How about a website where you drop songs into a shopping cart where each song costs $X.XX plus an additional base fee of $Y.YY for each CD-R needed to handle the volume of data the songs you selected includes?
This same topic recently came up in a mailing list that I subscribe to. Check out:
There's a world of difference between some people claiming to be Christian (or Muslim, etc.) being terrorists and Chrstianity (or Islam, etc.) endorsing terrrists. Terrorists abuse religion and use it to try and further their own ends, much as politicians have done and will doubtlessly continue to do. that isn't the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the people abusing it. And I hadly think that 'love your neighbour,' 'love your enemy,' 'turn the other cheek,' 'and these three remain, faith, hope, love and the greatest of these is love,' etc. are endorsements or terror tactics.
I can't speak for much more than Christianity in this instance, but the basis of Christianity seems to be that you are a sinner, and that if you don't repent your sins, or do something else about them, you're going to ha-ell. For 2000 years christian churches and the dogma that's directly in the Bible (don't mistake me for one of those non-believers that hasn't read it) have threatened sinners with hellfire and damnation, talking about the original sin and so forth, using FEAR and GUILT as their tactics.
That makes them terrorists, regardless of what so-called modern-day terrorists do.
To the credit of Jesus, however, his teachings don't include this stuff. It was stacked on by other people after he died, assuming he ever lived in the first place. I definitely remember reading in Corinthians I about how men with long hair and damned straight to hell, and that women should wear hats or have long hair themselves. Admittedly, that's the Roman influence, but it is in the New Testament.
Fear is the weapon of a terrorist, and anybody who uses it (George W Bush included) is a terrorist.
There does appear to be isolated instances of Buddhists using terrorism, but hardly repressentative instances.:) (I didn't go into those, because if they actually happened, they would be the exception, and not the rule, eh?)
However, the wonderful thing about Buddhism, in my opinion, is that in order to accept it as a religion, it seems like you must first define the word "religion". I've always viewed it as more of a philosophy than a religion, because a religion seems to try to answer the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. I always say I don't have a religion because I don't even attempt to describe how the universe came into being, I just plain don't know.
Mind you, philophically speaking, I am kindred to Buddhism, although I don't have the pacifism that they do.:) That, in and of itself, is quite a difference. Anyway, the rest of the world may disagree with me, but I still don't see Buddhism as quite a religion. It just doesn't have the trappings of a religion, to me. I won't attempt to define religion, at this point, because I would only attempt to define it to support my viewpoint. Anyone have an objective definition?
If you were really happy Linux user, you would've used your window manager to bind the Winkey to some convenient shortcut or shortcuts, such as minimize all windows (there are some other useful ones too).
Or you'd just click one of your other 4 desktops that doesn't have anything on it, move your production apps over there and get back to work, killing popups only when people aren't looking, and doing it all from the panel.
Then you'd open Mozilla and turn the pop-up blocker on.:)
WTF kind of sig is that? If it were "Islam breeds terrorism" you would be labeled as a bigot. Using the even broader word "Religion" just makes you an even bigger bigot. Time for a new sig, my friend.
Show me one religion that hasn't used terrorism as a tactic in all its history. Just one.
And, assuming you were going to do this, before you jump in and say Christianity, allow me to point out that you're supposed to love and "fear" God, and you're supposed to "fear" Satan and the hellfire and damnation that comes with him.
I'd go even further and say:
if(religion == terrorism) { delete religion;// terrorism will follow } else { // user probably doesn't live in the real world // do nothing here };
I mean really what does a media center need a floppy drive for?
Because you can stick SmartMedia, like you use in your digital camera, inside an adapter that lets it interface with a 3.5" floppy drive and look at your photos on your media center.
So, how do you ensure integrity of the checksums, then?
With all due respect, this is a no-brainer. Checksums on the checksums. And even a third layer if you want that.
As a better solution and an alternative to https, you can use PGP to sign it and provide a checksum for that. That way the end-user gets something signed (and if he knows you then he already got a public key from you that he can trust), and he can verify it's the right file.
Isn't it up to the server whether http directories are browsable?
Ok, here's my two cents.:)
Yes, it's up to the server. BUT, if you run PHP as well (no perl, no asp, nothing else, just pick ONE scripting language and leave it at that) then you can make your index.php page just give a directory listing for that page, thus duplicating somewhat the functionality of an ftp server.
You still can't support wildcard downloading like you can with ftp, but it also depends entirely on how the endusers are going to connect to the thing. You can also package up files that are likely to be downloaded together.
For example:
1. A music site. You record your own music (or you host music for indy artists, whatever). You post individual files of varying compression to support various bandwidth ranges. You also gather together similar items, such as songs from the same band, songs that go on the same album, or just the first side, and bundle them up in a tarball or something to make them available at a one-click http download.
2. Software. You host a bunch of software. This is already extensively explored and many inadequate solutions abound. But when you need to download an entire OSS project, and you also need the libraries that you know work with it, it can be a pain to download and extract 5-6 files with http. OTOH, simple php (or perl if you like, or anything else for that matter) will let you work up something where a user can select as many files as they want and it can either a) tarball them and then send them or b) just send each individual file at once (annoying if the web site does it automatically, I think).
I'm out of contrived examples. I think the root of the problem is all about how the users are going to use the files. If it's something you can expect a bunch of users to be automating downloads for some reason, you probably want ftp. If it's more of a catalog-style server, then you probably want http with a web site to support it.
Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to using CVS in some of these cases? There are plenty of server-side scripts that interact with the CVS server to deliver the repository over the web and enable you to download the whole thing. Since it uses CVS you'd have full scripting abilities and so forth, and version control (for mirrors and the like that need to stay up to date) is the purpose of CVS, of course. Or would it be bastardizing a good system for something it's not really made for? (like http is already)
Wow, instant diabetes....
Jesus dude, are you serious? Can you drink it through a straw? Do you put it on pancakes?
I like to be able to actually taste the tea, but each to his own.
Yes, I'm serious, and yes, you can drink it through a straw.:) Of course, I've been seeing the dentist pretty regularly... hmm.....
Enterprise solutions? few... these are more complicated and require tuning/tweeking. Other commercial (shrink wrapped) solutions? probably many... Did Quicken work for you? What about Office? What about any games you might play? (Yes, I know that Enterprise solutions and shrink wrap software aren't in the same class.)
Well, for the enterprise there is GNUEnterprise, which is a pretty kick-ass framework (in fact, I'm using it to build a replacement for QUicken). It's still young, though, and almost requires you to write the application. There's stuff in the works, and you can find out at their website.
I don't like MS Office from a usability standpoint. I always found it to be a virtual pain in the ass. I really really really like OpenOffice.org. In fact, in my business we're finding that OpenOffice.org, out of the box, solves our office productivity needs.
As far as quicken goes, there's nothing in free software that compares. GNUCash is pretty cool, if you understand double-entry. I do not. I could learn, and I'm going to have to in the coming months, but I don't want my wife to have to learn it. Quicken works with the way we conceive of our finances, and it works quite well. It could use some reports that it doesn't have, though.
IMO, an OSS solution that exists right now compared to its proprietary counterpart is automatically superior.:) (Don't forget, I'm a zealot too:) ) There are reasons, but here's the most compelling, in my opinion:
Proprietary software companies have no motivation to fix bugs and add features, other than competition. Remove or limit competition in a niche and you've just signed up for bug-ridden software that always works badly, if at all. The reason is that if proprietary companies actually fix bugs and/or add features, they will eventually reach a point where their codebase is mostly stable and the feature offering is superior so that customers don't have to upgrade anymore. Lose the upgrade cycle and you lose your repeat business. I've seen it in a few niche markets, and we see it in a big way in Windows.
Finally,
Too bad more of the folks who frequent this board don't think like this. To this, I would add: Lose the arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks differently than you, or thinks that there are other perfectly acceptible solutions than Linux/OSS is contemptable. Use reason and fact in your arguments (note: "argument" doesn't mean shouting and insulting) instead of spewing what you think is "cool" and/or what you've heard other people whom you think are "cool" say. In my opinion, one of the largest issues many people have is they think that if they open the door to Linux, the zealots will come in and treat them like crap for wanting/using something other than Linux/OSS. Remember, it is *their* business, not yours. You can advise but in the end, you have to do what *they* want or you can not do it at all.
That entire paragraph does a good job of explaining why I even bothered getting a user account. I started karma whoring because I noticed a lot of people that put out arguments similar to mine post as AC or do enough trolling for fun that they never get modded up. I troll myself every now and then, but I try to keep this +1 default so people will see what I'm saying.:)
There comes a time when you have to stop complaining and start leading by example, and that's all I'm trying to do. There's plenty of other users out there doing it too, and plenty of people we haven't even heard from. So, as I said before, we're doing fine.:)
For example: "Linux will solve every problem in the computer world". On what basis is this claimed? It is predicting the future based on the ideals and evangelism of the supporters and the advocates of the OS. Linux cannot claim this any more than can any other OS.
There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood.:) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.
Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.
Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.
*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.
If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD.:) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine.:)
I've used Linux since pre-1.0. I simply have chosen not made it my religion. It gets the jobs I need done, done. For other tasks, I may use other OSs and applications - whichever one makes the task easier. I did have Linux as a religion way back in the day when I was in my late teens and early 20s, then I realized that I was being stupid. You don't have to make something a religion in order to be excited about it.
Let's clear something up right now.
Many people equate "religion" with "strong feelings". That's just not the case. I've known a few religionists who kept their feelings to themselves, and I've known quite a few so-called Atheists who took it upon themselves to cure the world of religion.
IN this case, in this specific case, it's not a religion. Many of us have very strong feelings on the matter, but you're forgetting the one single trait that makes religion what it is:
Faith.
In order for something to be a religion, you must accept something as fact without proof. I realize this definition attacks many of the basic scientific principles, but is the scientific community really all that different? Heh. I know I just stepped on quite a few toes, and while I don't know a lot of scientists, the ones I do know tend to agree with me on the matter.
With Free Software, we do not take anything on faith, necessarily. Freedom has been proven time and time again to increase productivity, standard of living, and make people generally happier. WIthout freedom in its roots (even if not quite in its implementation), would the US have risen to a world power in just 200 years? Better yet, compare Russa of today to all previous Russias. They finally have freedom in a big way, which they've historically *never* had. Are they better for it? Are their citizens happy? The ones I know say they are. Therefore, it's safe to say that we can accept "freedom" on a strong basis of historical fact as being an inherently good thing for us as individuals, and for society at large.
