If I reload the page, they don't *stay* collapsed. Say I've been following a discussion during a slow day at work, and it's interesting enough to keep following from home, or maybe to check the next day... there are probably far more already-read comments than new comments, so there's still quite a lot of old stuff to scroll thru looking for the brighter color bars.
Don't bring your work computer home. It's unsafe (unless you are very cautious)
My employer actually tells us to always take our work laptops home (and never leave them in the car, except for locked in the trunk for short times if needed). Perhaps this may be related to leasing part of a shared building and not necessarily having full control over the door locks, or just concerns about some guy with a big saw breaking in and taking all the computers?
and it removes the separation of work and recreation.
It doesn't remove it, but it apparently (from observing coworkers) makes it "harder" to maintain.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
What, X can only be compiled with GCC and not some other C compiler, and can only work with the GNU version of libc and the GNU version of the shellutils?
Re: does it come with MPX ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It never will be. Linux is just the kernel, which is a very important piece of software that make everything else work. X (and MPX) is part of that "everything else", and when it's available will depend on which distro you use.
No, that's completely separate. When it's available will depend on what distro you're using.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS
It's not, but it can be helpful for people who like to follow the bleeding edge.
I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that.
Trying to provide a rough comparison, since I don't know the extent of your (lack of) familiarity with the "Linux world". But it sounds like it's at least as good as my familiarity with the BSD world.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - [...]
Because libc+shellutils+gcc is so much more relevant than X, KDE/e17/etc, the package manager,...
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Technically, "Linux" is the kernel, and there is no "Linux" OS. Of course, the various distros are generally referred to as "Linux" distros, which really doesn't help matters any. I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
We need to understand that after 9/11, the government had to put up measures that will prevent more terrorist attacks in US.
Funny, I would have thought that stopping the "cooperate with any hijackers so they won't hurt you" crap would have done just fine. And I've heard that simply listening to intelligence agency people when they say there's a problem would have actually prevented the attacks.
In the cases discussed at that link, the purpose of using the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) is to make other code be GPL.
Nothing wrong with that. Just as people are free to use or not use FOSS, developers are free to incorporate or not incorporate such code into their projects.
Not wrong of itself, but it kinda clashes with the whole image of freedom, charity, and the moral high ground.
Me: I am self-taught in HTML and can hand code HTML* which makes for very small, and fast executing code.
Interviewer: Big deal, we use software to design our pages.
Me: But the pages generated are 4 times as much code as hand coded and add tonnes of junk.
Interviewer: So what!
Do you also hand-code all of your programs in assembly language?
I hope it isn't just now occurring to you that free software fanatics have a great deal in common with religious fanatics.
No, that was last year, when the high-profile violence they did to the GPL got me to actually pay attention to that side of things instead of just saying "yeah, whatever" and going back to coding...
So, unless they attempt to pass laws against the use of closed-source software, please stop with the "they're trying to impose their views on mine" crap, they're just excercising their "free speech" rights.
I'm pretty sure I've seen people arguing for doing just that.
The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."
Could be scary... if sites that host other people's speech are liable when that speech isn't allowed (whether for copyright, or libel, or posting classified stuff, or...) instead of just being required to remove it and possibly ID the poster, it's going to be even more difficult to find online "public" spaces that allow free speech, or maybe just harder to find any sort of online "public" space at all.
Certainly not true about Microsoft Research. As mentioned in the article, Microsoft Research is practically a university. Everything they research ends up peer-reviewed at academic conferences and in academic journals. It's virtually in the public domain.
I find it kinda hard to believe that they don't patent anything.
Of course they should be open sourced. Ideally all four of the software freedoms should be enshrined in law.
Also, all physical products should be required to be fully user-serviceable and to come with complete manufacturing instructions, and patents and copyright should be abolished. This will make everyone far better off, since the price of all products will drop to the marginal cost of producing them and nobody will be forced to pay for the development efforts. Development can be funded by having the design shop sell support contracts, which is a much better model because the necessity of paid support by the original designers is much more closely linked to the design quality than the product sales volume and profit margin is.
