So what do you suggest they use instead? Linux has not even applied for the test, and would fail if it did (it fails the requirement that all security-related software be binary-only).
1) these laptops are not going to be collecting data, so they can't "lose data that was important" if they crash.
2) I've never reinstalled Windows in the last few years. Reboots, sure, but not reinstalls. I install a lot of stuff too...if the astronauts are just doing word processing, the chances of really messing something up seriously aren't very good.
Assuming the astronauts have a home computer (which is a reasonable assumption), they already know how to use Windows, which means that Windows has no learning curve whatsoever. Very few, if any, are likely to have Linux running on their home computers, so they will be less familiar with it. Even if the learning curve is fairly low, it's still more than no learning curve, and the astronauts have better things to be doing that learning how to use Linux/X/StarOffice.
It's not a mission-critical environment. Just word processing and whatnot. Windows seems like the best choice in this environment...the astronauts have more important things to do that learning how to use Linux.
I agree that the UltraHLE authors should have forseen this. I personally own physical copies of the games I have ROM images of. The reason I play them on an emulator is that mario64 looks a LOT better at 1024x768 than it does on a TV screen. It'd be nice if I could play all my games at 1024x768 instead of having to play them on a crappy 512xsomething TV screen. It'd be even better if I could play 4-player goldeneye on a LAN, instead of having to play it splitscreen like with a real n64.
I encourage the authors of UltraHLE to either rethink their discontinuation of the project, or to release the source code so others can enhance the emulator. There are many reasons people would like a working n64 emulator other than piracy, because the n64 games are simply better on a computer than on a console/TV.
Who needs the Open Source Initiative? Microsoft is the perfect marketing department for the free software community. Maybe they'll pay for some magazine ads to prove their competitors have enough money to advertise in magazines.
I'm assuming that Linux programmers will be ethical enough not to have their programs transmit the PID everywhere, so whether it's on or off isn't really an issue. The only advantage to turning it off would be to prevent a program from broadcasting your PID somewhere, but if your programs don't broadcast it int he first place, it's irrelevant.
Yes, but an mp3 player can actually work with LESS throughput than an audio cd player, since the music is compressed. A single-speed CD-ROM drive would do fine.
That entry in the jargon file certainly seems a bit outdated. I know I would look at somebody a bit strangely if they greeted me with "How's hacking" or used "hack, hack" as a temporary farewell.
You just need to find a company that sells robust CD-ROM drives. Car audio CD changers work perfectly fine with vibrations, hot, and cold, so I don't see why CD-ROM drives shouldn't work similarly.
It'd be interesting to see how much of that performance lead is due to the fact that Linux is faster than NT, and how much of it is due to the fact that Apache is faster than IIS.
Perhaps they should try some tests with NT using the win32 version of Apache.
No, because it's just a window manager: Windowmaker.
The GNU OS, on the other hand, is what you're running, except for the kernel (HURD), which isn't completed yet. So you're using Linux as the drop-in replacement, hence the name GNU/Linux for the hybrid of the GNU OS and the Linux kernel.
The point is that you're talking about a pre-configured Window Maker desktop. However, most of us actually want to configure stuff to our liking. Win95's configuration is still more user friendly than that of XF86Setup and most window managers I've seen (editing setup files, etc.)
I have no problem with KDE or the KDE developers, and could care less whether it looks like Windows or not. The problem I have is that the GPL is a license agreement, and it needs to be respected. When the GPL says you cannot link GPL'd code with non-Free libraries, it means exactly that. Of course, the KDE team can write an exception for the Qt libraries into the license for their code, but they do not have the right to amend the license of code which is not their own. They take quite a bit of GPL'd code from other people, and the license of that code must be respected, whether it is convenient or not. They can't just decide to ignore the GPL because they feel like it.
It seems to me that KDE wants to be GPL in name, so they can use source from other GPL'd apps, but not in practice, so they can continue linking to non-GPL-compatible libraries. If they want to do so, making KDE LGPL would solve that problem, and would be fine with me. However, they have not done so, so they are violating the GPL, which is illegal. I don't care if their interface is better, more advanced, or the best one possible, but it's still illegal.
Unless KDE took GPL source from somewhere else, this just plain isn't true.
There's quite a lot of GPL source from other places in KDE, which is the reason I made my original comment. I'm quite aware that the authors can do whatever they want with their own source, but they can't do whatever they want with the GPL'd source of other people. They do not have the permission of every single code contributor to make an exception to the linking part of the GPL, so therefore linking KDE with Qt remains illegal.
I seem to recall some Anonymous Coward posts from IBM employees in the various articles on IBM open-sourcing things, or helping out Open Source projects. They posted anonymously for obvious reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in that case, this law wouldn't help anyway. How is a US law going to shut down a Nigerian porn site?
What if Quicken hired some laywers to write its software? Would it then be authorized practice of law?
So what do you suggest they use instead? Linux has not even applied for the test, and would fail if it did (it fails the requirement that all security-related software be binary-only).
Read the article first, please.
1) these laptops are not going to be collecting data, so they can't "lose data that was important" if they crash.
2) I've never reinstalled Windows in the last few years. Reboots, sure, but not reinstalls. I install a lot of stuff too...if the astronauts are just doing word processing, the chances of really messing something up seriously aren't very good.
Assuming the astronauts have a home computer (which is a reasonable assumption), they already know how to use Windows, which means that Windows has no learning curve whatsoever. Very few, if any, are likely to have Linux running on their home computers, so they will be less familiar with it. Even if the learning curve is fairly low, it's still more than no learning curve, and the astronauts have better things to be doing that learning how to use Linux/X/StarOffice.
