'and near-native speeds are necessary to actually boot Windows Vista before the sun goes supernova'
near-native? You'd better not only have a native system but a rather fast one to boot Vista in a timely manner. But its all worth it, because you can windows+tab and see a cool 3d cascade of windows. I don't even mind so much that they arbitrarily rearranged all the menus and control panel functions (without adding anything of use) for no apparent reason. All is good just so long as I can see window contents moving when I windows+tab. Clearly this was worth waiting 5 years for even if this is the first time since XP SP1 I have seen good old system freezes return. There is nothing like closing all the applications on your system and then walking away to get a drink and coming back to have your system freeze. This has become a great routine, I have even rearranged things a bit so that I can unplug the cable rather than having to hold down the button for 5 seconds.
'You know what would really be kewl? If you could make an integrated circuit that runs java real fast then you would have a chip that runs x86 assembly.'
Why wouldn't you just grab a Pentium 266 and have a chip that runs x86 assembly at twice the speed this thing will on my dual core athlon?
'AD&D 1st edition seemed more like a job. At the very least it seemed like you had to spend a lot more time min-maxing or you'd end up with a useless character. The boxed set D&D was just fun.'
That reminds me of my favorite part of the First Edition DMG. In the front of the book Gary Gygax the inventor the game reminds you that there are no rules in the books, only guidelines.
In my group we simplified the game in many ways. For one, we didn't use the encumbrance system. We used the common sense system and in EVERY instance the DM defined what common sense was. If you tried to carry a boulder on the back of your horse the DM would tell you a half of day into travel that your horse collapsed and died from exhaustion and picked a chance of you getting hurt from the fall off the top of his head.
We also got rid of a great deal of other nonsense. For instance, we dropped race/class restrictions except for human only classes. It seemed silly to impose restrictions on elves just because their characters lived forever and we ignored the contradictory lack of ultra powerful NPC's. The DM says the 700 year old elf is only level 5 then the elf is only level 5 end of story. We did this because it didn't matter how long characters lived since they wouldn't have any more time or opportunity to actually gain experience than the human players.
The DM also wielded a stick that he could wap a player with to symbolize an act of god that deducted treasure, killed familiars, cost experience or even entire levels. It was certainly easier to game when we dropped some of the tables and rules accepted that the DM trumps anything in the books. That is the real beauty of pen and paper RPG's over computer MMORPGS. You don't need to have rules that a machine can parse in an automated system. You don't have to have a chart that leaves everything up to a dice roll either. You have a live human being who can decide things and make exceptions and twist chance to the moment.
It was also important to remember it was just a game. You have to learn to laugh when the DM says 'As you ignore the trader talking about the haunted cave and walk away you notice a giant flaming rock falling from the sky in your direction. You take an involuntary step backward in fear... toward the trader and rock seems recede.' without whining about it not fitting with the realness of the world or what have you. The DM is god and trumps all guidelines in the books policy also helps solves all disputes.
'I think you forgot the second part of the catch 22: If everyone would keep the lid on Linux w.r.t. new users, the demand would forever be kept too low for Dell to start selling computers with it.
Fortunately, for parts of the tech press, SCO solved that part.;)'
True. The financially minded see linux ads on CNBC but they still don't know what it is. For them linux is just something to buy stock in or not. The home and small business users only get exposure through word of mouth and that is slow. Fortunately Linux is not a corporation and can out wait the slowness of this medium. You can't put linux out of business, there is nothing to attack. When a corporation does attack they help more than they hurt in the long run because people hear those corporate attacks and become aware of linux.
That word of mouth is spreading though. First Linux took the server room or as much of the server room as it can without breaking the windows monopoly. Now Linux is spreading onto the workstation (I use the term workstation in the modern sense that refers to desktops used for business not the old powerful machines for science and engineering) and even Dell is starting to listen. That will be a long battle. You will probably hear about the year of the desktop a few more times before linux is commonly seen on workstations. But the people who use those workstations are real people, not 6 figure and above incomes but actual normal middle and lower class citizens. From them the word of mouth spreads to other real people and small business owners.
Desktop adoption will be slow at first though even when the word of mouth advertising begins to spread like wildfire. That is because many of those desktop users will call their tech savvy family member or local tech guy and 9 out of 10 of those are incompetent MCSE types who would set up and active directory domain in a law firm that only has 4 pc's manned by secretaries running wordperfect. Those types don't know linux and will tout its evils. But the other 1 out of 10 will give real advice and the growth will continue.
It might take another 10 years, there might be a relapse in adoption due to some new feature of the moment but ultimately, even Microsoft's vast financial resources pale in comparison with the development power backing linux and open source. And unlike Microsoft linux can't be put out of business, can't have a bad quarter. It never sleeps, eats, bleeds, it just grows. Balmer was right when he called open source cancer. Except the host this cancer eats is the proprietary write once and sell millions business model. This cancer replaces host cells with stronger and superior cells. The end is inevitable, Microsoft just can't or won't see it.
'As I said, the RIAA and its members could, in the late nineties, have settled on an encrypted music format, just as the movie industry did with DVDs, and phased out CDs, but they didn't.'
Yes it isn't the content producer that chooses what format to settle on and whether they can phase out the old. Its the market. Even the music industry can't just drop a new format in place, they have to phase it in. If nobody buys your new encrypted format but they are still buying cd's then there is no money for the massive investment to change all the content over to the new medium. Further there is every reason to believe that all those consumers who are avoiding your encrypted format will turn to piracy to keep avoiding it if you don't provide cds anymore.
I feel a must oppose this regulation for all that I am worth. Parents try to eliminate pornography from their children's gaze so that they might grow up without becoming deviants. Having to hide from parents and not being able to talk about things sexual instills a sense of modesty in children.
As we all know, parents don't actually succeed in this question and any parent who thinks they do is fooling themself. With a.xxx domain parents might actually be able to truly block porn and that would probably be detrimental to the development of the child. This is especially true if the child is male.