With that said, then, Free Software is merely an extension of freedom into our lives as software developers and software users. It entails certain responsibilities on both developers and users, and establishes a basis with which business, trade, and socializing can continue (socializing as in "communication" not as in "fascism"). But nowhere is anyone expected to buy into free software based solely on faith. You are expected, required I could say, to find out everything you can about it before making your decision, and to ultimately make your own decision.
Not only are these behaviors different many/most/all churches in history (i.e. we want you to think for yourself, they don't), but it's also fundamentally different than some basic principles involved in religion (such as instructing parents to teach their kids all about religion before the kids are old enough to think it through and reject it as stupid, which it is).
I realize some individuals in the community periodically come off as being religionists on the subject, but it sure in the fuck doesn't help when everybody has to ask RMS if this is right or that is right or if this violates the GPL or if that violates basic principles. Think for yourself and you'll never be led astray because you will always go where you mean to go.
I just see a big difference between something being wrong and something being EVIL. I guess it's just a matter of degree, i feel that things can be wrong without being wrong enough to be considered evil.
I'd say the difference is in intent. YOu can do something wrong, not thinking it's wrong, and realize afterwards you did wrong. Then you be responsible, go make amends, or whatever you have to do. Maybe you need someone to point it out to you, but the point is that ultimately you accept that you did wrong and try to fix it.
Evil, on the other hand, would be intentionally doing wrong. Even if you "make amends" later, under pressure from someone to do so, you still did it intentionally in the first place and you might do it again. In fact, in Microsoft's case we can say they will do it again.
There's more to it than that, though. The basic problem is that evil and good are both quite elusive concepts. For one thing, doing something "evil" might make you feel good about yourself, so you might call it "good" while I might call it "evil". They're very elusive things, they are. Read my rant.
I just see a big difference between something being wrong and something being EVIL. I guess it's just a matter of degree, i feel that things can be wrong without being wrong enough to be considered evil.
I'd say the difference is in intent. YOu can do something wrong, not thinking it's wrong, and realize afterwards you did wrong. Then you be responsible, go make amends, or whatever you have to do. Maybe you need someone to point it out to you, but the point is that ultimately you accept that you did wrong and try to fix it.
Evil, on the other hand, would be intentionally doing wrong. Even if you "make amends" later, under pressure from someone to do so, you still did it intentionally in the first place and you might do it again. In fact, in Microsoft's case we can say they will do it again.
There's more to it than that, though. The basic problem is that evil and good are both quite elusive concepts. For one thing, doing something "evil" might make you feel good about yourself, so you might call it "good" while I might call it "evil". They're very elusive things, they are. Read my rant.
If I agreed to the EULA, me software is not pirated, so there is no reason for them to come in.
If I pirated the software, I didn't agree to the EULA, so there is no legal basis for them coming in.
So which do they want? Heads I win, tails they loose.
These are good points, however, the way it works is that basically you have *some* legally purchased software, and they get to come in and make sure *all* of your software is legally licensed.
It's kinda like you buy a Chevy and give Chevrolet the right to make sure that all of your cars are Chevrolets. Well, not exactly, but it's just as idiotic.
Furthmore, I think that if someone were to test this part of the agreement in court, it would fail. You can't sign away your right to privacy. You can give people permission to do something, but you can retract the permission as well.
I suspect the rot set in when you had to start peeing in a bottle to get a job.
I have to both agree and disagree with you.
I worked as a professional mechanic for some time, and I saw several work accidents that would not have happened if the guy(s) didn't smoke pot all the time. I've seen other people get hurt as a result of acid hangovers, and every shop has horror stories about some dude getting a finger/arm/leg/dick ripped off at a brake lathe, and many of these stories involve a victim that does/did a lot of drugs.
I don't know what the actual statistics look like, but I do know that when all the guys who are going to be lifting cars over *my* head and welding and using powerful pneumatic tools show up bright-eyed (or bleary-eyed, but at least clear) I feel a lot safer.
The *only* time I've ever seen someone drop a car off a lift he was stoned off his ass.
On the other hand, you are probably right that mandatory drug-tests were an early domino to fall. HOwever, let me just point out to you that Americans have been steadily giving up pieces of their liberty for YEARS. Decades, even. We're just the generation that has inherited the problem. It's harder for us to fight than it would've when people tolerantly said "It's not a big deal, they can know that about me". But if we don't win, what kind of world will our kids live in? Will they even be ABLE to fight back?
Anyone recall that Star Trek TNG episode where picard dies and discovers that Q is God?
why should a single person who has fulfilled all her financial management responsiblities admirably in past employment
Why should I hire somebody who's not willing to take a few risks from time to time? If someone plays it safe all their lives without ever taking a chance (for good or for ill) in an effort to improve something, fix something, or fight for something, why the fuck shouldn't I hire them? All of these things will likely show up on a credit report, but will be negative.
Furthermore, if a company doesn't want to hire me because of *my* credit report (not good), then I don't want to work for them. They play it safe, and if they're not willing to take risks, I'm not willing to work for them. I am a risky investment as an employee. I don't show up on time all the time (phases, 6 months without missing a day or being a minute late, then several weeks showing up progressively later). I'm prone to personal problems (for some reason they're always brought in, not self-inflicted). I always tend to perform 2-3 times better than the average bear. Or more, depends on the job. I certainly get better with experience.
