Barr was always good on privacy issues. He was one of the leading critics of Echelon and I belive he supported lifting crypto restrictions. Although he still supports the War on Drugs, which hopefully at some point he'll realize is incompatible with privacy.
Actually, capitalism does not work. Otherwise the the combined wealth of the top 1% of households wouldn't be worth more then the bottom 95% of households.
Capitalism benefits everyone, rich and poor. The poor in America are far better off than most of the rest of the world. Focusing on disparities to the exlusion of absolute wealth is silly. Would you prefer that you have $10 and I have $20 or that you have $100 and I have $1000?
In the meantime it does seem to prudent to err on the safe side though.
Maybe, maybe not. The more inconvenient you make flying, the more people are likely to drive instead, which gives them a much greater chance of being injured or killed.
Re:Web Applications Suck
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
Many of the kludges are at least hidden by ASP.NET. You can code in a virtually event driven model which simulates the behavior of client side code.
Sounds like what WebObjects has been doing for 8 years or so.
Re:You think Java's the bee's testicles?
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
Frankly, if I could have Java's model (stand-alone apps, etc) with the Smalltalk language, I'd be in heaven.
Sounds like Objective-C. (Not exactly, but pretty close).
Re:If I were to choose...
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
Therefore, I'll save my company big bucks, since they'll use less ram and storage to save and run the code.
Not if a Java developer could have written the software faster. Developer time is usually more expensive than CPU time.
I'd rather hire more expensive coders who can do C/C++.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Most of the code in just about any application isn't performance-critical. For the parts that are, optimizing the algorithms is often much more productive than switching lanugages.
I suppose this is something we must live with, but it is extraordinarily annoying to have to accept the security evaluation of a pseudonymous author.
Why does it matter who they are? You don't have to "accept" anything; they provide the code, which can be independently tested to see if their claims are accurate.
If they agree and you don't trust them, you probably want to ignore DRM and figure out some control method that can't be circumvented with a $6 "fun saver" camera.
And there is no such method, unless you can track down a MIB and get one of their memory eraser thingies.
And don't tell me that the traffic light turning yellow and then red doesn't give you enough time to break.
It can when the yellow length is deliberately shortened to induce violations. The real solution is to increase the yellow length, assuming the goal is to prevent accidents and not generate revenue.
In that way, when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release and blocks ALL USERS from using ANY recent distributions
If it comes down to it, and I only have a choice of windows or Mac OS, I'd still pick windows; at least that way I could play some games. ..
If you're a hardcore gamer, obviously a Mac isn't for you. If you're a user who sometimes plays games, I don't see why not. There are far more Mac games available that I'd like to play than I have time to play them.
Because no one buys Macs, they don't make enough of the chips to produce them at reasonable cost and thus for the price of a 2 ghz Apple, you can get a MUCH higher clock speed PC which is guarenteed to outperform it
No you can't. All available evidence shows that at worst the top-end has parity with the fastest available Xeons. And it's not at all true that Macs must always be slower than PCs. (If it were, Apple would have switched to x86 years ago). A superior architecture can compensate for lesser economies of scale. The first PowerPC Macs were faster than Pentiums of the time. The G3 was much faster than then-current P2s. Motorola screwed up big time with the G4, and Intel did a good job of scaling the P4, which accounts for the performance disparities we saw over the last few years. But that is the exception, not the rule.
Take, for instance, IBM. IBM wants to make money selling rack after rack of servers. Now, they need a good OS to run on these servers, or else people won't want them. So they want Linux.
That's my point. IBM sells Linux support, not Linux software. You have to have added value if you're going to make money off free software.
It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium.
I don't think we disagree. My only issue is that RMS keeps saying "it's ok to charge for free software", when it's obvious that nobody is going to make any money selling the software itself. It would be better if he pointed to viable business models like IBM's.
The freedom he is talking about has NOTHING to do with money. Only freedom over the software. I have not read anything from RMS that said he thinks making money off of software wrong.
That's a copout. Software that is free-as-in-speech will in practice always be free-as-in-beer.
PPC and x86 have both leapfrogged each other several times. For the last few years the PPC has been significantly behind (thanks Motorola), but with the G5 they should take the lead again.
It's really a shame that so few people contribute to this great project...
Agreed. The API is extremely powerful and productive, and GNUstep has excellent compatibility with Cocoa/OpenStep. Maybe it's because people don't want to learn Objective-C ("nobody uses it and it has weird brackets"), which is a foolish attitude that I once had. Mostly I think it just needs more apps that show off its power.
Okay. So where does the person who wants to accept the License sign? Until there's a place to sign the contract, there isn't a contract.
The GPL isn't a "contract". It's a unilateral grant of permission to perform acts normally prohibited by copyright law. It's the exact opposite of most commercial EULAs, which are (IMO invalid) attempts to unilaterally remove your pre-existing rights in exchage for nothing.