'Btw, did you know that linux support more hardware than any other OS out of the box?'
That is the impression I have had but I am unaware of anyone confirming it to be a fact. I have certainly noticed that in most cases all the hardware in a system is supported, detected, and installed under linux unless it is the latest hardware.
I remember when it was only kudzu that seemed to work well for auto-detecting hardware with other detection systems like that used in Mandrake vastly inferior. Now it doesn't really seem to matter. Pick any modern distro and click through the graphical installer and at the end of the process your hardware will be loaded.
I agree. The real catch 22 is preinstallation. When Dell sells desktops with ubuntu preinstalled it will be time for tell everyone in the mainstream news and press about linux. Until then its best to keep a lid on it.
As another user mentioned, the proprietary drivers aren't installed by default in windows either. Under Ubuntu you check a box and have 3D acceleration. I do agree it is silly though, why would anyone want to run WITHOUT 3D acceleration.
'They will be interested precisely up until the point where they find that they can't play the games that they just bought from their local CompUSA (or PC World, or whatever).'
You say that because you play games. Most adults do not play video games on their computer. At least beyond simple 2D games and card games and any Linux distro includes dozens more of those than windows.
'Or until they try plugging in an arbitrary device and find that it doesn't work.'
That doesn't really work under windows either. It's SUPPOSED to work under windows but commonly fails. I can't tell you how many times I have plugged in a thumb drive to have XP fail to install the device. Your typical home user is stuck at this point, they call the nearest tech savy family member (then end up buying a new drive) or the friendly neighborhood tech guy (me) and he removes the device in the device manager and then replugs the drive. Magically the same drive, loading the same drivers, plugged into the same port works.
I'd say about 1 in 10 usb devices fail to load correctly on windows when installed properly. That isn't considering that 5 in 10 usb devices aren't installed correctly by the average home user. This again results in a call to the tech guy and it should. Installing hardware and software is not something that should be done by those who don't know enough about the system to determine the impact that configuration change will make.
'Or until they install one of the rare Linux games and find that the open-source nvidia or ATI drivers are so insanely slow as to make the game unplayable, due to lack of proper 3D acceleration support.'
That goes back to the fact that most adults don't play the kind of 3D games that need accelerated graphics. Further, if they are using Ubuntu their nvidia driver will be the binary drivers. My experimentations has shown drastically increased performance in OpenGL under linux when compared to the same tasks and the same hardware running under win2k and xp.
Rather than picking random baseless insults do you actually have any input of substance to add to the conversation? Perhaps something that refutes something I said?
What makes my post neurotic? A pessimistic outlook on group dynamics and the employee/employer relationship? Pessimism is a synonym for realism.
Lets be real. Unless you work in a small mom and pop shop your employer doesn't actually appreciate you or your efforts. In most corporate environments there are number of executives who come up with business plans the same way you would complete a report for a college assignment. They then hand it to a grunt who spins it and it is spinned down the line to management. Following this ridiculous plan that was never practical in the first place to the exclusion of common sense then becomes the mantra in the workplace. Actually working to the benefit the company is less important then working in accordance with the execs college paper. The performance numbers the company looks at reflects the college paper and not real performance as well.
For instance, I can tell you that at the moment in Office Depot retail stores, the managers and employees are currently judged based upon a figure called 'Market Basket'. Some exec wrote up a paper and turned it into a board meeting showing that selling high markup items along with core technology items is the secret to profits. Because of this the top profit store could have its manager fired if they don't sell market basket. The reality might be that manager refrained from hard sales and selling customers accessories they don't need because it result in a more loyal repeat customer base and trust between staff and regular customers. The company sees something different, obviously the managers low market basket means that store simply had great sales potential in the first place and that manager failed to achieve optimal profitability. Naturally the side effects of this view affect every level from the sales grunt to the executives who oversee entire divisions of the company.
No matter what your job, you are no more or less than a resource to the company. Even if your immediate supervisor sees you as human being, their supervisor won't. Nor will their supervisor see THEM as anything but a resource. Your supervisors supervisor has a supervisor as well and they DEFINATELY don't see you as anything but a resource.
The only way to avoid this is to be self-employed or work for a company that is small enough that your boss is the owner. Even then you have to end up with a boss who doesn't think of employees as resources. If so you won't have great job security. If an employer were giving you what your labors are worth then he wouldn't be profiting on having you there. The employer/employee relationship is by definition a form of exploitation.
From personal experience I can tell you that if you are self-employed you will definately consider yourself a resource and abuse yourself more than any other employer would. Yet somehow that is okay when it is you who dine on the fruits of your labors and not someone else.
'Microsoft could say fuck you and do a Novell like protection claim on redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, knoppix, Slackware, mempis and any other popular distro. This would have the same effect as on novell and boom damage is done!'
No Microsoft could not. Microsoft doing a Novell like protection does not automatically make anyone incompatible with the license. Whoever Microsoft extended the blanket protection to would also need to include code that implements a function Microsoft has patented. In fact, the blanket protection has nothing to do with it. If someone included code that is covered by a software patent (held by Microsfot or anyone else) it would short circuit the GPL whether there is a blanket protection or not.
'Novell owns SuSe and Ximian and has released several other products to the open source community. Even if they keep all their changes to these products and keep these products as GPLv2, are somehow saying that they don't own the code now?'
Novell owns lots of code. There is no blanket statement I could make that covers every Novell product. For instance, Novell owns the company SuSe but the distribution is composed almost of entirely of code that Novell does NOT own. Novell has to distribute the programs in SuSe they don't own according to the license the author gives. If that license requires they pass the same terms on for modifications (like the GPL) then Novell either accepts those terms or does not distribute the modified program in SuSe. The Ximian connector is different, Novell owns it entirely. If there is something in the connector covered by a Microsoft patent then Ximian can distribute it with any license at will. They can even distribute it with a GPLv3. There wouldn't be much point to doing so though because the only ones who could legally excercise the terms of the GPLv3 would be Microsoft. I don't own the patent therefore the GPL would short circuit and even one step away from Novell distribution would stop. More likely they would just choose a different license.
