if you keep/home on a separate partition, you redo the OS (/,/var) and apps (/usr or/usr/local/ and/opt) without having to backup/restore/home afterwards. Also, it's nice to be able to dedicate a certain fraction of the drive to a specific function . If you have it all on one partition, you may not have enought space for/var or/tmp because you installed too many applications. For a personal system, or a single user desktop, there's really not much point. But on a multi-user server, it can be extremely handy to dedicate portions of the disk to certain logical functions.
He had blood on his back from one person, and blood on his knife from two more. So the theory is he carried a wounded friend, and fought two assailants. His own DNA set is included in the count of 4. I saw the first discovery show they did on him, was pretty neat. Looking forward to the next one.
speak up Hanzo! Why can't you ever just get involved in a large group discussion which is based on people's opinions and feelings, instead of an exchange of technical facts. don't be such a wall flower!
don't forget there's apt-get for redhat via freshrpms and fedora, and I think one other. And Connectiva is and RPM based distro built around apt (I think they actually made the port of apt for rpms that freshrpms and fedora use).
It's not free speech because because the guy was selling it, not making it. Also, obscene speech is not protected. Obscenity is not determined at the federal level.
I personally don't know anyone who chose IE3 over Netscape. But I can certainly concede that my circle of friends may not be statistically significant. If I'm not mistaken, Windows 95b was the first version to have IE integrated. Without wanting to imply you do, don't confuse poplarity and good marketing for technical merit. I stand by my original statement that IE won due to illegal tactics, and not superior technology, or even superior marketing.
That's how the GPL works, actually. If you distribute binaries, the source must be distributed in the same fashion, for a fee not exceding media and shipping. So if you offer your GPL software for sale, and not a free download to everyone, you only have to ship source to people who buy it, and can charge for the media and shipping costs.
The thing is, in a case like this, the government IS expanding its power. Even though no new laws are being created, the government is setting a precedent that it can control pretty much any company that it deams worthy of being contolled.
Tell us dunces what powers the government has given itself over the course of the MS trial. The government has brought charges to companies liek this before. It has also fined companies, broken up companies, and regulated their actions before. None of these are new.
If I make a better product, how is that anti-competitive
That's not what people are complaining about. MS Put out a product good enough to obtain a monopoly. Which is fine. Then they saw an emergin market where people were making money (Netscape used to sell web browsers). MS then bought a browser from a nother company, turned it into IE, and gave it away for free for the express purpose of driving Netscape out of the market. To help speed up the process, it was made into an essential part of the OS with Windows 98 (I believe 95a even). Think about that. To uninstall the browser you would have to break the OS. They then forced OEMs, using their legaly obtained monopoly position, to shut out competitors, AOL and Netscape pre-installed or even icons on the desktop. You would have to be a complete, freaking, idiot to think that the first versions of IE were better. But the majority of consumers just use whatever is there already, not realising there is a choice. By the time IE was good enough to compete on technical merit, MS had run Netscape out of the browser market. (I know they still make browsers, but IE has 90%+ market penetration). The illegal tactics are the leveraging of the desktop OS monopoly to prevent OEMs from distributing competing products (implemented by non-uniform licensing), and selling a product in a separate market at a loss, to drive out competition (use profits from the OS market to sustain distributing IE at a loss in the browser market). They are doing the same thing with the media player, AFTER being convicted of their original anti-competitive behavior.
You say that the intent of the government is correct in this case, and that somehow justifies the use of force.I know its cliche to say this, but Commumism had a good intent too. Intent never justifies force, except in self-defense, and I don't think that MS was threatening to attack the US
MS is attacking consumers, by artificially driving out competition and keeping prices artificially high. The Justice Department and State Attorneys General act in defense of the consumers.
Get a clue.
If IBM develops some important code, they can release it for Linux under GPL and also use it in AIX/DB2/WebSphere thereby maintaing an advantage over Solaris, Oracle etc.
If IBM distributes it, they must make the source available to the people they distribute it too. so Sun, Oracle, etc. could buy a copy, get the source, and implement the ideas in their own products. The advantage is that Sun, Oracle, etc have to then disitribute their own modifications to IBM's, which IBM could then incorporate, ad nauseum.
Not sure if that's what you were trying to say, as you seem to understand the basic difference between the two.
The intent is that you'd have to patent the theory and mechanics that make the drive work. The requirement to have a working model was removed because that would present an artificial barrier to poor inventors. But the way people are patenting business models and web technologies, 1-click shopping you may very well be able to patent something with no indication of design now too.
Actually it does. I believe the Home Recording Act which spelled out fair use rights permits us to make our own copies in new formats. It also says we're allowed to make copies for our friends. The RIAA is simply trying to get new laws and powers to take this away from us.
I have this one friend who thought I should list my/. karma on my resume, back when my 'most recent 24' posts were all +3 thru +5 Informative/Insightful/Interesting/Funny. Got my first Flamebait not long ago, was meant to be funny but I wrote 'right' instead of 'write'. But anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
if you keep /home on a separate partition, you redo the OS (/, /var) and apps (/usr or /usr/local/ and /opt) without having to backup/restore /home afterwards. Also, it's nice to be able to dedicate a certain fraction of the drive to a specific function . If you have it all on one partition, you may not have enought space for /var or /tmp because you installed too many applications. For a personal system, or a single user desktop, there's really not much point. But on a multi-user server, it can be extremely handy to dedicate portions of the disk to certain logical functions.
try this
perhaps an estimation of how long it took him to die given the wounds he had sustained?