But I take risks from time to time, and the company may be legally liable for those risks. I've had employers stand right next to me and say "What do you want to do?" and I answer "I think it's worth taking the chance." Then we take the chance. Most pan out, some don't. The ones that pan out will *never* show up on a credit report. The ones that don't will show up as bad credit.
I realize I'm presenting a minority viewpoint here, and that most employers who look at credit probably don't consider what I'm talking about (and many jobs, "taking a chance" is a bad thing by itself).
Bottom line, credit rating is just like GPA. Why'd you get that GPA? Well, maybe you crashed your motorcycle right before finals and took all your finals hopped up on vicodin? Tell your possible employer that your GPA is low because you were on drugs? HELL NO. Tell 'im you crashed your motorcycle, right? It can be a useful indicator, and from an interviewing standpoint an excellent place to find out what kind of guy you are. "I noticed on your credit report that you pay all your regular bills, but you have occasional medical expenses that don't get paid. What's up?" "Oh, those happened because my wife and I had a baby each time. 3 kids, 3 times. We're still fighting with the insurance company to get them to pay the bills." "You're fighting the insurance company?" "Yes, we're not taking this sitting down." See?
But refusing to give someone a job (or firing them after you've already hired them) on the sole basis of their credit rating, without looking at the report and trying to understand it, isn't just wrong. It's also stupid. You *will* miss the candidates that are likely to be best for the job, because they *will* have bad marks on their credit. That is a certainty.
It does, however, require you to jump through certain other hoops, such as the requirement to distribute a copy of the GPL itself with your software. So the source code issue can be effectively ignored; the simple fact that they're distributing their product without a written (electronic or paper) copy of the GPL means that they're in violation of it.
I was, for the sake of argument, conveniently ignoring this part. You are, of course, correct. I think I did say something to that effect, although not as specifically as you did.
For the record, the name is "Linux," not "GNU/Linux." Might want to refer to Torvalds's trademark for further details on that point.
That would be the kernel you're talking about. Again, in this instance, you may be correct since I was talking about reading filesystems, which is handled by the kernel. Perhaps I should've said "The Linux kernel reads any filesystem...." instead.
However, regardless of Torvalds's trademark, the operating system complete as I have it today is a derivative of the first Debian distribution from back in 1993, which was dubbed GNU/Linux because it was nothing more than GNU with the Linux kernel. Therefore, since the work that I'm using now is a derivative of that original distribution, even if it's not solely GNU + Linux anymore, is correctly called "GNU/Linux". When saying this, you are conveying more than just the operating system you're using (otherwise I should properly refer to it as Mandrake Linux 9.0), but you are also referring to the history that went in to the operating system.
Now, I didn't think it was that big of a deal either, and I wrote an article to that effect. Check out this. After I wrote this article, I was feeling pretty cocky and emailed it to RMS, and we got into a discussion over it. He made his point well, and after much consideration on my part, I decided that he was right. (So no, I'm not a brainless drone) I just haven't updated the article on account of time. If you can come up with a way to trade email addresses without posting them on slashdot, I'll be happy to send you a note when I finally write the update, 'cause there's more to it than what's in this post.
Interestingly enough, there are other requirements for GPL compliance. Simply distributing your source code is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one to demonstrate compliance. For example, "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." Also, the oft-ignored "banner clause" in paragraph 2c
The example you cited is assumed when you distribute the source code. But I can see how someone need pay very special attention to the fact of the license, especially considering that they can only retain copyright on their changes if they notate the changes. Otherwise, for lack of proper documentation, I imagine copyright ownership on the changes would revert to the next marked owner a la scope rules.
I don't recall the banner clause right offhand, and I'm not going to go look it up.:) I'll keep it in mind to check out next time I'm reading that way, though.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a website where you drop songs into a shopping cart where each song costs $X.XX plus an additional base fee of $Y.YY for each CD-R needed to handle the volume of data the songs you selected includes?
This same topic recently came up in a mailing list that I subscribe to. Check out:
Mixonic
and
XBurnPro
Also an excellent way for free software projects to provide CD distributions!
That's OK, I'm using a pretty well-featured browser so I'll just select, then middle-click. It's a great way to avoid goatse.cx links
Thanks dude! I didn't even know about that!
Can we get a slashdot interview with Yakov Smirnov? Please????
As for castration, I think CowboyNeal would be the most amenable of the bunch.
It would just be the same as removing his appendix. It's not like he uses it anyway.
Am I a huge geek for even noticing the chance at a joke there, or just sad? Do I lose or gain geek points for even bringing this up?
In fact, you gain geek points for being self-centered, self-conscious, and suffering of a low self-esteem. :)
Next, please.
There's a world of difference between some people claiming to be Christian (or Muslim, etc.) being terrorists and Chrstianity (or Islam, etc.) endorsing terrrists. Terrorists abuse religion and use it to try and further their own ends, much as politicians have done and will doubtlessly continue to do. that isn't the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the people abusing it. And I hadly think that 'love your neighbour,' 'love your enemy,' 'turn the other cheek,' 'and these three remain, faith, hope, love and the greatest of these is love,' etc. are endorsements or terror tactics.
I can't speak for much more than Christianity in this instance, but the basis of Christianity seems to be that you are a sinner, and that if you don't repent your sins, or do something else about them, you're going to ha-ell. For 2000 years christian churches and the dogma that's directly in the Bible (don't mistake me for one of those non-believers that hasn't read it) have threatened sinners with hellfire and damnation, talking about the original sin and so forth, using FEAR and GUILT as their tactics.
