2. I'm rather disturbed by the GNU Hurd's Debian-like appearance now. I was hoping for a radically different OS but I was disappointed with seeing a different underlying OS that still looks much like Debian. Does Debian have a legitimate reason for doing this?
I can't speak for Debian, but the fact that the two distributions are called GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD seems to give a clue as to their intentions. They are both essentially the GNU OS, but differ in their choice of kernel.
Well, their phrasing is wrong even if you discount their error in forming plurals. Since they have a set of criteria, not just one criterion, "a criteria" is incorrect any way you look at it. "A criterion," while grammatically correct, would still be wrong, unless they really only have one criterion. Correct ways of phrasing it would include "some criteria" or "a set of criteria."
That may be the only thing that has a cost to the vendor you're buying, but I still disagree that it's the only thing you're buying. There are commercial software vendors who sell software without support, and they still charge money for it. The only thing they're charging for is the right to use a copy of the software legally. Sure, nothing tangible is being sold, but the software is being licensed, and money is still changing hands. I'd wager than a large portion of home users who purchase software purchase it for this license, not for the support. I know I personally rarely use the support, but I still purchase the stuff, mainly because it's illegal to obtain otherwise.
Well, with proprietary software, they're not just buying support. They're also buying the right to use a copy of the software legally. With Free Software, that right is already given, so all you have left to sell is the support.
I was about to post a very similar comment, but since you seem to have done so already, I'll just reply to yours instead. It's really annoying, especially in this case, where the topic has absolutely nothing to do with any science-fiction books. It's a documentary on codebreaking, an activity that's incidentally happened in thousands of science-fiction books, including Cryptonomicon. This is not enough of a link to justify mentioning the book.
Sure, that's your choice, and perfectly acceptable. You're correct that it doesn't give MS a competitive advantage. What it does do, however, is pass up the opportunity to give a competitive advantage to Free Software, by denying non-free software the right to use your code. You're not required to do this, of course, but many of us feel it's a desirable thing to do.
Well, I wouldn't classify one as "more free" than the other. They're different kinds of freedom.
If I were an author of a piece of software, I'd choose the GPL. The reason is that, as the author, I've obviously most interested in maximizing the freedom of the author (myself). I care less about the freedom of the users, since I'm the author. Since it's my code, I get to choose the license, so I choose the one best for me, not best for them.
The point is that we want to encourage others to share their code. If we use something like a BSD license, they can make modifications and keep them closed source. If we use the GPL license, and somebody makes modifications, we get to see them. If a GPL'd app is sufficiently innovative and unique, it can pressure others to open up code that they would otherwise not open. This is a Good Thing(tm).
You're ignoring my point. Basically, you're saying somebody has already decided on #1 (use GPL code and distrubute their app), and now they're complaining about the baggage taht entails. If they didn't like it, they should've chosen #2 or #3 instead. If they want to use my code, they need to play by my rules. Otherwise, they can go write their own code, or find differently licensed code.
No, RMS is entirely correct. The GPL does not force you to make your code GPL. It merely gives you a choice of three things:
1) Incorporate the GPL'd code into your software, and release your software under GPL.
2) Don't use this GPL'd code, and do not release your software under GPL.
3) Incorporate the GPL'd code into your software, and do not release your software.
Nothing is forcing the person to choose item #1. They can voluntarily choose that item if they believe the benefits given by the GPL'd source outweigh any misgivings they may have about releasing their own code under the GPL. Otherwise, they can choose items 2 or 3.
When I hit "reply to this", in the space where it's supposed to show the comment I'm replying to, it just shows:
(Score:) by on (#) (User Info)
It seems all the database fields are left blank, with just the formatting text coming through. This happens on every comment I've tried to reply to so far...
Slashdot radio's been coming out weekly still. I forgot about it for a bit as well, but it's now in a separate section in the links to the left on the main page.
This is what I don't get. How come we're expected to respect the library developer's ideals of the way software should be used, and not those of a developer using a library? There are licences available (e.g. LGPL) that don't allow the so-called "pillage of the jewels" but do allow developers who use that code freedom to choose the licence they want.
Because the developers wrote the code. Therefore, they have the absolute right to dictate how that code may be used. If they chose to restrict its usage, that's their prerogative. As a user of the library, you have absolutely no rights beyond those which the developers were kind enough to grant you, since you did not actually write it.
Not from the start. European links were added around 1979 or 1980. ARPANET (in one of its various forms) has been around since the late 1960s.
They were responsible for the transatlantic cable because they're the ones that wanted on the net. The Americans had already been running it for 10 years prior to this transatlantic cable being connected.
Well, it's not really emulation. It works perfectly, and pretty much runs Linux binaries as native binaries. It runs them about as fast as (or in some cases faster than) a Linux system.
