After all, linux vendors have to stay in business somehow
Thats funny, I thought they were having trouble doing that, too... Obviously, some people are suffering from selective memories.
The fact of the matter is that the GPL places restrictions on what you can/cant do, same as any other model. As I said, you cant modify the source and create your own distro without making your modifications open source as well. That is a pretty big issue, even if you dont agree (which you obviously dont).
I admit I didnt read the article, but I dont need to. And I really havent spoken to a single person who switched AWAY from IE3.02, and I work with very vocal geeks, every day, since '95, so I would have remembered an anomoly like that one.
IMO, IE 3.02 was one of the best browsers made. In fact, its still pretty fast (if you ever do a new install of Win95 OSR2 you will see it [I think...]), but unfortunately it doesnt support NAT or firewalls too well, so doesnt always work in a modern environment. Its too bad they decided to bloat IE 4 so much; they also continued a lot of things from that afterward, like keeping everything in the My Documents folder for each profile, nesting TEMP directories in fifty different places, etc, which are highly annoying. Its a good idea for security reasons, but it tends to mess things up if you dont want it to work that way (like if one computer will be used by multiple people, or only one person, etc). Of course, it can easily be changed by editting the registry, but its still a pain in the arse.
Of what use would learning a dead language be? I guess you can call it "language darwinism", to an extent. Even Latin really cant be considered a dead language, because it has spread out into French, Italian, Spanish, English, etc., and is therefore still of use to learn.
Oh well, if people want to waste their time learning Klingon, I guess even R2D2 has its place.
They have the freedom to modifiy the software as they see fit, and redistribute it without restriction.
Hmm, thats funny... I always thought there *were* restrictions, in that any and all modifications were required to be open sourced, and that you cant charge for the software...
'Freedom' is that you can use it how ever you want. Using Linux gives you the ability to edit the source code, but not necessarily freedom. You had best seek that elsewhere.
Seeing as how poorly written Netscape was, its probably for the best that he got out of programming for a living.
Netscape was the whole reason I, personally, switched to using IE. Having the application crash every five to ten minutes and wipe out every browser window wasnt a particularly pleasant experience. Fortunately, their was freedom of choice, and I was able to switch to IE 3.02
Ive been a happy IE user ever since (well, we'll forgive IE 4)
Assuming for a moment that open source software was mandated by law for all Brazilian government operations (which in fact is not planned at all): that would be an exercise of freedom of choice on behalf of the Brazilian people. They freely and democratically elected to tell their servants what tools to use. Obviously every society has and should have that freedom of choice.
And the citizens of Bulgaria freely and democratically voted to join the Soviet Union in 1967. This plan as well had the backing of their freely and democratically elected leaders; so using that as a metric on the merits of an idea (the freely and democratically bs) is silly and illogical.
As I said; if you remove or discourage a choice, that isnt freedom: its non technical people enforcing technical decisions on the professionals who are supposed to be making those decisions.
I predicted over a year ago that politicians would blindly support open source, not because they knew anything about it, but rather because its a new buzzword for them. All hail letting non technical people make technical decisions!
I dont think special interests were technically in control beforehand, but they definitely had a great deal of influence (which is not necessarily a bad thing, in every case).
However, the Bush administration has really taken an unprecidented step to overtly showing people who is really in charge. Heck, most people are calling Iraq "Haliburton's War", the EPA and SEC have had their budgets slashed so much they cant even provide enforcement for laws they are supposed to, etc.
There was an article a few years ago where they interviewed a few people Bush had set his policies (supposedly 'advisors'). One guy said they were basically told to come up with a 'wish list' of what they wanted done. They were thinking within normal bounds, but eventually somebody started talking about repealing laws, ignoring environmental concerns, etc. At that point, he said they "were giddy" with the possibilities.
