People bitch when/. posts releases the moment that they hit the main server and before the propegate, and then people bitch when they give the mirrors time to be ready for the/. onslaught.
Ah, but they're different people. I hope.
You can't please everyone, but you can do what's right. I vote for letting the mirrors sync.
Failure to supply South Africans without being registered means potential jail time
Obviously, it means that if you supply South Africans to the market [1] all is fine, whereas if you fail to supply them to the market without registering as a non-supplier, you in a heap o' trouble, boy!
[1] I thought slavery was illegal there; they must have relegalized it there once they kicked the whites out. Or maybe that really meant something else entirely? No...
Why hasn't anyone developed a device that has DIMM slots for PCXXXX RAM and an IDE/Firewire/USB interface on it?
Probably because hard drives (ide, anyway) cost about a buck a gigabyte. SDRAM costs about a buck a megabyte; maybe a little more once you add a power supply and an interface. But, look here and here . The first is pretty much what you're looking for, I think, and the second is a bit more cost effective.
"Apple is trying to "close the operating system to tweakers"
Apple opens mouth, inserts shot foot.
From the article:
For years, one of the big attractions of the Mac was the ability to customize the operating system. Users could completely overhaul the machine's interface, sometimes to the point where it was entirely idiosyncratic.
The old guard of Mac users aren't going to be happy. Neither are the switchers coming from the Unix world. Is anyone going to like this except Jobs?
Also from the article:
Even users are legally prohibited from making changes to OS X: The license agreement basically says Apple owns the interface and users aren't allowed to mess with it.
[... snip...]
Apple's lawyers may turn the other cheek, but its engineers have taken a more active approach. To prevent interface changes in OS 10.2, known as Jaguar, the software prevents programs from taking up certain bits of screen real estate. For example, the API that allows for custom menus and icons on the right side of the top menu bar, next to the clock, prohibits all but Apple-approved menu items.
It's the Apple way, all the way. They could have gotten lots of free eyecandy for their next version if they had let folks decorate it for them. This makes their stuff look just a little less attractive to me, at least. Oh, well, I probably couldn't have afforded one of those nice ibooks anyway.
That isbn seems to be for an out-of-print version. Try this one: 0805002413, found on barnsandnobel.com. It looks like a later edition by the same author.
I've had some success with some of his methods. I've been able to keep pretty good depth of focus by intermittantly using the sort of exercises he recommends. I haven't tried the bulk of his routines since I was a teenager.
Re:I know you're kidding, but....
on
Undelete In Linux
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Um, KDE is really nice and my windowing system/manager of choice under Linux. But it's really not so "easy to use" "all the time" to the degree that Windows and Mac OS are.
Since you mention Mac, you probably don't think ``easy to use'' means ``just like MSWindows''. What does ``easy to use'' mean to you?
My four-year-old has no more problems with KDE than she does with MSWin. Both kids manage to screw up MSWindows periodically. They haven't managed to get Linux (currently RH7.3) screwed up enough to need help for quite a while. For me, Linux is easier to use as a kid's toy than is MSWindows. If it only ran Reader Rabbit!
My wife couldn't tell which OS the kids were running until I taught her to look for the big K versus Start. She knows that our box is always running Linux, and hasn't had any problem browsing the web and reading email. I don't have to worry about her opening the viruses our goofy friends send her, either (knock on wood). If I trained her to su to root, and type ``apt-get update;apt-get -u upgrade'', she could do the system administration, too. It's not that easy on Windows.
A friend just got a WinXP computer (on purpose, yet!). He's having terrible problems getting it into a usable state. If his mind didn't go blank at the mere thought of understanding his machine, I'd set him up with Debian, since I suspect that KDE would be easier for him to do his thing with. He liked Knoppix, but the thought that it's non-MS worried him.
Linux presents a lot of little difficulties, but so does MSWin. The difference is that if you know what you are doing, you can fix the problems with Linux. Presetup Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet, but neither is presetup Windows.