Forget Novell. The example is clearer if I say 'you', 'me', bob.
If I write a program and you write a patch for that program. I can distribute my program any way I choose under any terms I choose. If I am really generous I can give you a license that under certain circumstances would let you do things copyright law forbids you. I am a swell guy so I choose to distribute a copy of my program to you under the terms of the GPLv3. Note, YOU can distribute if YOU follow the terms of the GPLv3. As the owner the program isn't GPL for me, it is just mine and I don't have to follow any conditions. YOU need to follow the terms of the license to copy, modify, or distribute but I don't need a license I am the one who grants the terms.
Now, you take that program that you received from me with a GPLv3 license. You write a patch. You own your patch and have all the same rights for your patch that I had for my program. But you don't own my program and you can't integrate your patch into my program and distribute the result without permission. Fortunately you have permission already, I gave you permission in the form of the GPLv3 license. That permission is conditional, one of the conditions is that you need to pass on the same terms and conditions to those you distribute to along with the code. The terms, conditions, and code must apply to both my original program and your included patch otherwise you can't distribute my part. Furthermore, you have to have all the legal rights that are required to grant the terms of the GPLv3 to those you distribute to. This means that your patch can't be an implementation of something that someone else owns a software patent for.
Now lets say your patch implements a right-click context menu and bob owns a patent on that. You wrote the patch and never consulted bob, it is entirely your work so you own the code. But that doesn't matter for patents, it still implements a function that only bob is allowed to write code for. Now, you and bob can make agreements abou
Symantec has been rambling nonsense about how windows and proprietary software are more secure for a couple years now. How long ago was their last shocking report about how insecure open source and linux are?
Symantec has invested millions to get in bed with Microsoft and gain insider information into the workings of the OS. They are tied to the platform. Not to mention they are an anti-virus company and windows is the only platform with a large enough virus problem to keep them in business. If any other platform came to dominate the market Symantec would be out of business.
'But if Novell writes a patch, and places this patch into the software they distribute, then they themselves own the code in question.'
You just hit the nail on the head. Novell did not write the program, they are modifying a program for which someone else owns the copyright. That means they can only distribute that modified program with a license. If they distribute the patch they wrote by itself then yes they own the copyright and everything I said about the FSF would apply to them.
'Then were is the problem with Novell. Any patches they include with Microsoft's IP in it will be their code. They will own it. There isn't anything forcing them to sign the rights over to someone else.'
The thing that forces them to sign rights over to those they distribute to is that they only wrote a patch for a program that someone else owns the copyright to. That means their work is a derivative and they need a license from the copyright owner to distribute that derivative work legally. They own the lines of code they wrote, not the program they want to patch those lines into. The FSF is a different story because they are writing the entire programs not making changes to a program that someone else wrote.
'Is because of the language in the GPL when ever it arrives, the minute they distribute GPLv3 code with this provision in the license, the license becomes void because of the direct violation of it's terms.'
The license would only be void if they included functionality that violates someone elses patent. The FSF would be then free to distribute but those they distribute to would not be able to redistribute. But the control still lies with the FSF, Microsoft could grant a blanket offer like this but the FSF still has the choice of whether or not they incorporate any patent laden code. No patent laden code, no GPL violation.
And, in case anyone isn't familiar with it. When we refer to patent laden code, the code could have been designed without any insider knowledge and written from scratch. It doesn't matter, Microsoft owns a patent on what the software does, not the specific code.
I haven't heard the Old Crow stuff but I've heard the rest. Sorry but they suck. I can listen to almost anything. I can even listen to those new style so called country singers (I really classify them as soft rock, soft rock isn't to my taste but I can hear it). Actual country music isn't merely not to my taste, it is actually grating to listen to. Even if I try to listen to the lyrics instead of the music there is nothing appealing in most country songs.
I never claimed I was 'really [a] music lover' but I do decide what I like and don't like based upon how it sounds. After having grown up in the midst of thousands of country lovers in a small town I feel I can safely say that I have heard a pretty substantial amount of country music and I simply don't like it. I have reached this conclusion independently but I can assure it is a view that is shared with millions.
True blues I can handle. What they call R&B/Hip-Hop/Rap isn't worth listening to. It has a beat, so you can dance to it but my expectation of good music exceeds that. At least it isn't offensive to the ears like country.
'People who exclude music based on genre are either not really music lovers or are genuinely ignorant'
Yes. If you search hard enough it is probably possible to find an exception within the genre. But music genre's aren't like races. They aren't composed of human beings that must be considered individually. If 95% of the people within a race or culture share a trait it is still wrong to stereotype them claiming that all X people are that way because you alienate the other 5%. If 95% of the music within a given genre shares a certain trait or quality that I don't like then the signal to noise ratio is poor enough that I won't bother to listen to the 95% crap to try to find the 5% gems that probably are misclassified in the first place.
'Most college students are not even financially independent.'
You are right. What the GP described (the assumption of the ultimate authority and responsibility for ones own actions and choices) is not all that is involved in being 'self-sufficient'.
Although I wouldn't say that most college students are not financially independent either. Most college students are going to school on student loans/grants and working their way through college. Families wealthy enough to bankroll their offspring's education are the exception rather than the rule.
The former is still more relevant to the current conversation. A college student is a long ways beyond the level of maturity where they are entitled to decide for themselves what constitutes 'bad' material on the internet. A parent is stretching it trying to claim that a teen can't handle something they would find on the net but a parent doesn't have a moral or legal right to a say in what a college student views. By proxy, neither does the school. College students are not children, they are adults. They may be inexperienced adults but they are adults just the same and entitled to be treated as such.
'But no, they could not distribute the code under the GPL and then not make the source available. If they picked the code license that they didn't intend to follow, they would be committing fraud. Plain and simple as that. So if they all the sudden decided not to release any source, they would have to change the license to one that allowed it or change the GPL to exclude the owner of the code from having to make the source available..'
