How many people do you think really understand the idea of special relativity. Don't you think it'd be equally important for people to realize that the clocks they use to make daily life possible aren't really perfect for synchronization and time isn't really what we intuitively believe it is? Hell NO, why? because it won't make a damned difference to them and to life on this planet? are these people idiots?? No! They are you're average person... who can reasonably be go through life without knowledge of these things and should not be labelled idiots. The real fools are the ones who can't see this.
I don't see those other idiots pushing and shoving to see their ideas of time taught in school as if they were scientific. Which is, precisely, what so many people here think when calling ID pushers "idiots".
Myself, I can understand that someone doesn't feel Evolution answers his questions on the formation of life and the appearance of new species. I think he'd be wrong, but he has a right to that. It's when people try to push religious or faith-based beliefs as science that I start to call them idiots or worse, criminals.
That'd mean your country has been going down the shitter for a longer period of time than you knew. It'd be better for you, I suppose, if it had just started to decay.
What's funny is you choosing the game over the books as hilarious. The first two games were good and good fun (haven't played the third), but I think the books are much, much funnier. Plus, there's a lot more to choose from.
No, you don't understand. Under the GPL, you are perfectly entitled to try and sell and make money out of what you took + your contributions (if any). It's your freedom to sell the software. I just said that if you do, you have to provide source to the people you sell the software to, and that it might merely be difficult, depending on what your target market is.
As for protocols... I doubt that someone has GPL'ed a spec or an RFC for a protocol. If you code to an implementation, well, you fall under the shadow of the licence of the implementation, shirley. But I'm not sure I'm able to answer this question. I think you're talking about the kind of things the LGPL was made for (libraries). RMS and the FSF don't want the LGPL to be used that way anymore, because they see it as a way to "close" the contributions. They might be right or not, I don't know.
Take this all cum grano salis. I'm just a student, I haven't published software yet.
As far as free software goes, if you take something a lot of people put hard work into, and keep the modifications to yourself without giving back code (not money, but you can give money _too_) then the creators "lose".
You might argue with me as far as you want, but this is the central piece of the GPL: that if you want to use GPL'ed code (even libraries, and even for whatever noble reason) into your code, you have to release the source to your code too under the GPL. If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, you can't use GPL'ed code in your programs.
You can still sell your programs, but the people you sell them to have to have access to the source, and they must be able to modify it, etc. according to the GPL. It's even doable, but depends on your target market. But of course I don't have to tell this to you.
Notice this doesn't mean you have to give your code to _everybody_, just to the people you distribute (i.e. sell) programs.
Thing is, most people who publish under GPL don't do it for the money. You're better off checking either LGPL or BSD/MIT/ or other licensed software. You're asking "how much does it cost to do exactly the kind of thing this license is designed to prevent?" to people who have chosen precisely that license. It's bound to be a lot of money.
You must be intending other meaning of "commercial" I wasn't thinking of. If you meant "proprietary" or "closed source" I doubt somebody would bother creating an app or library and releasing it under the GPL just to close it for a paycheck.
I wish authors releasing good libraries under GPL would also assume that is OK to make money with it too.
You can _always_ make money with GPL programs. Or at least, you can legally try. You could take e.g. gimp, and sell it, provided you comply with the gpl terms: that anyone can take the source code you're distributing and modify it, and sell it themselves if they wish. The thing is, if you do this precise kind of stuff, you might have negative publicity. It is nevertheless your right under the GPL.
I live in Italy, and the rest of Europe I don't suppose is much different (England isn't). Tell me, every guy across every counter is so lenient when you buy a prebuilt PC?
How 'bout the microsoft tax I have to pay on almost every laptop and computer I don't build myself? The trials did dig out some very nasty moves made by MS to ensure that most every vendor complied with their terms. Right now, it's pretty difficult in most rich countries (piracy is rife in others and they sell you either pirated copies of windows or bumfuck linux distros and tell you where to get your windows pirated copy) to get a computer without paying for windows.
Sure, that's why you should hurry and share goatse with them now, before it's too late. Or maybe one of the goatse girls? Paedophilia? Brutal assassinations?
Not all that is true, or that you believe to be true is worth sharing.
If you bought a new PC, would you set your PSU on the carpet? no you wouldn't.
If my grandma had weels, she'd be a motorcar. The PSU of a computer is one thing, and the _separate_ PSU of this console is another. For that matter, I wouldn't put my PC in the middle of the living room under the TV like an XBox, would I?
If you want to ruin the appearance of an appliance sticking it inside an ugly box it's your money and your taste, but one can hardly pretend everyone pays a cool 50 bucks on top of the normal xbox price to "solve" a problem. What's gonna happen, by the way, with the heat that the PSU releases, now closed tight inside the case? Will you also add fans to the case?