Nasa employs some of the smartest and most experienced people in the world...
That's the same bunch who screwed up metric --> english conversion and crashed a martian lander, right?
I believe NASA should have a monopoly on space travel as they are the only ones who seem to get it right.
I hope that was a joke, but it didn't look like one. Maybe your irony and sarcasm was too subtle for me.
If enough of the intellect-impared were to take that seriously, we'd outlaw commercial aviation because someone might might fly a plane into a building. We'd outlaw driving cars for the same reason. We'd outlaw cooking because you might burn down the neighborhood.
``We'd outlaw commercial aviation...'' Hmmm. Well, maybe you weren't joking. There are a lot of intellect-impared people about nowadays.
The bad thing about a crack which crashes an MS server is that no one will notice. Why bother?
The great thing about MS software is that it keeps your downtime up and your uptime down. Constant problems are a great way to show management just how essential all the sysadmins are. This is the secret of MS's success.
As Foghorn Leghorn would say: ``That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son.''
>>If you do it publicly, it is exactly like Rosa Parks' refusal to move to the back of the bus. >To paraphrase "Barbershop", she just 'sat on her big black ass'.
Yep, she sat on it where it was illegal to do so, to protest an unjust law. I'm sure she was aware that it wasn't entirely safe, and could have bad consequences for her. I'm sure that there were a lot of people then who thought that even though it might be a bad law, she shouldn't have done what she did. They were wrong then. Folks who think that we shouldn't protest unjust laws today are wrong now.
Yes, some engineers will have a use for this. So will chemists who want to visualize molecules. This will fill a lot of other little niches, too. All those little niches together probably won't add up to the size of the games market, which is a niche itself. These guys are using high-end PC's or workstations, and that's not a huge market compared to general PC sales.
I saw the claim recently (wish I could remember where) that 25% of PC's are sold for home use, and the remainder for business, probably meaning spreadsheets and word processing. I don't see these monitors catching on in the sort of business that people have in mind when they ask: ``Is the linux desktop ready for business users?'' For spreadsheets and word processors, I can't imagine that this will be better than color.
The largest single use for these things will probably be porn. Lots of people will be embarrased to admit that they spent the big bucks just to satisfy their porn addiction, so they'll just have to get some respectable software that can use their 3d monitor. Since Autocad will probably be an early adopter, I predict their sales will show an upward blip.
MAN: ``Honest, dear, it isn't for porn, it's for designing... uh... stuff! Yeah, that's the ticket! Stuff! Look, I bought it to use with Autocad!''. WOMAN: ``You paid HOW MUCH to look at pictures of nekkid women?'' (loud footstomps. door slams.) MAN: ``I thought she'd fall for it. Oh, well, bakk to bukkake!''
And this is good for what?
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can see how this would be great for Autocad (if they ever write a driver to diplay their 3d drawings on this), and for POVray (if they ever write a driver...). I'm sure that Quake et al will eventually support this, since gamers spend big bucks on gadgets.
This is really neat, but if you're running a word processor or a spreadsheet, will you ever care? If you're simulating something n-dimensional, what good is 3d? This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Of course, so was the laser.
..is a quick telling of why this would cause problems for even what the RIAA calls "law abiding netziens."
Here's another way us law-abiding folks could have problems:
Suppose that you put an audio of your baby on line, for the rest of the family to hear. You title it``Baby's first steps.mp3''. This happens to be same title and size as an RIAA-copyrighted song. You are now a target for an electronic lynching by the RIAA.
Can they prove that this could never happen? I don't think so. I think that self-help is just plain wrong for anything where there is no imminent danger to life or limb. If this sort of thing is ok, it should be ok for me to come and shoot you because I suspect that you might commit a crime someday. That might seem a bit more extreme, but it is the same principle.
I think you're wrong. If several thousand people violate the DMCA publicly, and publicly turn themselves in, the authorities will have to choose between: prosecuting them all, at great expense, prosecuting only a few, or letting them all go.