That makes them terrorists, regardless of what so-called modern-day terrorists do.
To the credit of Jesus, however, his teachings don't include this stuff. It was stacked on by other people after he died, assuming he ever lived in the first place. I definitely remember reading in Corinthians I about how men with long hair and damned straight to hell, and that women should wear hats or have long hair themselves. Admittedly, that's the Roman influence, but it is in the New Testament.
Fear is the weapon of a terrorist, and anybody who uses it (George W Bush included) is a terrorist.
There does appear to be isolated instances of Buddhists using terrorism, but hardly repressentative instances. :) (I didn't go into those, because if they actually happened, they would be the exception, and not the rule, eh?)
However, the wonderful thing about Buddhism, in my opinion, is that in order to accept it as a religion, it seems like you must first define the word "religion". I've always viewed it as more of a philosophy than a religion, because a religion seems to try to answer the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. I always say I don't have a religion because I don't even attempt to describe how the universe came into being, I just plain don't know.
Mind you, philophically speaking, I am kindred to Buddhism, although I don't have the pacifism that they do. :) That, in and of itself, is quite a difference. Anyway, the rest of the world may disagree with me, but I still don't see Buddhism as quite a religion. It just doesn't have the trappings of a religion, to me. I won't attempt to define religion, at this point, because I would only attempt to define it to support my viewpoint. Anyone have an objective definition?
If you were really happy Linux user, you would've used your window manager to bind the Winkey to some convenient shortcut or shortcuts, such as minimize all windows (there are some other useful ones too).
Or you'd just click one of your other 4 desktops that doesn't have anything on it, move your production apps over there and get back to work, killing popups only when people aren't looking, and doing it all from the panel.
Then you'd open Mozilla and turn the pop-up blocker on. :)
WTF kind of sig is that? If it were "Islam breeds terrorism" you would be labeled as a bigot. Using the even broader word "Religion" just makes you an even bigger bigot. Time for a new sig, my friend.
Show me one religion that hasn't used terrorism as a tactic in all its history. Just one.
And, assuming you were going to do this, before you jump in and say Christianity, allow me to point out that you're supposed to love and "fear" God, and you're supposed to "fear" Satan and the hellfire and damnation that comes with him.
I'd go even further and say:
I mean really what does a media center need a floppy drive for?
Because you can stick SmartMedia, like you use in your digital camera, inside an adapter that lets it interface with a 3.5" floppy drive and look at your photos on your media center.
Perhaps they could erect a statue of Stalin outside of the RIAA headquarters and Adolf Hitler outside of Congress..
We will, only we'll use the visage of George W. Bush, a real American hero.
Ah fuck, I'm a geek after all. Gonna have to change my username now...
So, how do you ensure integrity of the checksums, then?
With all due respect, this is a no-brainer. Checksums on the checksums. And even a third layer if you want that.
As a better solution and an alternative to https, you can use PGP to sign it and provide a checksum for that. That way the end-user gets something signed (and if he knows you then he already got a public key from you that he can trust), and he can verify it's the right file.
Isn't it up to the server whether http directories are browsable?
Ok, here's my two cents. :)
Yes, it's up to the server. BUT, if you run PHP as well (no perl, no asp, nothing else, just pick ONE scripting language and leave it at that) then you can make your index.php page just give a directory listing for that page, thus duplicating somewhat the functionality of an ftp server.
You still can't support wildcard downloading like you can with ftp, but it also depends entirely on how the endusers are going to connect to the thing. You can also package up files that are likely to be downloaded together.
For example:
1. A music site. You record your own music (or you host music for indy artists, whatever). You post individual files of varying compression to support various bandwidth ranges. You also gather together similar items, such as songs from the same band, songs that go on the same album, or just the first side, and bundle them up in a tarball or something to make them available at a one-click http download.
2. Software. You host a bunch of software. This is already extensively explored and many inadequate solutions abound. But when you need to download an entire OSS project, and you also need the libraries that you know work with it, it can be a pain to download and extract 5-6 files with http. OTOH, simple php (or perl if you like, or anything else for that matter) will let you work up something where a user can select as many files as they want and it can either a) tarball them and then send them or b) just send each individual file at once (annoying if the web site does it automatically, I think).
I'm out of contrived examples. I think the root of the problem is all about how the users are going to use the files. If it's something you can expect a bunch of users to be automating downloads for some reason, you probably want ftp. If it's more of a catalog-style server, then you probably want http with a web site to support it.
Just out of curiosity, is there any advantage to using CVS in some of these cases? There are plenty of server-side scripts that interact with the CVS server to deliver the repository over the web and enable you to download the whole thing. Since it uses CVS you'd have full scripting abilities and so forth, and version control (for mirrors and the like that need to stay up to date) is the purpose of CVS, of course. Or would it be bastardizing a good system for something it's not really made for? (like http is already)
Wow, instant diabetes.... Jesus dude, are you serious? Can you drink it through a straw? Do you put it on pancakes? I like to be able to actually taste the tea, but each to his own.
Yes, I'm serious, and yes, you can drink it through a straw. :) Of course, I've been seeing the dentist pretty regularly... hmm.....