He had blood on his back from one person, and blood on his knife from two more. So the theory is he carried a wounded friend, and fought two assailants. His own DNA set is included in the count of 4. I saw the first discovery show they did on him, was pretty neat. Looking forward to the next one.
no, because then who would know if it's the proper British water_closet, or the American wash_closet that is being abbreviated? Git. ;)
that's water_closet, you git!
go to freshrpms.net. install the apt for shrike. log in as root. apt-get install xine. enjoy.
</sarcasm>
What about cake? Cake's got layers too, and lots of people like cake.
don't forget there's apt-get for redhat via freshrpms and fedora, and I think one other. And Connectiva is and RPM based distro built around apt (I think they actually made the port of apt for rpms that freshrpms and fedora use).
If you want to run query options on a package before installing it, you have to use -p. To list all files, rpm -qlp package.rpm, etc.
It's not free speech because because the guy was selling it, not making it. Also, obscene speech is not protected. Obscenity is not determined at the federal level.
Just wait, pretty soon they'll have the Brovlovski guy in Everyone vs. Everyone!
Don't you mean all that jizz?
I personally don't know anyone who chose IE3 over Netscape. But I can certainly concede that my circle of friends may not be statistically significant. If I'm not mistaken, Windows 95b was the first version to have IE integrated. Without wanting to imply you do, don't confuse poplarity and good marketing for technical merit. I stand by my original statement that IE won due to illegal tactics, and not superior technology, or even superior marketing.
That's how the GPL works, actually. If you distribute binaries, the source must be distributed in the same fashion, for a fee not exceding media and shipping. So if you offer your GPL software for sale, and not a free download to everyone, you only have to ship source to people who buy it, and can charge for the media and shipping costs.
Tell us dunces what powers the government has given itself over the course of the MS trial. The government has brought charges to companies liek this before. It has also fined companies, broken up companies, and regulated their actions before. None of these are new.
If I make a better product, how is that anti-competitive
That's not what people are complaining about. MS Put out a product good enough to obtain a monopoly. Which is fine. Then they saw an emergin market where people were making money (Netscape used to sell web browsers). MS then bought a browser from a nother company, turned it into IE, and gave it away for free for the express purpose of driving Netscape out of the market. To help speed up the process, it was made into an essential part of the OS with Windows 98 (I believe 95a even). Think about that. To uninstall the browser you would have to break the OS. They then forced OEMs, using their legaly obtained monopoly position, to shut out competitors, AOL and Netscape pre-installed or even icons on the desktop. You would have to be a complete, freaking, idiot to think that the first versions of IE were better. But the majority of consumers just use whatever is there already, not realising there is a choice. By the time IE was good enough to compete on technical merit, MS had run Netscape out of the browser market. (I know they still make browsers, but IE has 90%+ market penetration). The illegal tactics are the leveraging of the desktop OS monopoly to prevent OEMs from distributing competing products (implemented by non-uniform licensing), and selling a product in a separate market at a loss, to drive out competition (use profits from the OS market to sustain distributing IE at a loss in the browser market). They are doing the same thing with the media player, AFTER being convicted of their original anti-competitive behavior.
You say that the intent of the government is correct in this case, and that somehow justifies the use of force.I know its cliche to say this, but Commumism had a good intent too. Intent never justifies force, except in self-defense, and I don't think that MS was threatening to attack the US
MS is attacking consumers, by artificially driving out competition and keeping prices artificially high. The Justice Department and State Attorneys General act in defense of the consumers. Get a clue.
If IBM distributes it, they must make the source available to the people they distribute it too. so Sun, Oracle, etc. could buy a copy, get the source, and implement the ideas in their own products. The advantage is that Sun, Oracle, etc have to then disitribute their own modifications to IBM's, which IBM could then incorporate, ad nauseum.
Not sure if that's what you were trying to say, as you seem to understand the basic difference between the two.
man, I hate having to remember to use < and >, mainly because I never remember. There should have been a around "1-click shopping".
The intent is that you'd have to patent the theory and mechanics that make the drive work. The requirement to have a working model was removed because that would present an artificial barrier to poor inventors. But the way people are patenting business models and web technologies, 1-click shopping you may very well be able to patent something with no indication of design now too.
Actually it does. I believe the Home Recording Act which spelled out fair use rights permits us to make our own copies in new formats. It also says we're allowed to make copies for our friends. The RIAA is simply trying to get new laws and powers to take this away from us.
I have this one friend who thought I should list my /. karma on my resume, back when my 'most recent 24' posts were all +3 thru +5 Informative/Insightful/Interesting/Funny. Got my first Flamebait not long ago, was meant to be funny but I wrote 'right' instead of 'write'. But anyway.
For God's sake, won't somebody please think of the Fleems?
No, it is not.
um, yeeaaah, i'm going to have to uuuuhhhhh, disagree with you here.