Losing the syntactic whitespace for a more traditional whitespace-neutral {}-block style would to me only feel as an improvement. Till the day you have to read someone else code, written in C++, with all lines starting on column 0.
(Yeah, I know we have indent to fix that, but you'd never bother using it after the pain of seeing such thing.)
The Ms-PL and Ms-CL have been submitted to OSI for approval. We'll have to wait and see if the OSI decides they're not compatible with Open Source licenses. They will not be approved. The OSI requires that the license should be platform independent and, reading the Wikipedia entry, it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows.
Also, remember that OSI is fighting some CMS software because they were claiming to be Open source while they weren't. To be called "open source", a software MUST have a license approved by OSI. In other words, such projects are NOT open source. Call it "shared source", "source available" or whatever, but they are not open source.
So again - somebody please explain what is the problem here? Simple. Linus is seeing the GPLv3 as a *developer*, while RMS wrote it as a *user*.
For a developer, it doesn't matter if the code runs on a DRM machine, as long as your get fixes back. For a user, it does matter that your changed code doesn't run on the same machine.
I guess there is one simple answer, and it comes with five letters: GNOME. Ok, you can kick me now, but listen this: what every single distribution was doing 3 years ago with KDE? They were trying really hard to mimic Windows. Users would look at it, see "Oh, it looks like Windows" but, when using it, it would not behave like Windows. Inside their heads, they would say "This Windows sucks".
Now Ubuntu chose GNOME as default desktop interface (but you can have Kubuntu and KDE, if you want to). When users look at it, they don't see Windows; they realize it is something completely different. Even Mac users don't see a Mac OS there and know they are dealing with a different beast. And that's were they get rid of old habits and learn news things -- and learn that there are easier ways to solve problems.
Ubuntu is popular because it chose to be Linux, not Windows.
Honestly, for most of my life, I couldn't get this "men prefer blonds" thing. I always thought I was some kind of weirdo but, then again, I was working with computers, so it wasn't so weird at all.:)
IMHO, if you want to prevent hacking, put more checks on the side you have control: the server. You have no control over the user machine (it is HIS/HER machine) and no control over the network. There are too many pieces "in between" that could go wrong (and you may punish the user for something that may not be his fault).
I wonder how many of those vulnerabilities are actually Safari/KHTML code and how many of those are Windows vulnerabilities.
IIRC, Firefox had that "URL protocol handler command injection" vulnerability (or something around those lines, correct me if I'm wrong) a few years ago and FF developers said it was the way Windows handles protocols. In the end, they had to change the way URLs are handled inside FF to prevent Windows from catching it.
Ubuntu won't need to fork. They don't distribute anything that it is not GPL already (apart from NVIDIA drivers, but even that is about to be under certain clauses). So, Ubuntu is fine.
IBM (and other big companies) use LGPL libraries or build tools that explicit say that you don't need to release your product as GPL (the say way GCC doesn't force you to release everything under the GPL, although GCC itself is GPL). They as safe too.
After draft 3, Linus said that he thought GPL3 wasn't so bad anymore (if he will change the kernel license in the future is another matter but it seems he have nothing against it right now). The kernel may be GPL2 for the moment, but I guess it will change in the future.
So... I really don't get your point. You don't see Mark Shuttleworth or anyone at Canonical complaining about the GPL3. Nor the dudes at Red Hat. Companies that used GPL code in the way it was designed for are not complaining. You have one company that decided to explore one loophole in the license and suddenly everything is bad?
But wouldn't that means that they will end with LESS patents than before?
I mean, they are probably claiming that OSS is violating THEIR patents, not someone else.
Actually, I believe that's the reason they don't want to tell which patents OSS violates: they may have "previous art" implementations, proving that their patents are not valid and, thus, lose them. In a world where companies battles over patents and use their patent portfolio against each other, a smaller portfolio means less bullets on your gun.
What the hell are they talking about "...promise of backward compatibility."?
Probably the fact that their tools don't work like Linux/GNU tools.
I remember a friend that was configuring an Apache installation on a Sun and, once finished, decided to restart the process with a "killall httpd", like he would do on a Linux machine. The problem here is that the machine was also working as a gateway to the internet and Sun "killall" actually kills every single process, not the one named in the parameters. Five seconds and all the phones start ringing, with people asking what the heck was wrong with the internet.
Also, it is an interesting thought when you ask yourself what "better linux" actually means. Will they offer things like iNotify and other kernel APIs or they meant the whole GNU/Linux stack?
But, by doing that, they would had to admit that their VCS sucks and that open source (except for BitKeeper) are better.