Enterprise solutions? few... these are more complicated and require tuning/tweeking. Other commercial (shrink wrapped) solutions? probably many... Did Quicken work for you? What about Office? What about any games you might play? (Yes, I know that Enterprise solutions and shrink wrap software aren't in the same class.)
Well, for the enterprise there is GNUEnterprise, which is a pretty kick-ass framework (in fact, I'm using it to build a replacement for QUicken). It's still young, though, and almost requires you to write the application. There's stuff in the works, and you can find out at their website.
I don't like MS Office from a usability standpoint. I always found it to be a virtual pain in the ass. I really really really like OpenOffice.org. In fact, in my business we're finding that OpenOffice.org, out of the box, solves our office productivity needs.
As far as quicken goes, there's nothing in free software that compares. GNUCash is pretty cool, if you understand double-entry. I do not. I could learn, and I'm going to have to in the coming months, but I don't want my wife to have to learn it. Quicken works with the way we conceive of our finances, and it works quite well. It could use some reports that it doesn't have, though.
IMO, an OSS solution that exists right now compared to its proprietary counterpart is automatically superior. :) (Don't forget, I'm a zealot too :) ) There are reasons, but here's the most compelling, in my opinion:
Proprietary software companies have no motivation to fix bugs and add features, other than competition. Remove or limit competition in a niche and you've just signed up for bug-ridden software that always works badly, if at all. The reason is that if proprietary companies actually fix bugs and/or add features, they will eventually reach a point where their codebase is mostly stable and the feature offering is superior so that customers don't have to upgrade anymore. Lose the upgrade cycle and you lose your repeat business. I've seen it in a few niche markets, and we see it in a big way in Windows.
Finally,
Too bad more of the folks who frequent this board don't think like this. To this, I would add: Lose the arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks differently than you, or thinks that there are other perfectly acceptible solutions than Linux/OSS is contemptable. Use reason and fact in your arguments (note: "argument" doesn't mean shouting and insulting) instead of spewing what you think is "cool" and/or what you've heard other people whom you think are "cool" say. In my opinion, one of the largest issues many people have is they think that if they open the door to Linux, the zealots will come in and treat them like crap for wanting/using something other than Linux/OSS. Remember, it is *their* business, not yours. You can advise but in the end, you have to do what *they* want or you can not do it at all.
That entire paragraph does a good job of explaining why I even bothered getting a user account. I started karma whoring because I noticed a lot of people that put out arguments similar to mine post as AC or do enough trolling for fun that they never get modded up. I troll myself every now and then, but I try to keep this +1 default so people will see what I'm saying. :)
There comes a time when you have to stop complaining and start leading by example, and that's all I'm trying to do. There's plenty of other users out there doing it too, and plenty of people we haven't even heard from. So, as I said before, we're doing fine. :)
For example: "Linux will solve every problem in the computer world". On what basis is this claimed? It is predicting the future based on the ideals and evangelism of the supporters and the advocates of the OS. Linux cannot claim this any more than can any other OS.
There is a basis, but I agree that a lot of people throw this out there without providing the basis, and I question how well understood this basis is understood. :) It's not that hard, though. What's so hard about "You can pay your $60k/year programmers to write your own custom, standards-based solution."? Of course, there's additional complications, which is why companies are in fact *not* running out and switching immediately.
Well, Konqueror's not letting me copy the other part I'm going to respond to. Simple put, the reason I still have a windows box in my home LAN even though I'm idealistically opposed to it is because there are certain tools I need for my lifestyle (can you say Quicken? And no, the way it runs under WINE is not acceptable, I did that before) and for my career (web developers have to test in IE, period) and there aren't comparable tools available. At least, in the first case of Quicken there's nothing comparable. I am working on a solution, though, but it's gonna be awhile... In the second case, there's no substitute for testing your web pages in IE, there are only shortcuts, and I don't make money when I take a shortcut that locks out any of my clients customers.
Many companies are in this situation. Not to mention that it's expensive and time-consuming to switch your underlying platform. Now, I'm not trying to apologize for any of these companies, but I do have to accept the limitations under which they work. It's just not that simple to switch. Sure, you can install Mandrake, RedHat, et al, in nothing flat and have it working out of the box. Just like Windows. But how many business solutions, even in windows, install out of the box and work? Few, if any. Migration isn't easy, and testing is complicated further by the fact that they have to test, and many problems won't appear until the system is in production. There's only so much you can find in your testing before your users get their grubby hands on it.
*sigh* I *do* deep down inside me believe that Free Software (not Linux specifically) will solve many of our computer problems, and that it will help a lot more to solve the business/home problems for which it exists. But my belief isn't based on faith, it's based on the fact of the open source development model and proven time and again by various projects. But it's gonna take time before a lot of businesses can do it.
If you were to ask me what we should be doing in our "evangelism" efforts, I'd say we should keep doing what we're doing, it's working. With a couple of exceptions. Slashdot could quit posting all the anti-Microsoft FUD. :) We can quit swarming like flies to a pile of shit everytime Microsoft gets in a little hot water. We can quit trying to get people to take Free Software on Faith and instead offer strong, practical, low-cost solutions to their very serious problems. Other than that, we're making the technical arguments and we're building the software that is needed. We're doing fine. :)
I've used Linux since pre-1.0. I simply have chosen not made it my religion. It gets the jobs I need done, done. For other tasks, I may use other OSs and applications - whichever one makes the task easier. I did have Linux as a religion way back in the day when I was in my late teens and early 20s, then I realized that I was being stupid. You don't have to make something a religion in order to be excited about it.