Any of these options would put them in a tough position, and here's why: a law can be rendered unenforcable by selective enforcement. The law must apply equally to all. If the authorities choose either of the second two options, they begin to run up against selective enforcement. If they choose the first option, they add thousands of cases to a very crowded Federal docket, and find themselves paying a LOT of money for bad publicity. The rock and the hard place are suddenly very close together.
No, when the speed limit was 55 and everyone drove 70, the police could pull over anyone they disliked.
Yes, the cops can, and possibly do, selectively enforce the speed limits. They can pull you over for driving a car that they envy, for being black, because they're mad at their wives, or simply to meet a quota. They get away with it because they can only catch one speeder at a time.
This is why it would be vital that EVERYONE march into the cop shop, confess, and DEMAND to be charged with the crime. This makes it impossible for the cops to say the equivalent of ``He was the only speeder I saw at that time, your honor.''
There was a lot of civil disobedience about salmon fishing regulations in the Washington/Oregon area a few years ago. Many people fished illegally, and many more stood on the bank, casting lures without hooks. That was legal, but it made it far harder for the fish cops to bust the protesters. In our case, someone who wanted to show some support but didn't want to risk jail could show up, copy something which was NOT copy protected, and not mention that until the trial. ``Yes, you honor, I did copy that disk, but I have since learned that it wasn't copy protected, so I'm afraid I'm innocent.''
Cringly talks about 10 million people. I could easily believe that 10,000 would be enough, given a bit of publicity. That's less than 0.05% of the population.
Illegally duplicating and distributing a movie is not in the same arena as marching against institutionalized racism.
Protesting restraints on our rights to free speech, and on our rights to use the public domain, is exactly the same as ``... marching against institutionalized racism.''
It is a petty crime with no moral value whatsoever.
Wrong. If you violate the DMCA by makeing a backup copy of copyrighted, encrypted content which you have legally purchased, your action is entirely moral. If you do it publicly, it is exactly like Rosa Parks' refusal to move to the back of the bus.
What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software?
Well, honesty is the best policy. If a business is violating copyright on proprietary software, it seems entirely appropriate to anonymously turn them in to the BSA. Four good reasons why: It's the right thing to do (TM). It helps publicise MS's license terms. It helps the Libre software evangelists. There might even be a reward?
I think that if an individual asks you to help violate MS's copyright, you should use it as an opportunity to explain that that is immoral, and illegal, and you can't do it. Of course, you continue to explain, you can help him to install this Libre alternative.
As I said in an earlier post, even if this doesn't convert the would-be copier, it can at least get you out of having to install Windows.
I wonder if you could view a soft stance towards piracy as "dumping"...
The US defines dumping as selling over here, a product made over there, for a price below average cost [1]. If it is indeed dumping (i.e., selling at a below-optimal price to build marketshare and hurt the domestic industry), then a reasonable person would say that the dumper is paying us to take his wares. If we have no domestic industry (the case in China, for software), we would be fools not to encourage dumping. Same thing if the industry is one which could be restarted when the foreign dumper tried to raise prices [2].
My point is that first, the Chinese don't have any anti-dumping laws that I am aware of, and second, since they have no existing software industry to protect, they have no reason to complain if MS wants to get screwed to give them freebies [3].
[1]Average cost is usually well above marginal cost, so it is often the case that the optimal price for a monopolist who is practicing price discrimination between here and his home market is well below average cost, and well above marginal cost, so that monopolistic behavior is construed by our stupid laws as dumping. [2]Given the existance of minimills, steel seems to fall into this latter category. [3] If they ever WANT to have a software industry, they would do well to ban non-Libre software, paid for or not. But that's another rant.
...piracy is so rampant in China, Windows is, in essence, free as well.
I had an office mate from Kenya. He was shocked to learn that people payed for software. When I asked him how he thought that MS got its money, he said he'd never thought about it, but it would never have occured to him that they got it by selling software! According to him, in Africa, all software is free. I mentioned it to a couple of his compatriots, and they had the same take on the subject.