Maybe/. should try enforcing a 160 character limit for posts.
No no no, it should be a 160 character minimum. And it should be combined with an improved lameness filter, so people would have to actually think before posting, or perhaps even read the articles, so that they'd have at least 160 characters of useful things to say.
Patents are hard to read, but I recommend skipping the abstract and the claims and going ahead to the description. You'll learn a lot more.
...I though the claims were the part that actually mattered?
Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
That would be a change of hardware, yes? Immutable ROM instead of flash or hard disk?
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.
No. The GPL is a grant of copying rights. The AGPL is a EULA in that it compels its users to behave a certain way; specifically that they have to share so-licensed code with anyone permitted to use the application. This is entirely different from the GPL.
No, it says that the program must offer to let users receive the source, not that you have to offer it or assist the program in making good on its offer.
If you have a shell server hosting a forked copy of GCC, you may keep those changes private (so long as you don't distribute the copy itself). An AGPL'ed GCC would require you to give a copy of your changes to anyone you allowed to use it.
No, it would require you to not remove or break the --download-source-to=somefile.tgz option when making your changes. You don't have to do anything, the program does it on its own.
I've heard that the BSD networking stack was very successful in commercial products. How are you defining "commercially successful", GPL/proprietary dual license like QT?
Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Classical mechanics is also technically untrue, but I wouldn't call it a "lie". I suppose the more precise statement would be "it restricts the effective properties that hardware it is distributed on may have".
Slashdot Mirror
This is why they should be told with the original endings, not the happy-pure Disneyfied ones.
If I reload the page, they don't *stay* collapsed. Say I've been following a discussion during a slow day at work, and it's interesting enough to keep following from home, or maybe to check the next day... there are probably far more already-read comments than new comments, so there's still quite a lot of old stuff to scroll thru looking for the brighter color bars.
Don't bring your work computer home. It's unsafe (unless you are very cautious)
My employer actually tells us to always take our work laptops home (and never leave them in the car, except for locked in the trunk for short times if needed). Perhaps this may be related to leasing part of a shared building and not necessarily having full control over the door locks, or just concerns about some guy with a big saw breaking in and taking all the computers?
and it removes the separation of work and recreation.
It doesn't remove it, but it apparently (from observing coworkers) makes it "harder" to maintain.
What, X can only be compiled with GCC and not some other C compiler, and can only work with the GNU version of libc and the GNU version of the shellutils?
It never will be. Linux is just the kernel, which is a very important piece of software that make everything else work. X (and MPX) is part of that "everything else", and when it's available will depend on which distro you use.
No, that's completely separate. When it's available will depend on what distro you're using.
I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS
It's not, but it can be helpful for people who like to follow the bleeding edge.
I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that.
Trying to provide a rough comparison, since I don't know the extent of your (lack of) familiarity with the "Linux world". But it sounds like it's at least as good as my familiarity with the BSD world.
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - [...]
Because libc+shellutils+gcc is so much more relevant than X, KDE/e17/etc, the package manager, ...
Technically, "Linux" is the kernel, and there is no "Linux" OS. Of course, the various distros are generally referred to as "Linux" distros, which really doesn't help matters any. I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
We need to understand that after 9/11, the government had to put up measures that will prevent more terrorist attacks in US.
Funny, I would have thought that stopping the "cooperate with any hijackers so they won't hurt you" crap would have done just fine. And I've heard that simply listening to intelligence agency people when they say there's a problem would have actually prevented the attacks.
In the cases discussed at that link, the purpose of using the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) is to make other code be GPL.
Nothing wrong with that. Just as people are free to use or not use FOSS, developers are free to incorporate or not incorporate such code into their projects.
Not wrong of itself, but it kinda clashes with the whole image of freedom, charity, and the moral high ground.