Let's clear something up right now.
Many people equate "religion" with "strong feelings". That's just not the case. I've known a few religionists who kept their feelings to themselves, and I've known quite a few so-called Atheists who took it upon themselves to cure the world of religion.
IN this case, in this specific case, it's not a religion. Many of us have very strong feelings on the matter, but you're forgetting the one single trait that makes religion what it is:
Faith.
In order for something to be a religion, you must accept something as fact without proof. I realize this definition attacks many of the basic scientific principles, but is the scientific community really all that different? Heh. I know I just stepped on quite a few toes, and while I don't know a lot of scientists, the ones I do know tend to agree with me on the matter.
With Free Software, we do not take anything on faith, necessarily. Freedom has been proven time and time again to increase productivity, standard of living, and make people generally happier. WIthout freedom in its roots (even if not quite in its implementation), would the US have risen to a world power in just 200 years? Better yet, compare Russa of today to all previous Russias. They finally have freedom in a big way, which they've historically *never* had. Are they better for it? Are their citizens happy? The ones I know say they are. Therefore, it's safe to say that we can accept "freedom" on a strong basis of historical fact as being an inherently good thing for us as individuals, and for society at large.
With that said, then, Free Software is merely an extension of freedom into our lives as software developers and software users. It entails certain responsibilities on both developers and users, and establishes a basis with which business, trade, and socializing can continue (socializing as in "communication" not as in "fascism"). But nowhere is anyone expected to buy into free software based solely on faith. You are expected, required I could say, to find out everything you can about it before making your decision, and to ultimately make your own decision.
Not only are these behaviors different many/most/all churches in history (i.e. we want you to think for yourself, they don't), but it's also fundamentally different than some basic principles involved in religion (such as instructing parents to teach their kids all about religion before the kids are old enough to think it through and reject it as stupid, which it is).
I realize some individuals in the community periodically come off as being religionists on the subject, but it sure in the fuck doesn't help when everybody has to ask RMS if this is right or that is right or if this violates the GPL or if that violates basic principles. Think for yourself and you'll never be led astray because you will always go where you mean to go.
Think Quart Mason Jar, think Black Peoke, think lots of ice, think 3 cups of sugar / gallon.
Only 3 cups of sugar a gallon? Shit. I brew mine up with 2 cups a quart, making it 8 cups a gallon. Then I drink 2 gallons a day.
Yeah, I know. I'm from the South, even if I don't live there anymore.
I just see a big difference between something being wrong and something being EVIL. I guess it's just a matter of degree, i feel that things can be wrong without being wrong enough to be considered evil.
I'd say the difference is in intent. YOu can do something wrong, not thinking it's wrong, and realize afterwards you did wrong. Then you be responsible, go make amends, or whatever you have to do. Maybe you need someone to point it out to you, but the point is that ultimately you accept that you did wrong and try to fix it.
Evil, on the other hand, would be intentionally doing wrong. Even if you "make amends" later, under pressure from someone to do so, you still did it intentionally in the first place and you might do it again. In fact, in Microsoft's case we can say they will do it again.
There's more to it than that, though. The basic problem is that evil and good are both quite elusive concepts. For one thing, doing something "evil" might make you feel good about yourself, so you might call it "good" while I might call it "evil". They're very elusive things, they are. Read my rant.
Good and evil
I just see a big difference between something being wrong and something being EVIL. I guess it's just a matter of degree, i feel that things can be wrong without being wrong enough to be considered evil.
I'd say the difference is in intent. YOu can do something wrong, not thinking it's wrong, and realize afterwards you did wrong. Then you be responsible, go make amends, or whatever you have to do. Maybe you need someone to point it out to you, but the point is that ultimately you accept that you did wrong and try to fix it.
Evil, on the other hand, would be intentionally doing wrong. Even if you "make amends" later, under pressure from someone to do so, you still did it intentionally in the first place and you might do it again. In fact, in Microsoft's case we can say they will do it again.
There's more to it than that, though. The basic problem is that evil and good are both quite elusive concepts. For one thing, doing something "evil" might make you feel good about yourself, so you might call it "good" while I might call it "evil". They're very elusive things, they are. Read my rant.
Good and evil
If I agreed to the EULA, me software is not pirated, so there is no reason for them to come in. If I pirated the software, I didn't agree to the EULA, so there is no legal basis for them coming in. So which do they want? Heads I win, tails they loose.
These are good points, however, the way it works is that basically you have *some* legally purchased software, and they get to come in and make sure *all* of your software is legally licensed.
It's kinda like you buy a Chevy and give Chevrolet the right to make sure that all of your cars are Chevrolets. Well, not exactly, but it's just as idiotic.
Furthmore, I think that if someone were to test this part of the agreement in court, it would fail. You can't sign away your right to privacy. You can give people permission to do something, but you can retract the permission as well.
I suspect the rot set in when you had to start peeing in a bottle to get a job.
I have to both agree and disagree with you.
I worked as a professional mechanic for some time, and I saw several work accidents that would not have happened if the guy(s) didn't smoke pot all the time. I've seen other people get hurt as a result of acid hangovers, and every shop has horror stories about some dude getting a finger/arm/leg/dick ripped off at a brake lathe, and many of these stories involve a victim that does/did a lot of drugs.
