No, Mozilla allows you to distribute changes to the actual code. Qt still requires you to distribute them as patches.
need-c-bindings dept? is that a joke?
on
QPL 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Not everybody used OOP, and OOP is not the be-all end-all of programming metholodogy. It has many uses, but is not desirable for all types of programs.
Well, it's not much of an improvement. The language has been clarified a bit, but the major problems that make it GPL-incompatible are still there. Take for example:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
That alone makes it GPL-incompatible, so distributing KDE binaries linked to Qt remains illegal.
The part that lets Troll use your modifications as part of their commercially licensed product (forcing you to allow them to change the license on your code) isn't too nice either.
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
I thought Troll said they were going to get rid of the patch clause? If this is going to remain in there, then this license is no improvement. It's still GPL-incompatible, and so it still remains illegal to distribute binaries of KDE linked against Qt (unless KDE get permission from all the copyright holders of the code they've used to provide an exception for Qt).
so what was his rationale for making "cyber = high-tech network technology" when "cyber" in fact means "relating to government" or something to that effect?
I disagree. The term "hacker" refers to a knowledge and love of computers (which often includes programming). There's no distinction between "bad" hackers and "good" hackers. They're all hackers.
However, I agree that "hacker" is not a synonym for "person who breaks into systems." Some of those people may in fact be hackers, while a large majority of they would be what I call either "script kiddies" or "hax0r d00ds."
So, where this article uses "hacker," they may or may not be correct. The people they refer to may very well be hackers, but they just as easily might not be.
However, "crackers" is not the appropriate terminology, since crackers refers to the talented asm coders who remove copy protection schemes from software.
Ok, "cyberwarfare" has to be the stupidest non-word I've seen in a while. Who came up with the the mistaken idea that the prefix "cyber" refers to computers or the internet? The prefix "cyber" means "relating to government" (the Greek word for government is "kybernisi").
So, therefore, "cyberwarfare" means "war between governments" or "government-sponsored war" or something to that effect. Isn't nearly all war between and sponsored by governments?
Umm, no. There's more underage drinking in the US, where it's illegal, than in places like Greece, where it's legal. Heck, Germany allows you to buy beer from 16 and up, and there are fewer drunk teenagers there than in the US.
Ok, a bit more info and to clarify my question - both router.redhat.com (which has very low ping times) and www.redhat.com (which times out) are on the same class C subnet, so apparently the bandwidth to the network is there. If it's not a bandwidth problem, what is the problem? Is the box down or overloaded? If Slashdot can handle a ton of visitors per day on one box, I don't see why RedHat can't handle a certain percentage of the Slashdot visitors clicking over to their site.
However, a traceroute (www.redhat.com and redhat.com have the same results) brings up an interesting question...the trace gets all the way to router.redhat.com [199.183.24.225], which reports "Destination net unreachable." That means that something's getting through to RedHat, but not to the www server. My question is, what causes something like this? Is the router purposely dropping packets (and replying that the destination is unreachable) due to too much traffic, or is this the router's way of saying that its request to www.redhat.com timed out?
Well, supposedly it'll support HDTV and SVGA monitors.
So, if we take a 1024x768 resolution, that's 786,432 pixels per frame. 30 frames/second gives you 23,592,960 (approx. 24 million) pixels per second. Odd, I wonder where the extra factor of 1000 comes in.
Yes, but by the time the PSX2 actually comes out in the US, you should be able to get a pIII + vIII + 21" monitor for under $1000. Not to mention that you'll need to buy the monitor (or a $700+ HDTV) for the PSX as well, if you want decent image quality.
A top of the line gaming PC costs what, $2000. A playstation 2 will probably run $200.
However, that top-of-the-line gaming PC will probably cost around $500-$800 by the time the PSX2 is actually released in the US. And from the rumors I've heard, the PSX will be closer to $350-$400 initially.
Ahh, those punk rockers. Yeah, unfortunately, I've had too much experience with them. Any band that sells more than 15 copies of their record is automatically a sellout and not punk.
It may not be the best UI out there, but it certainly beats Netscape's UI. At least in Opera I can quickly toggle between images/no_images with a button, rather than having to go through multiple menus to do so. Same with turning on/off user-defined fonts, font sizes, and colors (vs. the page's defined fonts, font sizes and colors).
Well, I only know an extremely small amount of German, but AFAIK "suse" would be pronounced "soo-zah" in German (trailing e's have an "ah" or "uh" sort of sound, not "ee").
btw i'm not the (AC) poster you're replying to, I just felt like posting...