Me: I am self-taught in HTML and can hand code HTML* which makes for very small, and fast executing code.
Interviewer: Big deal, we use software to design our pages.
Me: But the pages generated are 4 times as much code as hand coded and add tonnes of junk.
Interviewer: So what!
Do you also hand-code all of your programs in assembly language?
I hope it isn't just now occurring to you that free software fanatics have a great deal in common with religious fanatics.
No, that was last year, when the high-profile violence they did to the GPL got me to actually pay attention to that side of things instead of just saying "yeah, whatever" and going back to coding...
nothing's stopping you from finding an alternative to X. Better yet, write your own.
Someone did, it's called libedit. And that was a duplication of effort that should not have been needed.
Keeping GPL'ed code covered by the GPL is the main point of the GPL.
In the cases discussed at that link, the purpose of using the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) is to make other code be GPL.
So, unless they attempt to pass laws against the use of closed-source software, please stop with the "they're trying to impose their views on mine" crap, they're just excercising their "free speech" rights.
I'm pretty sure I've seen people arguing for doing just that.
Also, " At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline. ". This is the same kind of "forcing" that I've heard old missionaries would sometimes do, "we'll help with X / teach you X, but only if you come to church and pay tithes", and it stinks.
The "law" is increasingly siding with "rights owners."
Could be scary... if sites that host other people's speech are liable when that speech isn't allowed (whether for copyright, or libel, or posting classified stuff, or ...) instead of just being required to remove it and possibly ID the poster, it's going to be even more difficult to find online "public" spaces that allow free speech, or maybe just harder to find any sort of online "public" space at all.
Certainly not true about Microsoft Research. As mentioned in the article, Microsoft Research is practically a university. Everything they research ends up peer-reviewed at academic conferences and in academic journals. It's virtually in the public domain.
I find it kinda hard to believe that they don't patent anything.
Shouldn't I be allowed to choose how I distribute my software?
Not if you use that software to remove the rights of others.
What if I want to use it to kill babies (in some jurisdiction where that isn't illegal, of course)?
Of course they should be open sourced. Ideally all four of the software freedoms should be enshrined in law.
Also, all physical products should be required to be fully user-serviceable and to come with complete manufacturing instructions, and patents and copyright should be abolished. This will make everyone far better off, since the price of all products will drop to the marginal cost of producing them and nobody will be forced to pay for the development efforts. Development can be funded by having the design shop sell support contracts, which is a much better model because the necessity of paid support by the original designers is much more closely linked to the design quality than the product sales volume and profit margin is.
Maybe /. should try enforcing a 160 character limit for posts.
No no no, it should be a 160 character minimum. And it should be combined with an improved lameness filter, so people would have to actually think before posting, or perhaps even read the articles, so that they'd have at least 160 characters of useful things to say.
Patents are hard to read, but I recommend skipping the abstract and the claims and going ahead to the description. You'll learn a lot more.
...I though the claims were the part that actually mattered?
That would be a change of hardware, yes? Immutable ROM instead of flash or hard disk?
No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.
No. The GPL is a grant of copying rights. The AGPL is a EULA in that it compels its users to behave a certain way; specifically that they have to share so-licensed code with anyone permitted to use the application. This is entirely different from the GPL.
No, it says that the program must offer to let users receive the source, not that you have to offer it or assist the program in making good on its offer.
If you have a shell server hosting a forked copy of GCC, you may keep those changes private (so long as you don't distribute the copy itself). An AGPL'ed GCC would require you to give a copy of your changes to anyone you allowed to use it.
No, it would require you to not remove or break the --download-source-to=somefile.tgz option when making your changes. You don't have to do anything, the program does it on its own.
I've heard that the BSD networking stack was very successful in commercial products. How are you defining "commercially successful", GPL/proprietary dual license like QT?
Classical mechanics is also technically untrue, but I wouldn't call it a "lie". I suppose the more precise statement would be "it restricts the effective properties that hardware it is distributed on may have".