This is exactly why i do not offer to give copies of Windows to people...
For once, morality meshes with expediency.
I have installed Windows for people a few times in the last couple years. I have always insisted that they provide a legitimate copy of the software. I didn't ask for proof up to Microsoft's standards, of course: no one keeps records that well. I did insist that they have the install media and the authentication thingy with the product key.
There are a couple of very good reasons for this: 1) As you say, this gets across the point that Windows is expensive. 2) This lets me satisfy my own consience. I detest MS, but I don't want to rob them. 3) Many people think that they have a right to buy Windows once, and install it many times. My policy spreads the word about the reality of MS's license terms. 4) This has gotten me out of doing several Windows installs.
So far we have several dozen posts complaining about licenses (so very Slashdot of you, really), and no one talking about why releasing the Releasing the Rendezvous source is so cool.
MS has released the source code for their crown jewels. Unfortunately, that's not cool. MS released it under terms that are not only unacceptable, but amount to a booby trap. If folks read the MS code, they are ``contaminated'', unable to work on libre implementations of the same ideas.
Apple has released their code, with terms that many will find unacceptable. If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.
Imagine setting up a dozen machines at a conference or a LAN party and having them automatically self-configure their networking and discover each others services, without having to worry about subnet masks or a DHCP server.
Imagine not being able to do this because the APSL won't mix with the license terms of your distribution. Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license. Imagine Apple sueing the developers of (so far hypothetical) Zeroconf-libre, saying that they have stolen code from Rendevous.
Getting totally off-topic, the libre implementation should be known as either Krendevous or Gnondevous.
... I just don't get the sense of community that I get from the FreeBSD people.
Interesting. The few times I've looked at the *BSD lists, I didn't like what I saw, and went back to Linux. My impression was that folks were a bit snottier. This was a couple years ago, so I really can't give any details.
They should stomps the annoying Bugs in their software before stomping the competition with FUD...
Pure foolishness. MS is all about sales. If the bugs didn't keep you from buying their crap all these years, why would they stop you now? Why would MS fix them now?
MS will never fix a bug unless that has a positive impact on their bottom line. This link will take you to a collection of info about bugs that MS hasn't fixed in Excell.
... 5 years later, 3 service pack later, windows 2000 *STILL* has that bug.
See above. They've got you by the Balmers, and they plan to squeeze you a good deal harder. THEY DON"T CARE IF YOU'RE HAPPY! They care about separating you from their money. By buying their product year after year, you've proven that they don't have to fix bugs in order to gouge you.
... people used GNU tools to write an OS called Linux...
If an operating system includes a browser, the Linux kernel falls a bit short of being an OS. As far as I am concerned, an OS is what it takes to make the computer useful. At a bare minimum, that's going to be a kernel, some device drivers, bash and the unix command-line tools. The gnice folks at GNU are responsible for a lot of that, on my boxes.
Someone else said that the GNU portion is redundant, since all Linux machines have the GNU component. That actually makes sense, but: another post said that his (embedded?) system had NO GNU components. So, what do we call a system which has a Linux kernel and no GNU components? Pure Linux? NO-GNUs Linux? Strange?
I've enjoyed the penguin-and-gnu stickers (the slogan is something like ``GNU/Linux, the dynamic duo''). I don't think that GNU/Linux is bad publicity.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but they're different people. I hope.
You can't please everyone, but you can do what's right. I vote for letting the mirrors sync.
Obviously, it means that if you supply South Africans to the market [1] all is fine, whereas if you fail to supply them to the market without registering as a non-supplier, you in a heap o' trouble, boy!
[1] I thought slavery was illegal there; they must have relegalized it there once they kicked the whites out. Or maybe that really meant something else entirely? No ...