It's not a mission-critical environment. Just word processing and whatnot. Windows seems like the best choice in this environment...the astronauts have more important things to do that learning how to use Linux.
3% sure beats Linux's less than 0.5% (in the general public, which means desktops...it's higher among servers, of course).
moving to the country, gonna eat a lotta peaches
i'm moving to the country, gonna eat me a lotta peaches
peaches come from a can
then were put there by a man
in a factory downtown
if i had my little way
i'd eat peaches every day
sun soaking bulges in the shade (??)
moving to the country, gonna eat a lotta peaches
i'm moving to the country, gonna eat me a lotta peaches
i took a little nap (something something)
squished a rotten peach in my fist
dreamed about you, woman
hold my finger down inside
make a little room for an ant to hide
nature's candy in my hand or can or pie
millions of peaches
peaches for free
millions of peaches
peaches for me
Look out!
All copyright violations contained herein are solely the fault of Steve Wozniak. He made me do it.
I agree that the UltraHLE authors should have forseen this. I personally own physical copies of the games I have ROM images of. The reason I play them on an emulator is that mario64 looks a LOT better at 1024x768 than it does on a TV screen. It'd be nice if I could play all my games at 1024x768 instead of having to play them on a crappy 512xsomething TV screen. It'd be even better if I could play 4-player goldeneye on a LAN, instead of having to play it splitscreen like with a real n64.
I encourage the authors of UltraHLE to either rethink their discontinuation of the project, or to release the source code so others can enhance the emulator. There are many reasons people would like a working n64 emulator other than piracy, because the n64 games are simply better on a computer than on a console/TV.
Who needs the Open Source Initiative? Microsoft is the perfect marketing department for the free software community. Maybe they'll pay for some magazine ads to prove their competitors have enough money to advertise in magazines.
I'm assuming that Linux programmers will be ethical enough not to have their programs transmit the PID everywhere, so whether it's on or off isn't really an issue. The only advantage to turning it off would be to prevent a program from broadcasting your PID somewhere, but if your programs don't broadcast it int he first place, it's irrelevant.
Yes, but an mp3 player can actually work with LESS throughput than an audio cd player, since the music is compressed. A single-speed CD-ROM drive would do fine.
That entry in the jargon file certainly seems a bit outdated. I know I would look at somebody a bit strangely if they greeted me with "How's hacking" or used "hack, hack" as a temporary farewell.
You just need to find a company that sells robust CD-ROM drives. Car audio CD changers work perfectly fine with vibrations, hot, and cold, so I don't see why CD-ROM drives shouldn't work similarly.
It'd be interesting to see how much of that performance lead is due to the fact that Linux is faster than NT, and how much of it is due to the fact that Apache is faster than IIS.
Perhaps they should try some tests with NT using the win32 version of Apache.
Glad to see that /. hasn't given in and used a Compaq logo for this story rather than the Digital logo =)
No, because it's just a window manager: Windowmaker.
The GNU OS, on the other hand, is what you're running, except for the kernel (HURD), which isn't completed yet. So you're using Linux as the drop-in replacement, hence the name GNU/Linux for the hybrid of the GNU OS and the Linux kernel.
The point is that you're talking about a pre-configured Window Maker desktop. However, most of us actually want to configure stuff to our liking. Win95's configuration is still more user friendly than that of XF86Setup and most window managers I've seen (editing setup files, etc.)
1) What if I buy the CD at the store with cash? They have no idea who bought the CD with that particular watermark in that case.
2) How do they prove in court it was me that pirated the CD? How do they know it wasn't my brother? Or one of my friends that I let borrow the CD?
I have no problem with KDE or the KDE developers, and could care less whether it looks like Windows or not. The problem I have is that the GPL is a license agreement, and it needs to be respected. When the GPL says you cannot link GPL'd code with non-Free libraries, it means exactly that. Of course, the KDE team can write an exception for the Qt libraries into the license for their code, but they do not have the right to amend the license of code which is not their own. They take quite a bit of GPL'd code from other people, and the license of that code must be respected, whether it is convenient or not. They can't just decide to ignore the GPL because they feel like it.
It seems to me that KDE wants to be GPL in name, so they can use source from other GPL'd apps, but not in practice, so they can continue linking to non-GPL-compatible libraries. If they want to do so, making KDE LGPL would solve that problem, and would be fine with me. However, they have not done so, so they are violating the GPL, which is illegal. I don't care if their interface is better, more advanced, or the best one possible, but it's still illegal.
Unless KDE took GPL source from somewhere else, this just plain isn't true.
There's quite a lot of GPL source from other places in KDE, which is the reason I made my original comment. I'm quite aware that the authors can do whatever they want with their own source, but they can't do whatever they want with the GPL'd source of other people. They do not have the permission of every single code contributor to make an exception to the linking part of the GPL, so therefore linking KDE with Qt remains illegal.
Sure, Qt is Open Source(tm), but it still is not GPL-compatible, making linking KDE with it still illegal.
I hear you can get skin cancer if you go outside too much. Guess I won't have to worry about that.
What about lugging it into the store when you go shopping, or into the doctor's office, or in with you when you go for an interview?
I seem to recall some Anonymous Coward posts from IBM employees in the various articles on IBM open-sourcing things, or helping out Open Source projects. They posted anonymously for obvious reasons.