What exactly is KDE-based about mandriva? Certainly not their tools, written in GTK. Nor their desktop: they mold both KDE and GNOME to their Galaxy theme. I like it, a lot, but I wouldn't call it "KDE centric".
Your post is correct except for the part about mandriva being firmly standardized on KDE.
Mandriva offers both KDE and GNOME (and a host of other WMs) and molds both to its particular interface, "galaxy" using themes, patches and other stuff. The Mandriva tools (Drakxtools) are written using GTK. So I don't see it as "standardized on KDE".
Oh wait, you didn't include those little programs that aren't included in repositories, did you? Look back at what I said - a single file downloaded to install on a Linux machine.
Why? I'm content to know that I don't have to go browse on the net as the first thing, and that if I have something on my repos it is pretty much guaranteed to work. If I don't find it there, I go browsing. I don't see how this is worse than having to google for it as the only option. Plus, if it's installed easily, I don't see how it's a problem that it requires _available_ dependencies. I haven't had dependency problems in years, in every distro I've tried.
Having only statically packaged apps is a huge misuse of resources. You could say that an app should rely (and find) on a common base already available since installing the system. LSB and other initiatives deal with that. Some effort there wouldn't be bad, of course.
Heck, even with Opera, did you notice that different distros have different installation methods/formats/files? Why? The end result is basically the same thing, why should there be different methods inbetween?
Maybe because they're different operating systems that share a lot of characteristics but not all? Depending on your idea of operating system, this is an explanation. After all, an OS isn't just the kernel. And as I said, Autopackage deals with that. It's not their fault that developers don't use it. Neither is their fault that there are few commercial apps available.
Hm. This doesn't depend on package formats. It's the job of the developer to build a static-dependency package. Skype and Opera are two such packages, available as.rpm and.deb , just from the top o' my head. The possibility's right there. It does imply some disadvantages, but hey, that's irrelevant here. Linspire's One Click store works too.
Nevermind things like LSB and Autopackage. It's far easier to scream that nothing's there, of course.
Oh, by the way: my Mandriva system installs everything a package needs automagically, just by me searching for the package with a graphical tool. My friends' Ubuntu and Debian systems do too. So does Fedora. So I don't see your point.
That made so little sense it's dizzying. Many (for varying amounts of "many") gentoo users are l337 k33dz who just spend hours "optimizing" without a clue. Apart from the fact that there are plenty of power users that like other distros.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people do you think really understand the idea of special relativity. Don't you think it'd be equally important for people to realize that the clocks they use to make daily life possible aren't really perfect for synchronization and time isn't really what we intuitively believe it is? Hell NO, why? because it won't make a damned difference to them and to life on this planet? are these people idiots?? No! They are you're average person... who can reasonably be go through life without knowledge of these things and should not be labelled idiots. The real fools are the ones who can't see this.
I don't see those other idiots pushing and shoving to see their ideas of time taught in school as if they were scientific. Which is, precisely, what so many people here think when calling ID pushers "idiots".
Myself, I can understand that someone doesn't feel Evolution answers his questions on the formation of life and the appearance of new species. I think he'd be wrong, but he has a right to that. It's when people try to push religious or faith-based beliefs as science that I start to call them idiots or worse, criminals.
That'd mean your country has been going down the shitter for a longer period of time than you knew. It'd be better for you, I suppose, if it had just started to decay.
What's funny is you choosing the game over the books as hilarious. The first two games were good and good fun (haven't played the third), but I think the books are much, much funnier. Plus, there's a lot more to choose from.
No, you don't understand. Under the GPL, you are perfectly entitled to try and sell and make money out of what you took + your contributions (if any). It's your freedom to sell the software. I just said that if you do, you have to provide source to the people you sell the software to, and that it might merely be difficult, depending on what your target market is.
As for protocols... I doubt that someone has GPL'ed a spec or an RFC for a protocol. If you code to an implementation, well, you fall under the shadow of the licence of the implementation, shirley. But I'm not sure I'm able to answer this question. I think you're talking about the kind of things the LGPL was made for (libraries). RMS and the FSF don't want the LGPL to be used that way anymore, because they see it as a way to "close" the contributions. They might be right or not, I don't know.
Take this all cum grano salis. I'm just a student, I haven't published software yet.
Don't forget that Adium "does all that GAIM stuff" because it uses libgaim.
In the best Unix tradition of decoupling function and form.
As far as free software goes, if you take something a lot of people put hard work into, and keep the modifications to yourself without giving back code (not money, but you can give money _too_) then the creators "lose".
You might argue with me as far as you want, but this is the central piece of the GPL: that if you want to use GPL'ed code (even libraries, and even for whatever noble reason) into your code, you have to release the source to your code too under the GPL. If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, you can't use GPL'ed code in your programs.