Probably because hard drives (ide, anyway) cost about a buck a gigabyte. SDRAM costs about a buck a megabyte; maybe a little more once you add a power supply and an interface. But, look here and here . The first is pretty much what you're looking for, I think, and the second is a bit more cost effective.
Apple opens mouth, inserts shot foot.
From the article:
The old guard of Mac users aren't going to be happy. Neither are the switchers coming from the Unix world. Is anyone going to like this except Jobs?Also from the article:
It's the Apple way, all the way. They could have gotten lots of free eyecandy for their next version if they had let folks decorate it for them. This makes their stuff look just a little less attractive to me, at least. Oh, well, I probably couldn't have afforded one of those nice ibooks anyway.I've had some success with some of his methods. I've been able to keep pretty good depth of focus by intermittantly using the sort of exercises he recommends. I haven't tried the bulk of his routines since I was a teenager.
Since you mention Mac, you probably don't think ``easy to use'' means ``just like MSWindows''. What does ``easy to use'' mean to you?
My four-year-old has no more problems with KDE than she does with MSWin. Both kids manage to screw up MSWindows periodically. They haven't managed to get Linux (currently RH7.3) screwed up enough to need help for quite a while. For me, Linux is easier to use as a kid's toy than is MSWindows. If it only ran Reader Rabbit!
My wife couldn't tell which OS the kids were running until I taught her to look for the big K versus Start. She knows that our box is always running Linux, and hasn't had any problem browsing the web and reading email. I don't have to worry about her opening the viruses our goofy friends send her, either (knock on wood). If I trained her to su to root, and type ``apt-get update;apt-get -u upgrade'', she could do the system administration, too. It's not that easy on Windows.
A friend just got a WinXP computer (on purpose, yet!). He's having terrible problems getting it into a usable state. If his mind didn't go blank at the mere thought of understanding his machine, I'd set him up with Debian, since I suspect that KDE would be easier for him to do his thing with. He liked Knoppix, but the thought that it's non-MS worried him.
Linux presents a lot of little difficulties, but so does MSWin. The difference is that if you know what you are doing, you can fix the problems with Linux. Presetup Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet, but neither is presetup Windows.
That's the same bunch who screwed up metric --> english conversion and crashed a martian lander, right?
I believe NASA should have a monopoly on space travel as they are the only ones who seem to get it right.
I hope that was a joke, but it didn't look like one. Maybe your irony and sarcasm was too subtle for me.
If enough of the intellect-impared were to take that seriously, we'd outlaw commercial aviation because someone might might fly a plane into a building. We'd outlaw driving cars for the same reason. We'd outlaw cooking because you might burn down the neighborhood.
``We'd outlaw commercial aviation ...'' Hmmm. Well, maybe you weren't joking. There are a lot of intellect-impared people about nowadays.
The great thing about MS software is that it keeps your downtime up and your uptime down. Constant problems are a great way to show management just how essential all the sysadmins are. This is the secret of MS's success.
As Foghorn Leghorn would say: ``That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son.''
>To paraphrase "Barbershop", she just 'sat on her big black ass'.
Yep, she sat on it where it was illegal to do so, to protest an unjust law. I'm sure she was aware that it wasn't entirely safe, and could have bad consequences for her. I'm sure that there were a lot of people then who thought that even though it might be a bad law, she shouldn't have done what she did. They were wrong then. Folks who think that we shouldn't protest unjust laws today are wrong now.
I saw the claim recently (wish I could remember where) that 25% of PC's are sold for home use, and the remainder for business, probably meaning spreadsheets and word processing. I don't see these monitors catching on in the sort of business that people have in mind when they ask: ``Is the linux desktop ready for business users?'' For spreadsheets and word processors, I can't imagine that this will be better than color.
MAN: ``Honest, dear, it isn't for porn, it's for designing ... uh ... stuff! Yeah, that's the ticket! Stuff! Look, I bought it to use with Autocad!''.
WOMAN: ``You paid HOW MUCH to look at pictures of nekkid women?'' (loud footstomps. door slams.)
