The VM can reinterpret the software and run it, with no emulation. It doesn't need to drasticaly change the computer's speed. There are already VMs that do this, they are not that usefull, but can hide a rootkit.
You are free to include DRM, but you can't protect it with laws like the DMCA. What would be annoying if you could since it would be a crime to change some lines of the code, but not others.
Further simplification: With DRM it is impossible to use computers anymore, all you'll have is some kind of overpriced typewriter that also shows a few movies.
I'd say that it is very likely that (genetic) evolution almost stopped at the last century. Except for a few diseases that kill young people and we still not know the cure, almost all human traits that interfere with reprodiction ration have no causal relation with our genome. (Applied) Inteligence and social succes are almost all defined by social characteristics, all observed correlations tend to happend by chance.
"Linux has far more at stake in getting a Dell/Linux deal than does Dell."
No, it doesn't. Linux (and FOSS in a general way) have a lot at stake in TCPA regulamentation. That is the only thing that may negatively affect it*. If Dell refuses to support Linux, Dell will simply slowly become irrelevant.
* Belive it or not, we can't go much down from here.
Or you just want to get some work done? If you really want to learn something, you should do it with PASCAL. Some people told you do study C, but after trying to teach it to a few people, I am fully convinced that C is not a beginer's language. PASCAL is different because you won't need to know about pointers to do quotidiane stuff, but still have manual memory allocation to study.
To learn how to program, use PASCAL on a CLI. Don't worry about the time investment, you'll learn VB much faster after you know what you are doing. Just to finish, I'd like to put here a very true quote from Dijkstra:
"It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."
All nice, and everything... But TFA missed the point, as do almost all articles about FOSS comercial viability.
With proprietary software, somebody goes out, writtes a piece of software, and try to license THEIR software to you. They need to have a good business plan if want to stay on the market. But with free software, the software is YOURS (comunitary). So, you get people to change your software to you.
That point of view, that people seem to not grasp, puts an end on that need of sucessfull FOSS business plans. There is money involved on improving, customizing and supporting FOSS because YOU want to pay people for that. The business plan is to get your money, and deliver you what you want. There will be a market until YOU want it to be, it will be sustainable until YOU want it to be.
If you are still half kiding, I am completely serious. As far as I can see, SAP sells the same customization capacity of gcc. It can become anything, and so, it needs a complete program to become something.
The reason you don't see some open source SAP is because FOSS people don't have a marketing department, so they normaly create software that in fact does something, or follow the specs and write a compiler.
Well, ok there is a big library with the SAP package (the framework thing), but those we have at FOSS too.
"There has indeed been very little innovation for a long time, but if a new version can accomplish something in half the time it used to take you than that's a significant improvement by itself"
I am not sure if it is a significant improvement. Well, for the developper point of view, it is, but, for example, from my point of view, it probably isn't. If my case is common (and I think it is), people spend most of the time not writting, but staring at the text, thinking.
Well, if you spend just 10% (I think that my figure is even lower) of the time writting, even if a new text processor doubles the user writting speed, it will just put the time down from 100% to 95%. Not so significative.
The (Hollywood) movies I tend to like are some of the ones with larger public, and yet, I can say that you are wrong. The problem is not thar Hollywood doesn't want to give public what the public want. The problem is that Hollywood CAN'T give the public what it wants.
That happens because of 2 factors, firts, there is yours "not even the people funding the movies can predict how they're going to turn out". And, second, and most important, the investors really doesn't know what the public want. You just need to look a few years back to see that most huge sucess had little credit before they were launched.
IANAL, but as far as I know, there is no problem on reverse engeneering some patented system. For a start, if it is patented, it is ublic anyway. He may have problems to send them his resumee, but no legal problem.
You can not hide the format that an open source application writtes to. The subset of.doc that OOo writes now is de facto open. But, of course, better documentation and being sure that the implementation is right can make a lot of difference.
Just to be pedantic;) open source is one thing, open format is another.
Of course, a file that is created by an open source software is on an open format, but the oposite is not always true for closed source. A file that is written by a closed source software may also be on an open format.