As for the differences, FreeBSD supports more x86 hardware generally, while NetBSD supports more architectures. OpenBSD has better out-of-the-box security, but all the BSDs are quite good in security with a bit of tweaking and configuring. It mostly seems to be a matter of personal preference, though most home desktop users tend to pick FreeBSD.
Comparing three representatives for Europe against one for the US isn't fair - Europe consists of more than 40 nations and most of them don't have any representative at all. Europe is a continent - not a country!
The point is that the board should be representative of the Internet users. Since the United States has more internet users than Europe, the United States should have at least an equal number of representatives as Europe. A smaller number of people having three times as much representation is certainly not a good way to run a representative body.
While this may be true, the World Wide Web was born in Europe (at CERN), not in the US. And as we all know, to the uninitiated, Internet == WWW.
While this may be true, the fact remains that Internet != WWW.
The WWW is merely a hypertext system, and not a particularly good one at that. It happened to catch on because it took advantage of the Internet, something (AFAIK) no other hypertext system had yet been designed to do.
The Internet is the real invention. Hypertext is just an application (one of many) on top of the internet, and something not particularly unique or difficult to implement.
1) This is a politicized issue. Thus, it is unlikely that the test will be completely objective. A school in Dallas already considers wearing Marilyn Manson shirts to be a "warning sign," and I wouldn't be surprised if more things along those lines started happening.
2) Psychology is not 100% correct. If you violate the rights of even one person because of your psychological analysis, it's not worth it. In fact, it's possible that your labeling a non-violent person as "violent" and constantly reinforcing that they're sick and need to get help (when, in fact, they're not) could do more harm than good.
I personally listen to Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, KMFDM (in fact, the two songs the Columbine kids quoted on their webpage are among my favorite KMFDM songs), Bad Religion, Ministry, and a host of other "bad influences." I enjoy playing Doom2 quite a bit, and Quake or Vigilante occasionally. I am fond of explosives (though I don't get much opportunity to experiment with them).
I wouldn't be surprised if one of these profiling tests (provided I answered it truthfully) considered me "violently inclined," even though that's about the furthest possible thing from my personality.
Slashdot Mirror
2. I'm rather disturbed by the GNU Hurd's Debian-like appearance now. I was hoping for a radically different OS but I was disappointed with seeing a different underlying OS that still looks much like Debian. Does Debian have a legitimate reason for doing this?
I can't speak for Debian, but the fact that the two distributions are called GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD seems to give a clue as to their intentions. They are both essentially the GNU OS, but differ in their choice of kernel.
hmm, well i don't speak ancient Greek, but modern Greek has no dual number for verbs. There's just a singular and a plural number.
Well, their phrasing is wrong even if you discount their error in forming plurals. Since they have a set of criteria, not just one criterion, "a criteria" is incorrect any way you look at it. "A criterion," while grammatically correct, would still be wrong, unless they really only have one criterion. Correct ways of phrasing it would include "some criteria" or "a set of criteria."
Here's something remotely related...
That may be the only thing that has a cost to the vendor you're buying, but I still disagree that it's the only thing you're buying. There are commercial software vendors who sell software without support, and they still charge money for it. The only thing they're charging for is the right to use a copy of the software legally. Sure, nothing tangible is being sold, but the software is being licensed, and money is still changing hands. I'd wager than a large portion of home users who purchase software purchase it for this license, not for the support. I know I personally rarely use the support, but I still purchase the stuff, mainly because it's illegal to obtain otherwise.
Well, with proprietary software, they're not just buying support. They're also buying the right to use a copy of the software legally. With Free Software, that right is already given, so all you have left to sell is the support.
I was about to post a very similar comment, but since you seem to have done so already, I'll just reply to yours instead. It's really annoying, especially in this case, where the topic has absolutely nothing to do with any science-fiction books. It's a documentary on codebreaking, an activity that's incidentally happened in thousands of science-fiction books, including Cryptonomicon. This is not enough of a link to justify mentioning the book.
What do you think about Carolyn Meinel? See any similarities?
Well, you're wrong. His music is good =)
Sure, that's your choice, and perfectly acceptable. You're correct that it doesn't give MS a competitive advantage. What it does do, however, is pass up the opportunity to give a competitive advantage to Free Software, by denying non-free software the right to use your code. You're not required to do this, of course, but many of us feel it's a desirable thing to do.
Well, I wouldn't classify one as "more free" than the other. They're different kinds of freedom.
If I were an author of a piece of software, I'd choose the GPL. The reason is that, as the author, I've obviously most interested in maximizing the freedom of the author (myself). I care less about the freedom of the users, since I'm the author. Since it's my code, I get to choose the license, so I choose the one best for me, not best for them.