Well, since Windows uses a pretty well documented API model, you can choose between DivX, Quicktime (yuck), RealPlayer, etc, and thats just off the top of my head; Im sure there are many others. Also, since Windows Media Player allows you to also use 3rd party codecs (as do many other players), there are more than enough choices even for habitual complainers like the slashdot crowd.
The problem isnt democracy. America is what it is because it has two opposing dynamics- democracy and capitalism. The problem we are seeing with Bush, however, is that he is allowing the capitalists to bleed their power into what has traditionally been the realm of democracy (government has generally servered the greater good than business interests- EPA, OSHA, etc.)
Once special interests can use their monetary resources to hand-pick who runs the country, things can only go downhill. Imagine if companies werent liable for polluting the environment, bankrupting the public coffers, defrauding investors, or other abuses. GWB has taken the USA on a big step in that direction.
You may want to bear this in mind with Ebert- somebody mentioned it to me, and Im starting to notice it myself. It doesnt appear that Ebert really watches the movies he reviews, or at least doesnt really pay attention too well.
There are generally little things he criticises the film for that are often actually addressed (so they arent valid points), and sometimes he gets facts about the stories wrong.
I really cant read Ebert anymore because of it. The last review I read of his was of "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" (he gave it ***, I thought it deserved ****); there were certain things he said he didnt like about the plot (not that he thought it was a bad movie), but they werent valid points.
In their rush to judgement, the reactionaries over on Slashdot missed the obvious fact that spammers can be sued for violating AT&T's patent if they use this method.
obvious discrepancy between searches for "linux windows" on Google and MSN; the former comes up with almost 9 million hits, but the latter only comes up with -- wait for it -- 16.
Webcrawler- 116 hits for "porn", but only 36 for "nuclear fusion".
I sense a pro-pornography, anti-nuclear bias in Webcrawler!
Why dont they just make the graphical part a 'plug-in' to a text installer? Since both will essentially be doing the same thing anyway (placing files, modifying config files, etc), it seems smarter to just have the installer do its thing, and give out programatic flags which will be displayed by the method of choice (default to text, or connect to a gui).
Mrs. Lamone was highly critical of Dr Rubin's testimony, stating that he was doing 'a great disservice to democracy. They're telling the public: Don't trust them, don't trust the voting equipment.
I think Washington really *does* want voting equipment that can be tampered with.
It seems that their opinion is that democrocy is too important to leave up to the people...
I always said Apple had some really terrible programmers (especially with Quicktime), but mentioning the fact that Apple does anything badly always gets modded down around here.
Anyway, its nice to see Apple still proving how shoddy their programmers are.
Slashdot Mirror
you mean everybody didnt talk like in "Canterbury Tales" or Shakespeare? (joke)
Thats funny, I thought they were having trouble doing that, too... Obviously, some people are suffering from selective memories.
The fact of the matter is that the GPL places restrictions on what you can/cant do, same as any other model. As I said, you cant modify the source and create your own distro without making your modifications open source as well. That is a pretty big issue, even if you dont agree (which you obviously dont).
IMO, IE 3.02 was one of the best browsers made. In fact, its still pretty fast (if you ever do a new install of Win95 OSR2 you will see it [I think...]), but unfortunately it doesnt support NAT or firewalls too well, so doesnt always work in a modern environment. Its too bad they decided to bloat IE 4 so much; they also continued a lot of things from that afterward, like keeping everything in the My Documents folder for each profile, nesting TEMP directories in fifty different places, etc, which are highly annoying. Its a good idea for security reasons, but it tends to mess things up if you dont want it to work that way (like if one computer will be used by multiple people, or only one person, etc). Of course, it can easily be changed by editting the registry, but its still a pain in the arse.
Oh well, if people want to waste their time learning Klingon, I guess even R2D2 has its place.
Hmm, thats funny... I always thought there *were* restrictions, in that any and all modifications were required to be open sourced, and that you cant charge for the software...
'Freedom' is that you can use it how ever you want. Using Linux gives you the ability to edit the source code, but not necessarily freedom. You had best seek that elsewhere.