People don't need to use Arobat Reader. And the PDF files will work well everywhere if you don't use the newest format, that is what PDF is for. Good luck on the switch.
I am using plain text, PDF and HTML almost sucessfuly for a few years now. Needed the OOo word compatibility one time, but it will probably not happen again. It is possible for some people to switch with almost no harm now.
"It isn't the idea of a language thats the problem, the idea that language matters is the problem. Any problem can be solved in any Turing complete language. There's little to no difference between them."
I have a very nice OS kernel project for you to develop in TeX, ok?
"I can see a whole lot of applications where a live animal wouldn't be as useful. Perhaps we should get rid of all the motorcycle police and make them use horses, too?"
Funny that you talk about that. I've seem lots of initiatives lately that propose exactly that. Horses are much more flexible than motorcycles, what leads to better police action. Of course, horses produce some dirt, that most people don't like to have on their cities, but I guess that they aren't so bottoered by that on a war.
Well, Bush can be a have, but everybody can become a have not in 10 years of traditional liberalism, whe the first crisis happens. Even if he survives, he'll need to survive the 20 year crisis, that is even harder, or the 30 year one. Capitalism was never an stratified system.
But all the rest was near reality, and Bush seems to be short signed enough to not realise that he may be a have not some day. Socialism (the kind that helps poor people, not URSS's one) was developed to evercome this problem. What happened is that the rich refused to create a global social system, so the poor become always more poor. Now, that most barriers are out, the rich have problems, but without those barriers, the rich are also spreading trough the world, leveling the playing field. Now we can start again thinking about that global social system that will prevent something like that happening in some decades, or do nothing.
Funny, I still can't see how the data that is in a LaTeX file may be lost. Maybe some formatation, but no tables, pictures, formula or text. Also, you can always infer the function of a package from the name if you don't have it, or read any manual from that time, there are always plenty of them. And it is not so hard to keep all combinations of packages, CTAN does exactly that. It is in no way worse than any other open format out there.
About it being dificult to parse (?!). Well, I think that it is the past that should worry about this kind of problems, isn't it. I mean, several decades ago, the computers where happly able to parse LaTeX documents, why should I belive that several centuries in the future the computers won't be able to do that?
In 200 years, people may not remember that ASCII had 8 bits, or that UTF8 can have 8 or 16 bits depending on the character. But if they know how our computer worked (that including the fact that we use a 8 bit quantum), the documents can be recovered. That is assuming that they can read our language, but we have plenty of translations out there to help with that.
We probably shouldn't worry about writting down into paper how our computers work for now. There are lots of texts out there already printed that explaint it. But in a few decades, we may need to do that.
Ok, now MS is accusing a sovergein state (ok not quite a state yet, but it doesn't matters) of collusion! Wow, I never thought I'd see something like that happening. You know what? If EU decides to favor other companies, because they are not monopolies, or because they are local, it can do that. Hell, if the EU representatives decide to favor other companies just because they want, it is their problem, MS has nothing to do with that.
Ok, sorry for the previous poster. I am a bit tired and didn't think about it so well. To comment that today, you must be genuinely interested.
If the GPL comes out with the DRM clause, the WebShop won't be able to sell both SoftCorp's software (that is under GPLv3) and HardCorp's computer. That is because HardCorp's computer needs a signed software, and only SoftCorp has the keys.
If the WebShop sells the software, it must agree to the GPL, so they need to disclosure the keys. Since they don't have the keys, they can't sell the software. I guess that all the confusion comes because, if WebShop didn't sell the hardware, it could sell the software, but all that it is prohibited to sell is the software, never the hardware.
Also WebShop will be able to sell other DRM hardware, if they don't use SoftCorp's keys.
The iPod DRM is sompletely unrelated to all that. You don't need any key to make your software run on iPod (you simply can't run your software on it, I guess), and the software is not under GPLv3. So, WebShop will always be able to sell iPods.