Without a signed contract, there isn't any way to enforce said contract.
The GPL doesn't need to be enforced. Only copyright law does. If I modify and sell your GPLed software without providing source, you sue me not for "violating the GPL" but for copyright infringement. My only defense would be the GPL, but since I didn't abide by its conditions I won't be able to invoke it.
Slashdot Mirror
Barr was always good on privacy issues. He was one of the leading critics of Echelon and I belive he supported lifting crypto restrictions. Although he still supports the War on Drugs, which hopefully at some point he'll realize is incompatible with privacy.
Capitalism benefits everyone, rich and poor. The poor in America are far better off than most of the rest of the world. Focusing on disparities to the exlusion of absolute wealth is silly. Would you prefer that you have $10 and I have $20 or that you have $100 and I have $1000?
Maybe, maybe not. The more inconvenient you make flying, the more people are likely to drive instead, which gives them a much greater chance of being injured or killed.
Ah, the Stalingrad Gambit. I like it.
Sounds like what WebObjects has been doing for 8 years or so.
Sounds like Objective-C. (Not exactly, but pretty close).
Not if a Java developer could have written the software faster. Developer time is usually more expensive than CPU time.
I'd rather hire more expensive coders who can do C/C++.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Most of the code in just about any application isn't performance-critical. For the parts that are, optimizing the algorithms is often much more productive than switching lanugages.
Why does it matter who they are? You don't have to "accept" anything; they provide the code, which can be independently tested to see if their claims are accurate.
And there is no such method, unless you can track down a MIB and get one of their memory eraser thingies.
Corporations can't take your money at gunpoint. They have to produce something you're willing to pay for.
"What do you mean you can't solve the halting problem? If Godel was so smart, how come he's dead?"
Wrong.
Covered by 17 USC 117. You don't need a license to run copyrighted software.
It can when the yellow length is deliberately shortened to induce violations. The real solution is to increase the yellow length, assuming the goal is to prevent accidents and not generate revenue.
Only if you make the wildly erroneous assumption that everyone who pirates a piece of software would otherwise have paid full price for it.
Does Darl know you've found his stash?
If you're a hardcore gamer, obviously a Mac isn't for you. If you're a user who sometimes plays games, I don't see why not. There are far more Mac games available that I'd like to play than I have time to play them.
Because no one buys Macs, they don't make enough of the chips to produce them at reasonable cost and thus for the price of a 2 ghz Apple, you can get a MUCH higher clock speed PC which is guarenteed to outperform it
No you can't. All available evidence shows that at worst the top-end has parity with the fastest available Xeons. And it's not at all true that Macs must always be slower than PCs. (If it were, Apple would have switched to x86 years ago). A superior architecture can compensate for lesser economies of scale. The first PowerPC Macs were faster than Pentiums of the time. The G3 was much faster than then-current P2s. Motorola screwed up big time with the G4, and Intel did a good job of scaling the P4, which accounts for the performance disparities we saw over the last few years. But that is the exception, not the rule.
$1800 if you don't need a DVD burner.
I'd say the entry-level model is comfortably in the consumer price range.
Right, which means the iMac needs to be updated and/or made cheaper. 1 GHz G4 vs 1.6 GHz G5, hmm.
Wouldn't the 1.6 be able to accept DDR400, just not use it at full speed?
That's my point. IBM sells Linux support, not Linux software. You have to have added value if you're going to make money off free software.
It's all about branding and package, dude. Step into the new millenium.
I don't think we disagree. My only issue is that RMS keeps saying "it's ok to charge for free software", when it's obvious that nobody is going to make any money selling the software itself. It would be better if he pointed to viable business models like IBM's.
That's a copout. Software that is free-as-in-speech will in practice always be free-as-in-beer.
PPC and x86 have both leapfrogged each other several times. For the last few years the PPC has been significantly behind (thanks Motorola), but with the G5 they should take the lead again.
Agreed. The API is extremely powerful and productive, and GNUstep has excellent compatibility with Cocoa/OpenStep. Maybe it's because people don't want to learn Objective-C ("nobody uses it and it has weird brackets"), which is a foolish attitude that I once had. Mostly I think it just needs more apps that show off its power.
The GPL isn't a "contract". It's a unilateral grant of permission to perform acts normally prohibited by copyright law. It's the exact opposite of most commercial EULAs, which are (IMO invalid) attempts to unilaterally remove your pre-existing rights in exchage for nothing.
Without a signed contract, there isn't any way to enforce said contract.
The GPL doesn't need to be enforced. Only copyright law does. If I modify and sell your GPLed software without providing source, you sue me not for "violating the GPL" but for copyright infringement. My only defense would be the GPL, but since I didn't abide by its conditions I won't be able to invoke it.
Clear Channel, Fox, et al are making money precisely because the public voluntarily chooses their programming.