MAN: ``I thought she'd fall for it. Oh, well, bakk to bukkake!''
This is really neat, but if you're running a word processor or a spreadsheet, will you ever care? If you're simulating something n-dimensional, what good is 3d? This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Of course, so was the laser.
Here's another way us law-abiding folks could have problems:
Suppose that you put an audio of your baby on line, for the rest of the family to hear. You title it``Baby's first steps.mp3''. This happens to be same title and size as an RIAA-copyrighted song. You are now a target for an electronic lynching by the RIAA.
Can they prove that this could never happen? I don't think so. I think that self-help is just plain wrong for anything where there is no imminent danger to life or limb. If this sort of thing is ok, it should be ok for me to come and shoot you because I suspect that you might commit a crime someday. That might seem a bit more extreme, but it is the same principle.
I think you're right.
We can't make them enforce it.
I think you're wrong. If several thousand people violate the DMCA publicly, and publicly turn themselves in, the authorities will have to choose between: prosecuting them all, at great expense, prosecuting only a few, or letting them all go.
Any of these options would put them in a tough position, and here's why: a law can be rendered unenforcable by selective enforcement. The law must apply equally to all. If the authorities choose either of the second two options, they begin to run up against selective enforcement. If they choose the first option, they add thousands of cases to a very crowded Federal docket, and find themselves paying a LOT of money for bad publicity. The rock and the hard place are suddenly very close together.
No, when the speed limit was 55 and everyone drove 70, the police could pull over anyone they disliked.
Yes, the cops can, and possibly do, selectively enforce the speed limits. They can pull you over for driving a car that they envy, for being black, because they're mad at their wives, or simply to meet a quota. They get away with it because they can only catch one speeder at a time.
This is why it would be vital that EVERYONE march into the cop shop, confess, and DEMAND to be charged with the crime. This makes it impossible for the cops to say the equivalent of ``He was the only speeder I saw at that time, your honor.''
There was a lot of civil disobedience about salmon fishing regulations in the Washington/Oregon area a few years ago. Many people fished illegally, and many more stood on the bank, casting lures without hooks. That was legal, but it made it far harder for the fish cops to bust the protesters. In our case, someone who wanted to show some support but didn't want to risk jail could show up, copy something which was NOT copy protected, and not mention that until the trial. ``Yes, you honor, I did copy that disk, but I have since learned that it wasn't copy protected, so I'm afraid I'm innocent.''
Cringly talks about 10 million people. I could easily believe that 10,000 would be enough, given a bit of publicity. That's less than 0.05% of the population.
Protesting restraints on our rights to free speech, and on our rights to use the public domain, is exactly the same as ``... marching against institutionalized racism.''
It is a petty crime with no moral value whatsoever.
Wrong. If you violate the DMCA by makeing a backup copy of copyrighted, encrypted content which you have legally purchased, your action is entirely moral. If you do it publicly, it is exactly like Rosa Parks' refusal to move to the back of the bus.
Well, honesty is the best policy. If a business is violating copyright on proprietary software, it seems entirely appropriate to anonymously turn them in to the BSA. Four good reasons why:
It's the right thing to do (TM).
It helps publicise MS's license terms.
It helps the Libre software evangelists.
There might even be a reward?
I think that if an individual asks you to help violate MS's copyright, you should use it as an opportunity to explain that that is immoral, and illegal, and you can't do it. Of course, you continue to explain, you can help him to install this Libre alternative.
As I said in an earlier post, even if this doesn't convert the would-be copier, it can at least get you out of having to install Windows.
The US defines dumping as selling over here, a product made over there, for a price below average cost [1]. If it is indeed dumping (i.e., selling at a below-optimal price to build marketshare and hurt the domestic industry), then a reasonable person would say that the dumper is paying us to take his wares. If we have no domestic industry (the case in China, for software), we would be fools not to encourage dumping. Same thing if the industry is one which could be restarted when the foreign dumper tried to raise prices [2].