You still seem to be missing the core concept here. If I write a piece of software I can do anything I like with it since I hold the copyright. I don't have to agree to any terms or conditions to grant myself the right to distribute my own software. The same is true of the FSF. I can grant YOU or someone else permission to distribute my software provided you follow certain provisions but that only means you have to follow those provisions, not me. In fact, I can give you a copy under the GPLv2, another guy a copy under GPLv3, a third guy a copy under the BSD license, and yet a fourth guy a copy with a MS type EULA agreement and at the end of the day I am not bound or restricted by the terms of any of those agreements.
If I give you a copy of software I wrote under the terms of the GPL, that binds YOU to follow the terms of the GPL and provide source to any you distribute to not me. It doesn't somehow magically remove my right to give the software to anyone under any condition with or without source.
Now, if I incorporate someone elses GPL'd code into my software the story changes because they own the copyright on that code and I am bound by the terms of their license. As far as I know the FSF does not incorporate your GPL'd code into their projects though, I think they make you transfer the copyright for your contributions to them.
Feats are hardly a good change. Along with all the rest of the crap they added in 2nd edition. They took a workable balanced and fun gameplay and overcomplicated it. Unearthed Arcana extended the game (and my groups never chose to use all those extentions) but 2nd ED was nearly a different game. 2nd ED made too much of skills and profs. 3rd Ed finally took the steps to be an entirely different game. Feats? If I remember correctly there are multiple different titles for skills and abilities in 3rd Ed without any clear distinction to seperate them.
What is the real purpose? To individualize the characters. But AD&D isn't WoW or Everquest, you don't need to have a convoluted and unworkable system of totally unique stat modifiers to distinguish your character. AD&D is a roleplaying game and you are free to give your character REAL individual personality.
Beyond that, even the adjustments to the basic modifers used in the later editions didn't make sense. They took out all the individual ability score modifiers and replaced them with universal modifiers. This means less numbers on the character sheet but in practice it adds complexity to gameplay instead of simplifying it. Or it adds complexity for the DM who must turn everything into a roll where that modifier makes sense (as if DM's wasn't enough work already). Since the DM pulling out chance rolls out his arse is probably less accurate than the carefully thought out Gygax modifiers this also reduces the realism of the game.
Okay, once upon a time the blues was the blues. Now R&B is synonimous with hip hop and even those who listen to it usually do it on a sound system tuned for bass to the point that all you hear is a pattern of 'thump thump thump' without anything else.
Really it isn't actually grating to listen to like country or old folk music. You can sit and zone out listening to it. But the only real difference from one song to the next is the pattern of the beats.
'But I don't think the majority of code means the significant programs. As we are aware, the linux Kernel will stay GPLv2 for the most part. What good is a program if it doesn't have a kernel to run in/on?'
'Do you remeber when X had the license change that made it more or less comercial/non-free? It was easier to fork hte project and maintian it than it was to bend the licensing to fit. It is likly this will happen when Most of the GPLv2 or later software gets taken to GPLv3 and isn't compatible with the licensing of the vast amounts of other supporting software wich may or may not be more critical to running the software.'
Yes but your point implies that software would need to be GPLv2 to interact with GPLv2 only code. You don't need a GPL compatible license to run your program on top of a GPL kernel. Only to integrate your code into the kernel.
'I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. Novell Not being able to use opensource licensing because the GPLv3 forbids microsoft promising not to suit novells customers has nothing to do with paasing the authors wishes on. The Idea that Novell has to somehow pass on microsoft's agreement no to suit novells customers as some right to the software novell holds isn't consistant with what the GPL requires.'
There is a point you seem to be missing. If Novell is not adding patent encumbered code then there isn't anything to discuss and the agreement with Microsoft doesn't matter. Novell would be free to distribute code with or without an agreement under GPLv2 or v3. If Novell is adding patent encumbered code and Novell does not have permission and the right to pass that permission (along with the right to pass the permission) down the chain then the GPL short circuits and Novell can not distribute their patent encumbered derivative. The GPL already works this way in v2.
The danger is that because of this agreement Novell will contribute patented implementations into open source software in order to have their products better interoperate with windows. Under GPLv2 the GPL would already short circuit and Novell would be guilty of patent infringment if they did this since they can't pass the rights downstream. GPLv3 is the same except that it specifically spells out the requirement to pass the patent rights in addition to copyrights.
Even if Novell could make the argument that only the copyright rights to distribute must be passed under the current GPL it would be bogus of Novell for adding patent encumbered code and I fail to see a problem with spelling out that Novell can't add patent encumbered code.
'Now, if because someone makes a blanket protection to novell's customer, novell isn't able to use the GPLv3 software due to restrictions in the GPL, then doing the same to the FSF will cause the same action.'
No it wouldn't. Novell is taking GPL'd software and making a derivative. They don't own the rights to the software and only terms of the GPL grant them permission to distribute their derivative. The FSF is distributing their own software, not modifying someone elses software. The FSF is not bound by the terms of the GPL (or any other license they distribute under), they don't need permission to distribute their own software. Because the FSF distributes it under the GPL anyone downstream of them are bound by the GPL but not the author of the software is never so bound. It doesn't matter what the license terms are, they do not apply to the author of the software. For instance, the FSF could puzzlingly decide tomorrow that they will distribute all their software under the GPL but will no longer include source with the binaries and be on perfectly solid legal ground.
That aside, I think you are reading something into this that simply isn't there. Nobody is saying that GPLv3 will outright ban any company that has any blanket agreement of any sort from distributing GPL'd software. That would be ridiculous. What is being said is that GPLv3 will prevent a company from distributing a derivative of GPL'd software
Slashdot Mirror
'and near-native speeds are necessary to actually boot Windows Vista before the sun goes supernova'
near-native? You'd better not only have a native system but a rather fast one to boot Vista in a timely manner. But its all worth it, because you can windows+tab and see a cool 3d cascade of windows. I don't even mind so much that they arbitrarily rearranged all the menus and control panel functions (without adding anything of use) for no apparent reason. All is good just so long as I can see window contents moving when I windows+tab. Clearly this was worth waiting 5 years for even if this is the first time since XP SP1 I have seen good old system freezes return. There is nothing like closing all the applications on your system and then walking away to get a drink and coming back to have your system freeze. This has become a great routine, I have even rearranged things a bit so that I can unplug the cable rather than having to hold down the button for 5 seconds.