The point is that we want to encourage others to share their code. If we use something like a BSD license, they can make modifications and keep them closed source. If we use the GPL license, and somebody makes modifications, we get to see them. If a GPL'd app is sufficiently innovative and unique, it can pressure others to open up code that they would otherwise not open. This is a Good Thing(tm).
You're ignoring my point. Basically, you're saying somebody has already decided on #1 (use GPL code and distrubute their app), and now they're complaining about the baggage taht entails. If they didn't like it, they should've chosen #2 or #3 instead. If they want to use my code, they need to play by my rules. Otherwise, they can go write their own code, or find differently licensed code.
No, RMS is entirely correct. The GPL does not force you to make your code GPL. It merely gives you a choice of three things:
1) Incorporate the GPL'd code into your software, and release your software under GPL.
2) Don't use this GPL'd code, and do not release your software under GPL.
3) Incorporate the GPL'd code into your software, and do not release your software.
Nothing is forcing the person to choose item #1. They can voluntarily choose that item if they believe the benefits given by the GPL'd source outweigh any misgivings they may have about releasing their own code under the GPL. Otherwise, they can choose items 2 or 3.
Hmm, this seems fixed now. Thanks Rob!
My comments aren't starting at Score:2 anymore though, despite my karma still being high. Did Rob remove this feature or is it broken?
When I hit "reply to this", in the space where it's supposed to show the comment I'm replying to, it just shows:
(Score:)
by on (#)
(User Info)
It seems all the database fields are left blank, with just the formatting text coming through. This happens on every comment I've tried to reply to so far...
Slashdot radio's been coming out weekly still. I forgot about it for a bit as well, but it's now in a separate section in the links to the left on the main page.
This is what I don't get. How come we're expected to respect the library developer's ideals of the way software should be used, and not those of a developer using a library? There are licences available (e.g. LGPL) that don't allow the so-called "pillage of the jewels" but do allow developers who use that code freedom to choose the licence they want.
Because the developers wrote the code. Therefore, they have the absolute right to dictate how that code may be used. If they chose to restrict its usage, that's their prerogative. As a user of the library, you have absolutely no rights beyond those which the developers were kind enough to grant you, since you did not actually write it.
Not from the start. European links were added around 1979 or 1980. ARPANET (in one of its various forms) has been around since the late 1960s.
They were responsible for the transatlantic cable because they're the ones that wanted on the net. The Americans had already been running it for 10 years prior to this transatlantic cable being connected.
Well, it's not really emulation. It works perfectly, and pretty much runs Linux binaries as native binaries. It runs them about as fast as (or in some cases faster than) a Linux system.
As for the differences, FreeBSD supports more x86 hardware generally, while NetBSD supports more architectures. OpenBSD has better out-of-the-box security, but all the BSDs are quite good in security with a bit of tweaking and configuring. It mostly seems to be a matter of personal preference, though most home desktop users tend to pick FreeBSD.
Comparing three representatives for Europe against one for the US isn't fair - Europe consists of more than 40 nations and most of them don't have any representative at all. Europe is a continent - not a country!
The point is that the board should be representative of the Internet users. Since the United States has more internet users than Europe, the United States should have at least an equal number of representatives as Europe. A smaller number of people having three times as much representation is certainly not a good way to run a representative body.
Well, the US did "pony up money." You don't think the Europeans payed for ARPANET development, do you?
The rest of the world routes around the blockage and carries on much as before, marginalising the US.
Just like they did with the League of Nations eh?
While this may be true, the World Wide Web was born in Europe (at CERN), not in the US. And as we all know, to the uninitiated, Internet == WWW.
While this may be true, the fact remains that Internet != WWW.
The WWW is merely a hypertext system, and not a particularly good one at that. It happened to catch on because it took advantage of the Internet, something (AFAIK) no other hypertext system had yet been designed to do.
The Internet is the real invention. Hypertext is just an application (one of many) on top of the internet, and something not particularly unique or difficult to implement.
The problems are:
1) This is a politicized issue. Thus, it is unlikely that the test will be completely objective. A school in Dallas already considers wearing Marilyn Manson shirts to be a "warning sign," and I wouldn't be surprised if more things along those lines started happening.
2) Psychology is not 100% correct. If you violate the rights of even one person because of your psychological analysis, it's not worth it. In fact, it's possible that your labeling a non-violent person as "violent" and constantly reinforcing that they're sick and need to get help (when, in fact, they're not) could do more harm than good.
I personally listen to Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, KMFDM (in fact, the two songs the Columbine kids quoted on their webpage are among my favorite KMFDM songs), Bad Religion, Ministry, and a host of other "bad influences." I enjoy playing Doom2 quite a bit, and Quake or Vigilante occasionally. I am fond of explosives (though I don't get much opportunity to experiment with them).
I wouldn't be surprised if one of these profiling tests (provided I answered it truthfully) considered me "violently inclined," even though that's about the furthest possible thing from my personality.