My point is that first, the Chinese don't have any anti-dumping laws that I am aware of, and second, since they have no existing software industry to protect, they have no reason to complain if MS wants to get screwed to give them freebies [3].
[1]Average cost is usually well above marginal cost, so it is often the case that the optimal price for a monopolist who is practicing price discrimination between here and his home market is well below average cost, and well above marginal cost, so that monopolistic behavior is construed by our stupid laws as dumping.
[2]Given the existance of minimills, steel seems to fall into this latter category.
[3] If they ever WANT to have a software industry, they would do well to ban non-Libre software, paid for or not. But that's another rant.
I had an office mate from Kenya. He was shocked to learn that people payed for software. When I asked him how he thought that MS got its money, he said he'd never thought about it, but it would never have occured to him that they got it by selling software! According to him, in Africa, all software is free. I mentioned it to a couple of his compatriots, and they had the same take on the subject.
For once, morality meshes with expediency.
I have installed Windows for people a few times in the last couple years. I have always insisted that they provide a legitimate copy of the software. I didn't ask for proof up to Microsoft's standards, of course: no one keeps records that well. I did insist that they have the install media and the authentication thingy with the product key.
There are a couple of very good reasons for this:
1) As you say, this gets across the point that Windows is expensive.
2) This lets me satisfy my own consience. I detest MS, but I don't want to rob them.
3) Many people think that they have a right to buy Windows once, and install it many times. My policy spreads the word about the reality of MS's license terms.
4) This has gotten me out of doing several Windows installs.
MS has released the source code for their crown jewels. Unfortunately, that's not cool. MS released it under terms that are not only unacceptable, but amount to a booby trap. If folks read the MS code, they are ``contaminated'', unable to work on libre implementations of the same ideas.
Apple has released their code, with terms that many will find unacceptable. If you can't accept it on the terms they offer it, it's the same as not releasing it at all.
Imagine setting up a dozen machines at a conference or a LAN party and having them automatically self-configure their networking and discover each others services, without having to worry about subnet masks or a DHCP server.
Imagine not being able to do this because the APSL won't mix with the license terms of your distribution. Imagine not being able to do this because Apple decided that they made a mistake, and cencelled your license. Imagine Apple sueing the developers of (so far hypothetical) Zeroconf-libre, saying that they have stolen code from Rendevous.
Getting totally off-topic, the libre implementation should be known as either Krendevous or Gnondevous.
Interesting. The few times I've looked at the *BSD lists, I didn't like what I saw, and went back to Linux. My impression was that folks were a bit snottier. This was a couple years ago, so I really can't give any details.
Ok, I give up. What's a deltic?
Pure foolishness. MS is all about sales. If the bugs didn't keep you from buying their crap all these years, why would they stop you now? Why would MS fix them now?
MS will never fix a bug unless that has a positive impact on their bottom line. This link will take you to a collection of info about bugs that MS hasn't fixed in Excell.
See above. They've got you by the Balmers, and they plan to squeeze you a good deal harder. THEY DON"T CARE IF YOU'RE HAPPY! They care about separating you from their money. By buying their product year after year, you've proven that they don't have to fix bugs in order to gouge you.
If an operating system includes a browser, the Linux kernel falls a bit short of being an OS. As far as I am concerned, an OS is what it takes to make the computer useful. At a bare minimum, that's going to be a kernel, some device drivers, bash and the unix command-line tools. The gnice folks at GNU are responsible for a lot of that, on my boxes.
Someone else said that the GNU portion is redundant, since all Linux machines have the GNU component. That actually makes sense, but: another post said that his (embedded?) system had NO GNU components. So, what do we call a system which has a Linux kernel and no GNU components? Pure Linux? NO-GNUs Linux? Strange?
I've enjoyed the penguin-and-gnu stickers (the slogan is something like ``GNU/Linux, the dynamic duo''). I don't think that GNU/Linux is bad publicity.
I propose lookOut. Be sure to trademark the capitalization.