'You know what would really be kewl? If you could make an integrated circuit that runs java real fast then you would have a chip that runs x86 assembly.'
Why wouldn't you just grab a Pentium 266 and have a chip that runs x86 assembly at twice the speed this thing will on my dual core athlon?
'Java is capable of runtime optimisations not possible with statically compiled languages like C++.'
And with them it can perform almost as fast as C in some fringe cases.
'AD&D 1st edition seemed more like a job. At the very least it seemed like you had to spend a lot more time min-maxing or you'd end up with a useless character. The boxed set D&D was just fun.'
That reminds me of my favorite part of the First Edition DMG. In the front of the book Gary Gygax the inventor the game reminds you that there are no rules in the books, only guidelines.
In my group we simplified the game in many ways. For one, we didn't use the encumbrance system. We used the common sense system and in EVERY instance the DM defined what common sense was. If you tried to carry a boulder on the back of your horse the DM would tell you a half of day into travel that your horse collapsed and died from exhaustion and picked a chance of you getting hurt from the fall off the top of his head.
We also got rid of a great deal of other nonsense. For instance, we dropped race/class restrictions except for human only classes. It seemed silly to impose restrictions on elves just because their characters lived forever and we ignored the contradictory lack of ultra powerful NPC's. The DM says the 700 year old elf is only level 5 then the elf is only level 5 end of story. We did this because it didn't matter how long characters lived since they wouldn't have any more time or opportunity to actually gain experience than the human players.
The DM also wielded a stick that he could wap a player with to symbolize an act of god that deducted treasure, killed familiars, cost experience or even entire levels. It was certainly easier to game when we dropped some of the tables and rules accepted that the DM trumps anything in the books. That is the real beauty of pen and paper RPG's over computer MMORPGS. You don't need to have rules that a machine can parse in an automated system. You don't have to have a chart that leaves everything up to a dice roll either. You have a live human being who can decide things and make exceptions and twist chance to the moment.
It was also important to remember it was just a game. You have to learn to laugh when the DM says 'As you ignore the trader talking about the haunted cave and walk away you notice a giant flaming rock falling from the sky in your direction. You take an involuntary step backward in fear... toward the trader and rock seems recede.' without whining about it not fitting with the realness of the world or what have you. The DM is god and trumps all guidelines in the books policy also helps solves all disputes.
'I think you forgot the second part of the catch 22: If everyone would keep the lid on Linux w.r.t. new users, the demand would forever be kept too low for Dell to start selling computers with it.
;)'
Fortunately, for parts of the tech press, SCO solved that part.
True. The financially minded see linux ads on CNBC but they still don't know what it is. For them linux is just something to buy stock in or not. The home and small business users only get exposure through word of mouth and that is slow. Fortunately Linux is not a corporation and can out wait the slowness of this medium. You can't put linux out of business, there is nothing to attack. When a corporation does attack they help more than they hurt in the long run because people hear those corporate attacks and become aware of linux.
That word of mouth is spreading though. First Linux took the server room or as much of the server room as it can without breaking the windows monopoly. Now Linux is spreading onto the workstation (I use the term workstation in the modern sense that refers to desktops used for business not the old powerful machines for science and engineering) and even Dell is starting to listen. That will be a long battle. You will probably hear about the year of the desktop a few more times before linux is commonly seen on workstations. But the people who use those workstations are real people, not 6 figure and above incomes but actual normal middle and lower class citizens. From them the word of mouth spreads to other real people and small business owners.
Desktop adoption will be slow at first though even when the word of mouth advertising begins to spread like wildfire. That is because many of those desktop users will call their tech savvy family member or local tech guy and 9 out of 10 of those are incompetent MCSE types who would set up and active directory domain in a law firm that only has 4 pc's manned by secretaries running wordperfect. Those types don't know linux and will tout its evils. But the other 1 out of 10 will give real advice and the growth will continue.
It might take another 10 years, there might be a relapse in adoption due to some new feature of the moment but ultimately, even Microsoft's vast financial resources pale in comparison with the development power backing linux and open source. And unlike Microsoft linux can't be put out of business, can't have a bad quarter. It never sleeps, eats, bleeds, it just grows. Balmer was right when he called open source cancer. Except the host this cancer eats is the proprietary write once and sell millions business model. This cancer replaces host cells with stronger and superior cells. The end is inevitable, Microsoft just can't or won't see it.
'As I said, the RIAA and its members could, in the late nineties, have settled on an encrypted music format, just as the movie industry did with DVDs, and phased out CDs, but they didn't.'
Yes it isn't the content producer that chooses what format to settle on and whether they can phase out the old. Its the market. Even the music industry can't just drop a new format in place, they have to phase it in. If nobody buys your new encrypted format but they are still buying cd's then there is no money for the massive investment to change all the content over to the new medium. Further there is every reason to believe that all those consumers who are avoiding your encrypted format will turn to piracy to keep avoiding it if you don't provide cds anymore.
From the summary:
'Washington state does not collect personal income tax'
or also from the summary:
'Looks like Washington-staters won't be able to fib on their tax returns about internet purchases, starting in 2008.'
I feel a must oppose this regulation for all that I am worth. Parents try to eliminate pornography from their children's gaze so that they might grow up without becoming deviants. Having to hide from parents and not being able to talk about things sexual instills a sense of modesty in children.
.xxx domain parents might actually be able to truly block porn and that would probably be detrimental to the development of the child. This is especially true if the child is male.
As we all know, parents don't actually succeed in this question and any parent who thinks they do is fooling themself. With a
'Btw, did you know that linux support more hardware than any other OS out of the box?'