Slashdot Mirror
The VM can reinterpret the software and run it, with no emulation. It doesn't need to drasticaly change the computer's speed. There are already VMs that do this, they are not that usefull, but can hide a rootkit.
Just remember:
TCPA that gives the keys to YOU - GOOD
TCPA that gives the keys to people SPYING you - BAD
Anyway, running it from a read only memory is a way to avoid rootkits with hardware while not using TCPA.
You are free to include DRM, but you can't protect it with laws like the DMCA. What would be annoying if you could since it would be a crime to change some lines of the code, but not others.
Further simplification: With DRM it is impossible to use computers anymore, all you'll have is some kind of overpriced typewriter that also shows a few movies.
I'd say that it is very likely that (genetic) evolution almost stopped at the last century. Except for a few diseases that kill young people and we still not know the cure, almost all human traits that interfere with reprodiction ration have no causal relation with our genome. (Applied) Inteligence and social succes are almost all defined by social characteristics, all observed correlations tend to happend by chance.
No, it doesn't. Linux (and FOSS in a general way) have a lot at stake in TCPA regulamentation. That is the only thing that may negatively affect it*. If Dell refuses to support Linux, Dell will simply slowly become irrelevant.
* Belive it or not, we can't go much down from here.
Or you just want to get some work done? If you really want to learn something, you should do it with PASCAL. Some people told you do study C, but after trying to teach it to a few people, I am fully convinced that C is not a beginer's language. PASCAL is different because you won't need to know about pointers to do quotidiane stuff, but still have manual memory allocation to study.
To learn how to program, use PASCAL on a CLI. Don't worry about the time investment, you'll learn VB much faster after you know what you are doing. Just to finish, I'd like to put here a very true quote from Dijkstra:
All nice, and everything... But TFA missed the point, as do almost all articles about FOSS comercial viability.
With proprietary software, somebody goes out, writtes a piece of software, and try to license THEIR software to you. They need to have a good business plan if want to stay on the market. But with free software, the software is YOURS (comunitary). So, you get people to change your software to you.
That point of view, that people seem to not grasp, puts an end on that need of sucessfull FOSS business plans. There is money involved on improving, customizing and supporting FOSS because YOU want to pay people for that. The business plan is to get your money, and deliver you what you want. There will be a market until YOU want it to be, it will be sustainable until YOU want it to be.
If you are still half kiding, I am completely serious. As far as I can see, SAP sells the same customization capacity of gcc. It can become anything, and so, it needs a complete program to become something.
The reason you don't see some open source SAP is because FOSS people don't have a marketing department, so they normaly create software that in fact does something, or follow the specs and write a compiler.
Well, ok there is a big library with the SAP package (the framework thing), but those we have at FOSS too.
I am not sure if it is a significant improvement. Well, for the developper point of view, it is, but, for example, from my point of view, it probably isn't. If my case is common (and I think it is), people spend most of the time not writting, but staring at the text, thinking.
Well, if you spend just 10% (I think that my figure is even lower) of the time writting, even if a new text processor doubles the user writting speed, it will just put the time down from 100% to 95%. Not so significative.
The (Hollywood) movies I tend to like are some of the ones with larger public, and yet, I can say that you are wrong. The problem is not thar Hollywood doesn't want to give public what the public want. The problem is that Hollywood CAN'T give the public what it wants.
That happens because of 2 factors, firts, there is yours "not even the people funding the movies can predict how they're going to turn out". And, second, and most important, the investors really doesn't know what the public want. You just need to look a few years back to see that most huge sucess had little credit before they were launched.
IANAL, but as far as I know, there is no problem on reverse engeneering some patented system. For a start, if it is patented, it is ublic anyway. He may have problems to send them his resumee, but no legal problem.
You can not hide the format that an open source application writtes to. The subset of .doc that OOo writes now is de facto open. But, of course, better documentation and being sure that the implementation is right can make a lot of difference.
Just to be pedantic ;) open source is one thing, open format is another.
Of course, a file that is created by an open source software is on an open format, but the oposite is not always true for closed source. A file that is written by a closed source software may also be on an open format.