Now, about BitKeeper, I believe BitMover has a repository inside their own company, something that I don't believe Microsoft would want (their source on somewhere outside the company).
I don't think this is valid for disk storage. All bytes are stored one after another, without the need of any padding. You probably are thinking about sectors and inodes, but they would be filled up before jumping to the next one. So, it is a matter of disk usage.
We already have something like that. It's called Java.
Oh man, you almost had it. It is, actually, called Mono, and it could run almost every code written for.NET. And guess who are the main developers of Mono?
Developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team.
Having developers on a merry-go-round between projects is probably a good reason why their products never make it past the Beta stage (which is terrible).
It also means the whole team must have the same level of knowledge about the project they are working on. If someone drops off, it's just a matter of time till someone else gets the knowledge from the rest of the team, instead of the one going off carrying all knowledge with him/her.
Of course, if you work with people who care and know how to do team work, that's not a problem. But, as far as I can see, they are a minority.
People can point that Firefox, being open source, is eaiser to find vulnerabilities. But I really believe there are countless more vulnerabilities in IE and the general public doesn't know them because the "Tuesday patch": black hats know several more vulnerabilities, but no one else know them exactly because they aren't being sploited (yet). Once a new patch is unveiled, those sploits go to the wild and people would need to wait for another month to have an official patch.
As far as I can tell, a big part of the reason for having an iPod is meant to be because it looks stylish.
I don't use my iPod just because it looks "stylish". I use it because its sound is damn clear, far better than my MuVo or any computer I have access. Also, I always use it inside my pocket, so there is no way someone could see that I have an iPod (except for the earphones, the only thing that sucks on it).
MS aside, Formula One has had a huge problem keeping driver aids out of the sport. Driver aids do not belong in a series that is supposed to be the ultimate test of a driver.
Wrong. F1 is about "speed". It isn't just a race of drivers vs drivers, it is a race about teams. And, by teams, they mean the driver, the designer, the engine engineer, the team director and even the guy who changes the tires.
Driving aids, however you call it, are means to make the car go faster, even if the driver is already good. If driving aids would "make" a driver, they wouldn't mean a thing two years ago when McLaren came with the smart breaks (breaking and turning made the wheels at that side lock more) and Alonso would be way faster than he is today (and, if I'm not mistaken, Benetton don't have all the gadgets McLaren or Ferrari have).
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you run KDE, I guess. Otherwise, it will take a much longer startup just to put every single daemon KDE uses and load all other libraries.
In the end, I guess it is fast for KDE users; people using other desktop environments will see no difference.
[Just guessing here, from my experience with older KOffice parts running inside GNOME. Yes, they run and will still run.]
(Yeah, I know we have indent to fix that, but you'd never bother using it after the pain of seeing such thing.)
Also, remember that OSI is fighting some CMS software because they were claiming to be Open source while they weren't. To be called "open source", a software MUST have a license approved by OSI. In other words, such projects are NOT open source. Call it "shared source", "source available" or whatever, but they are not open source.
For a developer, it doesn't matter if the code runs on a DRM machine, as long as your get fixes back. For a user, it does matter that your changed code doesn't run on the same machine.
I guess there is one simple answer, and it comes with five letters: GNOME. Ok, you can kick me now, but listen this: what every single distribution was doing 3 years ago with KDE? They were trying really hard to mimic Windows. Users would look at it, see "Oh, it looks like Windows" but, when using it, it would not behave like Windows. Inside their heads, they would say "This Windows sucks".
Now Ubuntu chose GNOME as default desktop interface (but you can have Kubuntu and KDE, if you want to). When users look at it, they don't see Windows; they realize it is something completely different. Even Mac users don't see a Mac OS there and know they are dealing with a different beast. And that's were they get rid of old habits and learn news things -- and learn that there are easier ways to solve problems.
Ubuntu is popular because it chose to be Linux, not Windows.
Yeah! "Redheads FTW!"
:)
Honestly, for most of my life, I couldn't get this "men prefer blonds" thing. I always thought I was some kind of weirdo but, then again, I was working with computers, so it wasn't so weird at all.
IMHO, if you want to prevent hacking, put more checks on the side you have control: the server. You have no control over the user machine (it is HIS/HER machine) and no control over the network. There are too many pieces "in between" that could go wrong (and you may punish the user for something that may not be his fault).
It is just a little bit hard, but no impossible.
I wonder how many of those vulnerabilities are actually Safari/KHTML code and how many of those are Windows vulnerabilities.
IIRC, Firefox had that "URL protocol handler command injection" vulnerability (or something around those lines, correct me if I'm wrong) a few years ago and FF developers said it was the way Windows handles protocols. In the end, they had to change the way URLs are handled inside FF to prevent Windows from catching it.