That is the impression I have had but I am unaware of anyone confirming it to be a fact. I have certainly noticed that in most cases all the hardware in a system is supported, detected, and installed under linux unless it is the latest hardware.
I remember when it was only kudzu that seemed to work well for auto-detecting hardware with other detection systems like that used in Mandrake vastly inferior. Now it doesn't really seem to matter. Pick any modern distro and click through the graphical installer and at the end of the process your hardware will be loaded.
I agree. The real catch 22 is preinstallation. When Dell sells desktops with ubuntu preinstalled it will be time for tell everyone in the mainstream news and press about linux. Until then its best to keep a lid on it.
As another user mentioned, the proprietary drivers aren't installed by default in windows either. Under Ubuntu you check a box and have 3D acceleration. I do agree it is silly though, why would anyone want to run WITHOUT 3D acceleration.
'They will be interested precisely up until the point where they find that they can't play the games that they just bought from their local CompUSA (or PC World, or whatever).'
You say that because you play games. Most adults do not play video games on their computer. At least beyond simple 2D games and card games and any Linux distro includes dozens more of those than windows.
'Or until they try plugging in an arbitrary device and find that it doesn't work.'
That doesn't really work under windows either. It's SUPPOSED to work under windows but commonly fails. I can't tell you how many times I have plugged in a thumb drive to have XP fail to install the device. Your typical home user is stuck at this point, they call the nearest tech savy family member (then end up buying a new drive) or the friendly neighborhood tech guy (me) and he removes the device in the device manager and then replugs the drive. Magically the same drive, loading the same drivers, plugged into the same port works.
I'd say about 1 in 10 usb devices fail to load correctly on windows when installed properly. That isn't considering that 5 in 10 usb devices aren't installed correctly by the average home user. This again results in a call to the tech guy and it should. Installing hardware and software is not something that should be done by those who don't know enough about the system to determine the impact that configuration change will make.
'Or until they install one of the rare Linux games and find that the open-source nvidia or ATI drivers are so insanely slow as to make the game unplayable, due to lack of proper 3D acceleration support.'
That goes back to the fact that most adults don't play the kind of 3D games that need accelerated graphics. Further, if they are using Ubuntu their nvidia driver will be the binary drivers. My experimentations has shown drastically increased performance in OpenGL under linux when compared to the same tasks and the same hardware running under win2k and xp.
Rather than picking random baseless insults do you actually have any input of substance to add to the conversation? Perhaps something that refutes something I said?
What makes my post neurotic? A pessimistic outlook on group dynamics and the employee/employer relationship? Pessimism is a synonym for realism.
Lets be real. Unless you work in a small mom and pop shop your employer doesn't actually appreciate you or your efforts. In most corporate environments there are number of executives who come up with business plans the same way you would complete a report for a college assignment. They then hand it to a grunt who spins it and it is spinned down the line to management. Following this ridiculous plan that was never practical in the first place to the exclusion of common sense then becomes the mantra in the workplace. Actually working to the benefit the company is less important then working in accordance with the execs college paper. The performance numbers the company looks at reflects the college paper and not real performance as well.
For instance, I can tell you that at the moment in Office Depot retail stores, the managers and employees are currently judged based upon a figure called 'Market Basket'. Some exec wrote up a paper and turned it into a board meeting showing that selling high markup items along with core technology items is the secret to profits. Because of this the top profit store could have its manager fired if they don't sell market basket. The reality might be that manager refrained from hard sales and selling customers accessories they don't need because it result in a more loyal repeat customer base and trust between staff and regular customers. The company sees something different, obviously the managers low market basket means that store simply had great sales potential in the first place and that manager failed to achieve optimal profitability. Naturally the side effects of this view affect every level from the sales grunt to the executives who oversee entire divisions of the company.
No matter what your job, you are no more or less than a resource to the company. Even if your immediate supervisor sees you as human being, their supervisor won't. Nor will their supervisor see THEM as anything but a resource. Your supervisors supervisor has a supervisor as well and they DEFINATELY don't see you as anything but a resource.
The only way to avoid this is to be self-employed or work for a company that is small enough that your boss is the owner. Even then you have to end up with a boss who doesn't think of employees as resources. If so you won't have great job security. If an employer were giving you what your labors are worth then he wouldn't be profiting on having you there. The employer/employee relationship is by definition a form of exploitation.
From personal experience I can tell you that if you are self-employed you will definately consider yourself a resource and abuse yourself more than any other employer would. Yet somehow that is okay when it is you who dine on the fruits of your labors and not someone else.
'Microsoft could say fuck you and do a Novell like protection claim on redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, knoppix, Slackware, mempis and any other popular distro. This would have the same effect as on novell and boom damage is done!'
No Microsoft could not. Microsoft doing a Novell like protection does not automatically make anyone incompatible with the license. Whoever Microsoft extended the blanket protection to would also need to include code that implements a function Microsoft has patented. In fact, the blanket protection has nothing to do with it. If someone included code that is covered by a software patent (held by Microsfot or anyone else) it would short circuit the GPL whether there is a blanket protection or not.
'Novell owns SuSe and Ximian and has released several other products to the open source community. Even if they keep all their changes to these products and keep these products as GPLv2, are somehow saying that they don't own the code now?'
Novell owns lots of code. There is no blanket statement I could make that covers every Novell product. For instance, Novell owns the company SuSe but the distribution is composed almost of entirely of code that Novell does NOT own. Novell has to distribute the programs in SuSe they don't own according to the license the author gives. If that license requires they pass the same terms on for modifications (like the GPL) then Novell either accepts those terms or does not distribute the modified program in SuSe. The Ximian connector is different, Novell owns it entirely. If there is something in the connector covered by a Microsoft patent then Ximian can distribute it with any license at will. They can even distribute it with a GPLv3. There wouldn't be much point to doing so though because the only ones who could legally excercise the terms of the GPLv3 would be Microsoft. I don't own the patent therefore the GPL would short circuit and even one step away from Novell distribution would stop. More likely they would just choose a different license.