Netscape was the whole reason I, personally, switched to using IE. Having the application crash every five to ten minutes and wipe out every browser window wasnt a particularly pleasant experience. Fortunately, their was freedom of choice, and I was able to switch to IE 3.02
Ive been a happy IE user ever since (well, we'll forgive IE 4)
I wouldnt say that; neither the "brutal" (in other than a blustering vocal way) nor the ethical are true.
Once again, Slashdot puts somebody on a pilliar just because they ARENT Microsoft.
And the citizens of Bulgaria freely and democratically voted to join the Soviet Union in 1967. This plan as well had the backing of their freely and democratically elected leaders; so using that as a metric on the merits of an idea (the freely and democratically bs) is silly and illogical.
As I said; if you remove or discourage a choice, that isnt freedom: its non technical people enforcing technical decisions on the professionals who are supposed to be making those decisions.
I predicted over a year ago that politicians would blindly support open source, not because they knew anything about it, but rather because its a new buzzword for them. All hail letting non technical people make technical decisions!
However, the Bush administration has really taken an unprecidented step to overtly showing people who is really in charge. Heck, most people are calling Iraq "Haliburton's War", the EPA and SEC have had their budgets slashed so much they cant even provide enforcement for laws they are supposed to, etc.
There was an article a few years ago where they interviewed a few people Bush had set his policies (supposedly 'advisors'). One guy said they were basically told to come up with a 'wish list' of what they wanted done. They were thinking within normal bounds, but eventually somebody started talking about repealing laws, ignoring environmental concerns, etc. At that point, he said they "were giddy" with the possibilities.
A very sad day for democracy, indeed.
You may call using MS software slavery, but all you want to do is make OSS a slave master.
Well, since Windows uses a pretty well documented API model, you can choose between DivX, Quicktime (yuck), RealPlayer, etc, and thats just off the top of my head; Im sure there are many others. Also, since Windows Media Player allows you to also use 3rd party codecs (as do many other players), there are more than enough choices even for habitual complainers like the slashdot crowd.
Once special interests can use their monetary resources to hand-pick who runs the country, things can only go downhill. Imagine if companies werent liable for polluting the environment, bankrupting the public coffers, defrauding investors, or other abuses. GWB has taken the USA on a big step in that direction.
There are generally little things he criticises the film for that are often actually addressed (so they arent valid points), and sometimes he gets facts about the stories wrong.
I really cant read Ebert anymore because of it. The last review I read of his was of "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" (he gave it ***, I thought it deserved ****); there were certain things he said he didnt like about the plot (not that he thought it was a bad movie), but they werent valid points.
I agree with parent post, kudos to ATT
Webcrawler- 116 hits for "porn", but only 36 for "nuclear fusion".
I sense a pro-pornography, anti-nuclear bias in Webcrawler!
Well, you can make fun of them all you want, but dey gonna keep get'in paid
Hopefully I wont see Big Science working the grill at Hooters after it steals my girlfriend with that line.
If Tupac can still be making music and movies after he dies, sending e-mails seems weak by comparison.
Why dont they just make the graphical part a 'plug-in' to a text installer? Since both will essentially be doing the same thing anyway (placing files, modifying config files, etc), it seems smarter to just have the installer do its thing, and give out programatic flags which will be displayed by the method of choice (default to text, or connect to a gui).
I think Washington really *does* want voting equipment that can be tampered with.
It seems that their opinion is that democrocy is too important to leave up to the people...
Anyway, its nice to see Apple still proving how shoddy their programmers are.
"Vanity sites" are a perfect term; only people who feel a useless need to brag about themselves would want one.
Blogs, at least, usually discuss ideas (which are infinitely more important).
In that case, I guess SkyNET took it.
I see potential IP issues here. Not the patent kind though; more like the DHCP kind...
dont mix your Worcestershire sauce with embalming fluid. It causes Pink Eye.