I wont trust that, redhat is the 2nd last thing these morons would use. They think that RH must be the "M$ of the linux world" only because they are successful. They happily ignore the fact that RH licenses everything they do under the {gpl,lgpl}.
Depends on your type of script kiddie. The ones who just want to run teardrop and bonk install RedHat, because it lets them get to the Denial of Service attacks with the least amount of time invested in actually learning how to use a computer. However, you do have a point, the ones who want to look uber-3l33t anti-establishment will install whatever happens to be the least popular OS at the moment. However, I don't see a switch to *bsd among script kiddies in the works soon, since most of the established *bsd userbase and IRC channels tend to be a bit more mature, so the script kiddies would feel more out of place than with Linux.
[some stuff and ad hominem attacks deleted]
Oh and let me guess, you are still in your teens, and listen to punk rock, right?
Is this the CNet of download.com/software.com/shareware.com/computers. com/browsers.com fame, the CNet of Amiga BBS Software fame, or a different CNet?
what about vim (the new-and-improved vi)? vih-m or vee eye em?
And _your_ credentials are...?
on
Linux.com is Up
·
· Score: 1
Ahh, but where are these contributors? Looking at the linux.com board, I see a bunch of suits, some columnists, and a handful (one or two) actual contributors. It would seem that money (that of SGI and Oracle), not code contributions, were the deciding factor. Not to mention Petreley's good press.
And _your_ credentials are...?
on
Linux.com is Up
·
· Score: 1
Uhh, you're missing the point of a democratically-styled people-controlled movement. Everybody gets their say, regardless of their "credentials." Perhaps finding some way of doing elections would be better.
Don't waste/. bandwith with stupid, inaccurate drivel.
I think you summed it up right there (the only accurate part of your post).
Linus does not have any legal authority over Linux. He holds copyright over the portion of the Linux code that he himself wrote (he estimates that to be around 10%). In order to give permission to link binary modules, every copyright holder would have to authorize the license change. That includes everyone who has ever contributed code to Linux, or whose GPLd code the Linux team has used.
Uhh, check up on your facts a bit. The American Revolution did not consist of a tea-dumping party and a quick peace treaty. Americans shot and killed many British soldiers, whose lives could not be replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Mozilla allows you to distribute changes to the actual code. Qt still requires you to distribute them as patches.
Not everybody used OOP, and OOP is not the be-all end-all of programming metholodogy. It has many uses, but is not desirable for all types of programs.
Well, it's not much of an improvement. The language has been clarified a bit, but the major problems that make it GPL-incompatible are still there. Take for example:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
That alone makes it GPL-incompatible, so distributing KDE binaries linked to Qt remains illegal.
The part that lets Troll use your modifications as part of their commercially licensed product (forcing you to allow them to change the license on your code) isn't too nice either.
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
I thought Troll said they were going to get rid of the patch clause? If this is going to remain in there, then this license is no improvement. It's still GPL-incompatible, and so it still remains illegal to distribute binaries of KDE linked against Qt (unless KDE get permission from all the copyright holders of the code they've used to provide an exception for Qt).
so what was his rationale for making "cyber = high-tech network technology" when "cyber" in fact means "relating to government" or something to that effect?
I disagree. The term "hacker" refers to a knowledge and love of computers (which often includes programming). There's no distinction between "bad" hackers and "good" hackers. They're all hackers.
However, I agree that "hacker" is not a synonym for "person who breaks into systems." Some of those people may in fact be hackers, while a large majority of they would be what I call either "script kiddies" or "hax0r d00ds."
So, where this article uses "hacker," they may or may not be correct. The people they refer to may very well be hackers, but they just as easily might not be.
However, "crackers" is not the appropriate terminology, since crackers refers to the talented asm coders who remove copy protection schemes from software.
Ok, "cyberwarfare" has to be the stupidest non-word I've seen in a while. Who came up with the the mistaken idea that the prefix "cyber" refers to computers or the internet? The prefix "cyber" means "relating to government" (the Greek word for government is "kybernisi").
So, therefore, "cyberwarfare" means "war between governments" or "government-sponsored war" or something to that effect. Isn't nearly all war between and sponsored by governments?
Umm, no. There's more underage drinking in the US, where it's illegal, than in places like Greece, where it's legal. Heck, Germany allows you to buy beer from 16 and up, and there are fewer drunk teenagers there than in the US.
So apparently drinking laws do not work.