Let's see...
Ubuntu won't need to fork. They don't distribute anything that it is not GPL already (apart from NVIDIA drivers, but even that is about to be under certain clauses). So, Ubuntu is fine.
IBM (and other big companies) use LGPL libraries or build tools that explicit say that you don't need to release your product as GPL (the say way GCC doesn't force you to release everything under the GPL, although GCC itself is GPL). They as safe too.
After draft 3, Linus said that he thought GPL3 wasn't so bad anymore (if he will change the kernel license in the future is another matter but it seems he have nothing against it right now). The kernel may be GPL2 for the moment, but I guess it will change in the future.
So... I really don't get your point. You don't see Mark Shuttleworth or anyone at Canonical complaining about the GPL3. Nor the dudes at Red Hat. Companies that used GPL code in the way it was designed for are not complaining. You have one company that decided to explore one loophole in the license and suddenly everything is bad?
But wouldn't that means that they will end with LESS patents than before?
I mean, they are probably claiming that OSS is violating THEIR patents, not someone else.
Actually, I believe that's the reason they don't want to tell which patents OSS violates: they may have "previous art" implementations, proving that their patents are not valid and, thus, lose them. In a world where companies battles over patents and use their patent portfolio against each other, a smaller portfolio means less bullets on your gun.
A Hacker Girl who KNOWS Star Trek?!?!
MARRY ME!
Just trying to save my back here: The article mentions mostly userspace tools (ls, deb) and NOT kernel tools.
I guess Ian meant "A better GNU system than the GNU system".
I remember a friend that was configuring an Apache installation on a Sun and, once finished, decided to restart the process with a "killall httpd", like he would do on a Linux machine. The problem here is that the machine was also working as a gateway to the internet and Sun "killall" actually kills every single process, not the one named in the parameters. Five seconds and all the phones start ringing, with people asking what the heck was wrong with the internet.
Also, it is an interesting thought when you ask yourself what "better linux" actually means. Will they offer things like iNotify and other kernel APIs or they meant the whole GNU/Linux stack?
Good point. It don't mention anything about battery power.
My GNOME menu has "Suspend" and "Hibernate".
Suspend says: "Power saving mode. Depending on your computer, you can wake the computer by pressing a key, the power button or opening the laptop lid"
Hibernate says: "While hibernating, your computer won't need any power. When started again, all open applications will be restored"
Someone would probably understand that the first still uses power while the second won't use any.
But, by doing that, they would had to admit that their VCS sucks and that open source (except for BitKeeper) are better.
Now, about BitKeeper, I believe BitMover has a repository inside their own company, something that I don't believe Microsoft would want (their source on somewhere outside the company).
I don't think this is valid for disk storage. All bytes are stored one after another, without the need of any padding. You probably are thinking about sectors and inodes, but they would be filled up before jumping to the next one. So, it is a matter of disk usage.
But you're right on the memory usage.
Oh man, you almost had it. It is, actually, called Mono, and it could run almost every code written for
It also means the whole team must have the same level of knowledge about the project they are working on. If someone drops off, it's just a matter of time till someone else gets the knowledge from the rest of the team, instead of the one going off carrying all knowledge with him/her.
Of course, if you work with people who care and know how to do team work, that's not a problem. But, as far as I can see, they are a minority.
People can point that Firefox, being open source, is eaiser to find vulnerabilities. But I really believe there are countless more vulnerabilities in IE and the general public doesn't know them because the "Tuesday patch": black hats know several more vulnerabilities, but no one else know them exactly because they aren't being sploited (yet). Once a new patch is unveiled, those sploits go to the wild and people would need to wait for another month to have an official patch.
I don't use my iPod just because it looks "stylish". I use it because its sound is damn clear, far better than my MuVo or any computer I have access. Also, I always use it inside my pocket, so there is no way someone could see that I have an iPod (except for the earphones, the only thing that sucks on it).
Wrong. F1 is about "speed". It isn't just a race of drivers vs drivers, it is a race about teams. And, by teams, they mean the driver, the designer, the engine engineer, the team director and even the guy who changes the tires.
Driving aids, however you call it, are means to make the car go faster, even if the driver is already good. If driving aids would "make" a driver, they wouldn't mean a thing two years ago when McLaren came with the smart breaks (breaking and turning made the wheels at that side lock more) and Alonso would be way faster than he is today (and, if I'm not mistaken, Benetton don't have all the gadgets McLaren or Ferrari have).
That laptop like a lot like mine Ins-OMG! FIRE! FIRE!