I don't know what the actual statistics look like, but I do know that when all the guys who are going to be lifting cars over *my* head and welding and using powerful pneumatic tools show up bright-eyed (or bleary-eyed, but at least clear) I feel a lot safer.
The *only* time I've ever seen someone drop a car off a lift he was stoned off his ass.
On the other hand, you are probably right that mandatory drug-tests were an early domino to fall. HOwever, let me just point out to you that Americans have been steadily giving up pieces of their liberty for YEARS. Decades, even. We're just the generation that has inherited the problem. It's harder for us to fight than it would've when people tolerantly said "It's not a big deal, they can know that about me". But if we don't win, what kind of world will our kids live in? Will they even be ABLE to fight back?
Anyone recall that Star Trek TNG episode where picard dies and discovers that Q is God?
why should a single person who has fulfilled all her financial management responsiblities admirably in past employment
Why should I hire somebody who's not willing to take a few risks from time to time? If someone plays it safe all their lives without ever taking a chance (for good or for ill) in an effort to improve something, fix something, or fight for something, why the fuck shouldn't I hire them? All of these things will likely show up on a credit report, but will be negative.
Furthermore, if a company doesn't want to hire me because of *my* credit report (not good), then I don't want to work for them. They play it safe, and if they're not willing to take risks, I'm not willing to work for them. I am a risky investment as an employee. I don't show up on time all the time (phases, 6 months without missing a day or being a minute late, then several weeks showing up progressively later). I'm prone to personal problems (for some reason they're always brought in, not self-inflicted). I always tend to perform 2-3 times better than the average bear. Or more, depends on the job. I certainly get better with experience.
But I take risks from time to time, and the company may be legally liable for those risks. I've had employers stand right next to me and say "What do you want to do?" and I answer "I think it's worth taking the chance." Then we take the chance. Most pan out, some don't. The ones that pan out will *never* show up on a credit report. The ones that don't will show up as bad credit.
I realize I'm presenting a minority viewpoint here, and that most employers who look at credit probably don't consider what I'm talking about (and many jobs, "taking a chance" is a bad thing by itself).
Bottom line, credit rating is just like GPA. Why'd you get that GPA? Well, maybe you crashed your motorcycle right before finals and took all your finals hopped up on vicodin? Tell your possible employer that your GPA is low because you were on drugs? HELL NO. Tell 'im you crashed your motorcycle, right? It can be a useful indicator, and from an interviewing standpoint an excellent place to find out what kind of guy you are. "I noticed on your credit report that you pay all your regular bills, but you have occasional medical expenses that don't get paid. What's up?" "Oh, those happened because my wife and I had a baby each time. 3 kids, 3 times. We're still fighting with the insurance company to get them to pay the bills." "You're fighting the insurance company?" "Yes, we're not taking this sitting down." See?
But refusing to give someone a job (or firing them after you've already hired them) on the sole basis of their credit rating, without looking at the report and trying to understand it, isn't just wrong. It's also stupid. You *will* miss the candidates that are likely to be best for the job, because they *will* have bad marks on their credit. That is a certainty.
It does, however, require you to jump through certain other hoops, such as the requirement to distribute a copy of the GPL itself with your software. So the source code issue can be effectively ignored; the simple fact that they're distributing their product without a written (electronic or paper) copy of the GPL means that they're in violation of it.
I was, for the sake of argument, conveniently ignoring this part. You are, of course, correct. I think I did say something to that effect, although not as specifically as you did.
For the record, the name is "Linux," not "GNU/Linux." Might want to refer to Torvalds's trademark for further details on that point.
That would be the kernel you're talking about. Again, in this instance, you may be correct since I was talking about reading filesystems, which is handled by the kernel. Perhaps I should've said "The Linux kernel reads any filesystem...." instead.
However, regardless of Torvalds's trademark, the operating system complete as I have it today is a derivative of the first Debian distribution from back in 1993, which was dubbed GNU/Linux because it was nothing more than GNU with the Linux kernel. Therefore, since the work that I'm using now is a derivative of that original distribution, even if it's not solely GNU + Linux anymore, is correctly called "GNU/Linux". When saying this, you are conveying more than just the operating system you're using (otherwise I should properly refer to it as Mandrake Linux 9.0), but you are also referring to the history that went in to the operating system.
Now, I didn't think it was that big of a deal either, and I wrote an article to that effect. Check out this. After I wrote this article, I was feeling pretty cocky and emailed it to RMS, and we got into a discussion over it. He made his point well, and after much consideration on my part, I decided that he was right. (So no, I'm not a brainless drone) I just haven't updated the article on account of time. If you can come up with a way to trade email addresses without posting them on slashdot, I'll be happy to send you a note when I finally write the update, 'cause there's more to it than what's in this post.
Interestingly enough, there are other requirements for GPL compliance. Simply distributing your source code is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one to demonstrate compliance. For example, "You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change." Also, the oft-ignored "banner clause" in paragraph 2c
The example you cited is assumed when you distribute the source code. But I can see how someone need pay very special attention to the fact of the license, especially considering that they can only retain copyright on their changes if they notate the changes. Otherwise, for lack of proper documentation, I imagine copyright ownership on the changes would revert to the next marked owner a la scope rules.
I don't recall the banner clause right offhand, and I'm not going to go look it up. :) I'll keep it in mind to check out next time I'm reading that way, though.