Ok, a bit more info and to clarify my question - both router.redhat.com (which has very low ping times) and www.redhat.com (which times out) are on the same class C subnet, so apparently the bandwidth to the network is there. If it's not a bandwidth problem, what is the problem? Is the box down or overloaded? If Slashdot can handle a ton of visitors per day on one box, I don't see why RedHat can't handle a certain percentage of the Slashdot visitors clicking over to their site.
Hmm, it seems to be slashdotted.
However, a traceroute (www.redhat.com and redhat.com have the same results) brings up an interesting question...the trace gets all the way to router.redhat.com [199.183.24.225], which reports "Destination net unreachable." That means that something's getting through to RedHat, but not to the www server. My question is, what causes something like this? Is the router purposely dropping packets (and replying that the destination is unreachable) due to too much traffic, or is this the router's way of saying that its request to www.redhat.com timed out?
Well, supposedly it'll support HDTV and SVGA monitors.
So, if we take a 1024x768 resolution, that's 786,432 pixels per frame. 30 frames/second gives you 23,592,960 (approx. 24 million) pixels per second. Odd, I wonder where the extra factor of 1000 comes in.
Yes, but by the time the PSX2 actually comes out in the US, you should be able to get a pIII + vIII + 21" monitor for under $1000. Not to mention that you'll need to buy the monitor (or a $700+ HDTV) for the PSX as well, if you want decent image quality.
A top of the line gaming PC costs what, $2000.
A playstation 2 will probably run $200.
However, that top-of-the-line gaming PC will probably cost around $500-$800 by the time the PSX2 is actually released in the US. And from the rumors I've heard, the PSX will be closer to $350-$400 initially.
Ahh, those punk rockers. Yeah, unfortunately, I've had too much experience with them. Any band that sells more than 15 copies of their record is automatically a sellout and not punk.
It may not be the best UI out there, but it certainly beats Netscape's UI. At least in Opera I can quickly toggle between images/no_images with a button, rather than having to go through multiple menus to do so. Same with turning on/off user-defined fonts, font sizes, and colors (vs. the page's defined fonts, font sizes and colors).
Well, I only know an extremely small amount of German, but AFAIK "suse" would be pronounced "soo-zah" in German (trailing e's have an "ah" or "uh" sort of sound, not "ee").
btw i'm not the (AC) poster you're replying to, I just felt like posting...
I wont trust that, redhat is the 2nd last thing these morons would use. They think that RH must be the "M$ of the linux world" only because they are successful. They happily ignore the fact that RH licenses everything they do under the {gpl,lgpl}.
Depends on your type of script kiddie. The ones who just want to run teardrop and bonk install RedHat, because it lets them get to the Denial of Service attacks with the least amount of time invested in actually learning how to use a computer. However, you do have a point, the ones who want to look uber-3l33t anti-establishment will install whatever happens to be the least popular OS at the moment. However, I don't see a switch to *bsd among script kiddies in the works soon, since most of the established *bsd userbase and IRC channels tend to be a bit more mature, so the script kiddies would feel more out of place than with Linux.
[some stuff and ad hominem attacks deleted]
Oh and let me guess, you are still in your teens, and listen to punk rock, right?
What exactly is wrong with punk rock?
Is this the CNet of download.com/software.com/shareware.com/computers. com/browsers.com fame, the CNet of Amiga BBS Software fame, or a different CNet?
Yes, but SQL (as in the SQL database control language) is pronounced as "sequel" by anybody I've ever known who uses it.
Yeah well the creator of Linux pronounces it lee-nooks (listen to the .au), but nobody listens to him do they?
what about vim (the new-and-improved vi)? vih-m or vee eye em?
Ahh, but where are these contributors? Looking at the linux.com board, I see a bunch of suits, some columnists, and a handful (one or two) actual contributors. It would seem that money (that of SGI and Oracle), not code contributions, were the deciding factor. Not to mention Petreley's good press.
Uhh, you're missing the point of a democratically-styled people-controlled movement. Everybody gets their say, regardless of their "credentials." Perhaps finding some way of doing elections would be better.
Don't waste /. bandwith with stupid, inaccurate drivel.
I think you summed it up right there (the only accurate part of your post).
Linus does not have any legal authority over Linux. He holds copyright over the portion of the Linux code that he himself wrote (he estimates that to be around 10%). In order to give permission to link binary modules, every copyright holder would have to authorize the license change. That includes everyone who has ever contributed code to Linux, or whose GPLd code the Linux team has used.
Uhh, check up on your facts a bit. The American Revolution did not consist of a tea-dumping party and a quick peace treaty. Americans shot and killed many British soldiers, whose lives could not be replaced.