Forget Novell. The example is clearer if I say 'you', 'me', bob.
If I write a program and you write a patch for that program. I can distribute my program any way I choose under any terms I choose. If I am really generous I can give you a license that under certain circumstances would let you do things copyright law forbids you. I am a swell guy so I choose to distribute a copy of my program to you under the terms of the GPLv3. Note, YOU can distribute if YOU follow the terms of the GPLv3. As the owner the program isn't GPL for me, it is just mine and I don't have to follow any conditions. YOU need to follow the terms of the license to copy, modify, or distribute but I don't need a license I am the one who grants the terms.
Now, you take that program that you received from me with a GPLv3 license. You write a patch. You own your patch and have all the same rights for your patch that I had for my program. But you don't own my program and you can't integrate your patch into my program and distribute the result without permission. Fortunately you have permission already, I gave you permission in the form of the GPLv3 license. That permission is conditional, one of the conditions is that you need to pass on the same terms and conditions to those you distribute to along with the code. The terms, conditions, and code must apply to both my original program and your included patch otherwise you can't distribute my part. Furthermore, you have to have all the legal rights that are required to grant the terms of the GPLv3 to those you distribute to. This means that your patch can't be an implementation of something that someone else owns a software patent for.
Now lets say your patch implements a right-click context menu and bob owns a patent on that. You wrote the patch and never consulted bob, it is entirely your work so you own the code. But that doesn't matter for patents, it still implements a function that only bob is allowed to write code for. Now, you and bob can make agreements abou
Symantec has been rambling nonsense about how windows and proprietary software are more secure for a couple years now. How long ago was their last shocking report about how insecure open source and linux are?
Symantec has invested millions to get in bed with Microsoft and gain insider information into the workings of the OS. They are tied to the platform. Not to mention they are an anti-virus company and windows is the only platform with a large enough virus problem to keep them in business. If any other platform came to dominate the market Symantec would be out of business.
Other than that, they aren't biased at all.
'But if Novell writes a patch, and places this patch into the software they distribute, then they themselves own the code in question.'
You just hit the nail on the head. Novell did not write the program, they are modifying a program for which someone else owns the copyright. That means they can only distribute that modified program with a license. If they distribute the patch they wrote by itself then yes they own the copyright and everything I said about the FSF would apply to them.
'Then were is the problem with Novell. Any patches they include with Microsoft's IP in it will be their code. They will own it. There isn't anything forcing them to sign the rights over to someone else.'
The thing that forces them to sign rights over to those they distribute to is that they only wrote a patch for a program that someone else owns the copyright to. That means their work is a derivative and they need a license from the copyright owner to distribute that derivative work legally. They own the lines of code they wrote, not the program they want to patch those lines into. The FSF is a different story because they are writing the entire programs not making changes to a program that someone else wrote.
'Is because of the language in the GPL when ever it arrives, the minute they distribute GPLv3 code with this provision in the license, the license becomes void because of the direct violation of it's terms.'
The license would only be void if they included functionality that violates someone elses patent. The FSF would be then free to distribute but those they distribute to would not be able to redistribute. But the control still lies with the FSF, Microsoft could grant a blanket offer like this but the FSF still has the choice of whether or not they incorporate any patent laden code. No patent laden code, no GPL violation.
And, in case anyone isn't familiar with it. When we refer to patent laden code, the code could have been designed without any insider knowledge and written from scratch. It doesn't matter, Microsoft owns a patent on what the software does, not the specific code.
I haven't heard the Old Crow stuff but I've heard the rest. Sorry but they suck. I can listen to almost anything. I can even listen to those new style so called country singers (I really classify them as soft rock, soft rock isn't to my taste but I can hear it). Actual country music isn't merely not to my taste, it is actually grating to listen to. Even if I try to listen to the lyrics instead of the music there is nothing appealing in most country songs.
I never claimed I was 'really [a] music lover' but I do decide what I like and don't like based upon how it sounds. After having grown up in the midst of thousands of country lovers in a small town I feel I can safely say that I have heard a pretty substantial amount of country music and I simply don't like it. I have reached this conclusion independently but I can assure it is a view that is shared with millions.
True blues I can handle. What they call R&B/Hip-Hop/Rap isn't worth listening to. It has a beat, so you can dance to it but my expectation of good music exceeds that. At least it isn't offensive to the ears like country.
'People who exclude music based on genre are either not really music lovers or are genuinely ignorant'
Yes. If you search hard enough it is probably possible to find an exception within the genre. But music genre's aren't like races. They aren't composed of human beings that must be considered individually. If 95% of the people within a race or culture share a trait it is still wrong to stereotype them claiming that all X people are that way because you alienate the other 5%. If 95% of the music within a given genre shares a certain trait or quality that I don't like then the signal to noise ratio is poor enough that I won't bother to listen to the 95% crap to try to find the 5% gems that probably are misclassified in the first place.
'Most college students are not even financially independent.'
You are right. What the GP described (the assumption of the ultimate authority and responsibility for ones own actions and choices) is not all that is involved in being 'self-sufficient'.
Although I wouldn't say that most college students are not financially independent either. Most college students are going to school on student loans/grants and working their way through college. Families wealthy enough to bankroll their offspring's education are the exception rather than the rule.
The former is still more relevant to the current conversation. A college student is a long ways beyond the level of maturity where they are entitled to decide for themselves what constitutes 'bad' material on the internet. A parent is stretching it trying to claim that a teen can't handle something they would find on the net but a parent doesn't have a moral or legal right to a say in what a college student views. By proxy, neither does the school. College students are not children, they are adults. They may be inexperienced adults but they are adults just the same and entitled to be treated as such.
'But no, they could not distribute the code under the GPL and then not make the source available. If they picked the code license that they didn't intend to follow, they would be committing fraud. Plain and simple as that. So if they all the sudden decided not to release any source, they would have to change the license to one that allowed it or change the GPL to exclude the owner of the code from having to make the source available..'
