internet is an agreement :"The internet" is just an agreement between two people where one agrees to send data to the other" describes pretty much the whole internet protocol because it is so simple.
Yes but this agreement contains much more than the internet protocol agreement. Therefore you can't say that goverment is the following agreement "I agree to give up some of my freedoms and in return you give up some of yours"
And they are other inter-networks but they are not called "internet". To be called internet you have to follow the internet protocol. Now I am not saying there is just one internet because its easy to use the ip to connect 2 networks independently of the "real internet". In fact there is something called the internet 2 which uses ipv6 and is a seperate internet.
FYI it is a field
from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: pragmatics
Pronunciation: prag-'ma-tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : a branch of semiotic that deals with the relation between signs or linguistic expressions and their users
2 : linguistics concerned with the relationship of sentences to the environment in which they occur