People don't need to use Arobat Reader. And the PDF files will work well everywhere if you don't use the newest format, that is what PDF is for. Good luck on the switch.
I am using plain text, PDF and HTML almost sucessfuly for a few years now. Needed the OOo word compatibility one time, but it will probably not happen again. It is possible for some people to switch with almost no harm now.
I have a very nice OS kernel project for you to develop in TeX, ok?
Oh, so anything new goes nowhere. I can see your point, we are still trying to make those things as fire and the well mainstream...
Funny that you talk about that. I've seem lots of initiatives lately that propose exactly that. Horses are much more flexible than motorcycles, what leads to better police action. Of course, horses produce some dirt, that most people don't like to have on their cities, but I guess that they aren't so bottoered by that on a war.
Well, Bush can be a have, but everybody can become a have not in 10 years of traditional liberalism, whe the first crisis happens. Even if he survives, he'll need to survive the 20 year crisis, that is even harder, or the 30 year one. Capitalism was never an stratified system.
But all the rest was near reality, and Bush seems to be short signed enough to not realise that he may be a have not some day. Socialism (the kind that helps poor people, not URSS's one) was developed to evercome this problem. What happened is that the rich refused to create a global social system, so the poor become always more poor. Now, that most barriers are out, the rich have problems, but without those barriers, the rich are also spreading trough the world, leveling the playing field. Now we can start again thinking about that global social system that will prevent something like that happening in some decades, or do nothing.
Funny, I still can't see how the data that is in a LaTeX file may be lost. Maybe some formatation, but no tables, pictures, formula or text. Also, you can always infer the function of a package from the name if you don't have it, or read any manual from that time, there are always plenty of them. And it is not so hard to keep all combinations of packages, CTAN does exactly that. It is in no way worse than any other open format out there.
About it being dificult to parse (?!). Well, I think that it is the past that should worry about this kind of problems, isn't it. I mean, several decades ago, the computers where happly able to parse LaTeX documents, why should I belive that several centuries in the future the computers won't be able to do that?
In 200 years, people may not remember that ASCII had 8 bits, or that UTF8 can have 8 or 16 bits depending on the character. But if they know how our computer worked (that including the fact that we use a 8 bit quantum), the documents can be recovered. That is assuming that they can read our language, but we have plenty of translations out there to help with that.
We probably shouldn't worry about writting down into paper how our computers work for now. There are lots of texts out there already printed that explaint it. But in a few decades, we may need to do that.
Ok, now MS is accusing a sovergein state (ok not quite a state yet, but it doesn't matters) of collusion! Wow, I never thought I'd see something like that happening. You know what? If EU decides to favor other companies, because they are not monopolies, or because they are local, it can do that. Hell, if the EU representatives decide to favor other companies just because they want, it is their problem, MS has nothing to do with that.
Seems logical... But I have being whatching people making this prediction since when I discovered about FOSS. And that future never came.
So, if you can tell me when will this future come, and what is so different now for that not happening, I'll listen. Otherwise, I won't.
Ok, sorry for the previous poster. I am a bit tired and didn't think about it so well. To comment that today, you must be genuinely interested.
If the GPL comes out with the DRM clause, the WebShop won't be able to sell both SoftCorp's software (that is under GPLv3) and HardCorp's computer. That is because HardCorp's computer needs a signed software, and only SoftCorp has the keys.
If the WebShop sells the software, it must agree to the GPL, so they need to disclosure the keys. Since they don't have the keys, they can't sell the software. I guess that all the confusion comes because, if WebShop didn't sell the hardware, it could sell the software, but all that it is prohibited to sell is the software, never the hardware.
Also WebShop will be able to sell other DRM hardware, if they don't use SoftCorp's keys.
The iPod DRM is sompletely unrelated to all that. You don't need any key to make your software run on iPod (you simply can't run your software on it, I guess), and the software is not under GPLv3. So, WebShop will always be able to sell iPods.
You are a troll, isn't you? Well, if not, reread the topic and the first message of the thread.