You still seem to be missing the core concept here. If I write a piece of software I can do anything I like with it since I hold the copyright. I don't have to agree to any terms or conditions to grant myself the right to distribute my own software. The same is true of the FSF. I can grant YOU or someone else permission to distribute my software provided you follow certain provisions but that only means you have to follow those provisions, not me. In fact, I can give you a copy under the GPLv2, another guy a copy under GPLv3, a third guy a copy under the BSD license, and yet a fourth guy a copy with a MS type EULA agreement and at the end of the day I am not bound or restricted by the terms of any of those agreements.
If I give you a copy of software I wrote under the terms of the GPL, that binds YOU to follow the terms of the GPL and provide source to any you distribute to not me. It doesn't somehow magically remove my right to give the software to anyone under any condition with or without source.
Now, if I incorporate someone elses GPL'd code into my software the story changes because they own the copyright on that code and I am bound by the terms of their license. As far as I know the FSF does not incorporate your GPL'd code into their projects though, I think they make you transfer the copyright for your contributions to them.
Feats are hardly a good change. Along with all the rest of the crap they added in 2nd edition. They took a workable balanced and fun gameplay and overcomplicated it. Unearthed Arcana extended the game (and my groups never chose to use all those extentions) but 2nd ED was nearly a different game. 2nd ED made too much of skills and profs. 3rd Ed finally took the steps to be an entirely different game. Feats? If I remember correctly there are multiple different titles for skills and abilities in 3rd Ed without any clear distinction to seperate them.
What is the real purpose? To individualize the characters. But AD&D isn't WoW or Everquest, you don't need to have a convoluted and unworkable system of totally unique stat modifiers to distinguish your character. AD&D is a roleplaying game and you are free to give your character REAL individual personality.
Beyond that, even the adjustments to the basic modifers used in the later editions didn't make sense. They took out all the individual ability score modifiers and replaced them with universal modifiers. This means less numbers on the character sheet but in practice it adds complexity to gameplay instead of simplifying it. Or it adds complexity for the DM who must turn everything into a roll where that modifier makes sense (as if DM's wasn't enough work already). Since the DM pulling out chance rolls out his arse is probably less accurate than the carefully thought out Gygax modifiers this also reduces the realism of the game.
Real geeks play AD&D. Furthermore we laugh at those who don't still refer to their 1ST EDITION Unearthed Arcana.
Feats, damn third edition panzy. Oh wait, they tried hiding the third edition thing about third edition and just started calling it AD&D again.
First edition AD&D is what the real men play.
Okay, once upon a time the blues was the blues. Now R&B is synonimous with hip hop and even those who listen to it usually do it on a sound system tuned for bass to the point that all you hear is a pattern of 'thump thump thump' without anything else.
Really it isn't actually grating to listen to like country or old folk music. You can sit and zone out listening to it. But the only real difference from one song to the next is the pattern of the beats.
'But I don't think the majority of code means the significant programs. As we are aware, the linux Kernel will stay GPLv2 for the most part. What good is a program if it doesn't have a kernel to run in/on?'
'Do you remeber when X had the license change that made it more or less comercial/non-free? It was easier to fork hte project and maintian it than it was to bend the licensing to fit. It is likly this will happen when Most of the GPLv2 or later software gets taken to GPLv3 and isn't compatible with the licensing of the vast amounts of other supporting software wich may or may not be more critical to running the software.'
Yes but your point implies that software would need to be GPLv2 to interact with GPLv2 only code. You don't need a GPL compatible license to run your program on top of a GPL kernel. Only to integrate your code into the kernel.
'I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. Novell Not being able to use opensource licensing because the GPLv3 forbids microsoft promising not to suit novells customers has nothing to do with paasing the authors wishes on. The Idea that Novell has to somehow pass on microsoft's agreement no to suit novells customers as some right to the software novell holds isn't consistant with what the GPL requires.'
There is a point you seem to be missing. If Novell is not adding patent encumbered code then there isn't anything to discuss and the agreement with Microsoft doesn't matter. Novell would be free to distribute code with or without an agreement under GPLv2 or v3. If Novell is adding patent encumbered code and Novell does not have permission and the right to pass that permission (along with the right to pass the permission) down the chain then the GPL short circuits and Novell can not distribute their patent encumbered derivative. The GPL already works this way in v2.
The danger is that because of this agreement Novell will contribute patented implementations into open source software in order to have their products better interoperate with windows. Under GPLv2 the GPL would already short circuit and Novell would be guilty of patent infringment if they did this since they can't pass the rights downstream. GPLv3 is the same except that it specifically spells out the requirement to pass the patent rights in addition to copyrights.
Even if Novell could make the argument that only the copyright rights to distribute must be passed under the current GPL it would be bogus of Novell for adding patent encumbered code and I fail to see a problem with spelling out that Novell can't add patent encumbered code.
'Now, if because someone makes a blanket protection to novell's customer, novell isn't able to use the GPLv3 software due to restrictions in the GPL, then doing the same to the FSF will cause the same action.'
No it wouldn't. Novell is taking GPL'd software and making a derivative. They don't own the rights to the software and only terms of the GPL grant them permission to distribute their derivative. The FSF is distributing their own software, not modifying someone elses software. The FSF is not bound by the terms of the GPL (or any other license they distribute under), they don't need permission to distribute their own software. Because the FSF distributes it under the GPL anyone downstream of them are bound by the GPL but not the author of the software is never so bound. It doesn't matter what the license terms are, they do not apply to the author of the software. For instance, the FSF could puzzlingly decide tomorrow that they will distribute all their software under the GPL but will no longer include source with the binaries and be on perfectly solid legal ground.
That aside, I think you are reading something into this that simply isn't there. Nobody is saying that GPLv3 will outright ban any company that has any blanket agreement of any sort from distributing GPL'd software. That would be ridiculous. What is being said is that GPLv3 will prevent a company from distributing a derivative of GPL'd software