You can still sell your programs, but the people you sell them to have to have access to the source, and they must be able to modify it, etc. according to the GPL. It's even doable, but depends on your target market. But of course I don't have to tell this to you.
Notice this doesn't mean you have to give your code to _everybody_, just to the people you distribute (i.e. sell) programs.
Thing is, most people who publish under GPL don't do it for the money. You're better off checking either LGPL or BSD/MIT/ or other licensed software. You're asking "how much does it cost to do exactly the kind of thing this license is designed to prevent?" to people who have chosen precisely that license. It's bound to be a lot of money.
You must be intending other meaning of "commercial" I wasn't thinking of. If you meant "proprietary" or "closed source" I doubt somebody would bother creating an app or library and releasing it under the GPL just to close it for a paycheck.
You can _always_ make money with GPL programs. Or at least, you can legally try. You could take e.g. gimp, and sell it, provided you comply with the gpl terms: that anyone can take the source code you're distributing and modify it, and sell it themselves if they wish. The thing is, if you do this precise kind of stuff, you might have negative publicity. It is nevertheless your right under the GPL.
More clarifications at the FSF's GPL FAQ's page.
I live in Italy, and the rest of Europe I don't suppose is much different (England isn't). Tell me, every guy across every counter is so lenient when you buy a prebuilt PC?
How 'bout the microsoft tax I have to pay on almost every laptop and computer I don't build myself? The trials did dig out some very nasty moves made by MS to ensure that most every vendor complied with their terms. Right now, it's pretty difficult in most rich countries (piracy is rife in others and they sell you either pirated copies of windows or bumfuck linux distros and tell you where to get your windows pirated copy) to get a computer without paying for windows.
Sure, that's why you should hurry and share goatse with them now, before it's too late. Or maybe one of the goatse girls? Paedophilia? Brutal assassinations?
Not all that is true, or that you believe to be true is worth sharing.
indeed, non-geeks don't understand it either.
If my grandma had weels, she'd be a motorcar. The PSU of a computer is one thing, and the _separate_ PSU of this console is another. For that matter, I wouldn't put my PC in the middle of the living room under the TV like an XBox, would I?
If you want to ruin the appearance of an appliance sticking it inside an ugly box it's your money and your taste, but one can hardly pretend everyone pays a cool 50 bucks on top of the normal xbox price to "solve" a problem. What's gonna happen, by the way, with the heat that the PSU releases, now closed tight inside the case? Will you also add fans to the case?
As always, Penny Arcade has something to say on the matter.
See Figure 1.
What exactly is KDE-based about mandriva? Certainly not their tools, written in GTK. Nor their desktop: they mold both KDE and GNOME to their Galaxy theme. I like it, a lot, but I wouldn't call it "KDE centric".
Your post is correct except for the part about mandriva being firmly standardized on KDE.
Mandriva offers both KDE and GNOME (and a host of other WMs) and molds both to its particular interface, "galaxy" using themes, patches and other stuff. The Mandriva tools (Drakxtools) are written using GTK. So I don't see it as "standardized on KDE".
Why? I'm content to know that I don't have to go browse on the net as the first thing, and that if I have something on my repos it is pretty much guaranteed to work. If I don't find it there, I go browsing. I don't see how this is worse than having to google for it as the only option. Plus, if it's installed easily, I don't see how it's a problem that it requires _available_ dependencies. I haven't had dependency problems in years, in every distro I've tried.
Having only statically packaged apps is a huge misuse of resources. You could say that an app should rely (and find) on a common base already available since installing the system. LSB and other initiatives deal with that. Some effort there wouldn't be bad, of course.
Maybe because they're different operating systems that share a lot of characteristics but not all? Depending on your idea of operating system, this is an explanation. After all, an OS isn't just the kernel. And as I said, Autopackage deals with that. It's not their fault that developers don't use it. Neither is their fault that there are few commercial apps available.
Hm. This doesn't depend on package formats. It's the job of the developer to build a static-dependency package. Skype and Opera are two such packages, available as .rpm and .deb , just from the top o' my head. The possibility's right there. It does imply some disadvantages, but hey, that's irrelevant here. Linspire's One Click store works too.
Nevermind things like LSB and Autopackage. It's far easier to scream that nothing's there, of course.
Oh, by the way: my Mandriva system installs everything a package needs automagically, just by me searching for the package with a graphical tool. My friends' Ubuntu and Debian systems do too. So does Fedora. So I don't see your point.
No way it figures. Should have been porn, not advertising.
Are you sure?
You can already. Install smart (urpmi smart) and find a good .deb repository for mandriva. Though I doubt you'll find many, the possibility's there.
Uhhh.. I thought the RIAA already did.
That made so little sense it's dizzying. Many (for varying amounts of "many") gentoo users are l337 k33dz who just spend hours "optimizing" without a clue. Apart from the fact that there are plenty of power users that like other distros.