No, they're not, and I never claimed they were. The OP challenged anyone to download ubuntu and say they prefer it to windows. No qualifiers, no "try it on grandma", just a crappy troll.
I wasn't talking about dynamic DNS, I was talking about a DNS proxy program like dnsmasq.
You're right that most people don't care about that, but I was replying to a direct AC challenge to try ubuntu and say you prefer it to windows. For my (niche, geek/developer) uses, it's far, far preferable.
On windows I can't set up my own dns forwarding proxy with a few simple commands, or add a powerful compiler or set of scripting language interpreters and libraries with equal ease.
Ubuntu is great for me. I don't give a crap about running windows apps.
I bought the keyboard and mouse separately, but I have the same setup.
I'm not much of a hardcore gamer, computer usage tends to be limited to 2-3 hours at a time, but I can't actually remember the last time I had to swap out the batteries. It's been months.
A ten-line GPL module can infect an entire project.
Then don't use it, your choice. Please stop thinking that Open Source == Public Domain. GPL is specifically written to make sure that it can only be used by pieces of software that are similarly licensed.
And it's not just proprietary software that gets infected--BSD, say (remember that BSD-licensed driver that was changed and re-released under the GPL, so the BSD guys couldn't get access to what they originally made)?
The GPL is not ethical. Totally within their rights to use, but it's unethical and I won't use it.
No, the actions of those folks were unethical.
But, and here's the thing, the BSD license allows them to do that! That's precisely the behaviour that use of the GPL seeks to stop!
I take a a GNU product, apply some of my special magic to it, and I'm screwed (businesswise, at least). I have to give away any enhancements I make.
That's the whole point. The guys that put in work for free don't want you taking their base and making alterations and then selling it with no obligations to give away your enhancements. The companies that put time and money into GPL software don't want that either, they contributed to the community and the condition for you getting the source and using the software is that you open up too.
That's the condition for using their work. Don't like it? Find or write another solution.
So many posts here seem to think that GPL code ought to be able to be used as if it was public domain. That's not the idea at all.
Things like the linksys hacking communities would not exist without the GPL.
Firefox is available under three licenses and the GPL is one of them, the others are copyleft licenses too. But that's as an aside, I don't see BSD style licenses taking over.
I just want something that works.
No, you don't, you want something that you can use without having to open up the rest of your source, or preferably even your own additions and changes (or is LGPL ok by you?).
And no, it's not a religion, the licensing debate is actually an intensely practical one with real effects.
I, personally, don't see many companies getting behind BSD. Neither would I, personally, want to contribute to a piece of code that could be taken, used, altered and distributed in a closed way with no recourse to having people open it.
The fact that you say I can trust you to contribute back does not help.
There will always be a significant number that think my way, and a significant number that think yours. Just don't pretend like I'm losing out by not doing things your way, it's by design and it's very simple.
Again, your case is specifically what is targeted by the GPL. If you aren't using it in a completely open application, you don't get to play.
And evidently it's working fine, given the amount of GPL stuff there is, and the number of companies supporting it and giving back, compared against BSD.
Umm, have you even read the summary, 77% of sourceforge projects are under GPL. Linux, not to mention the GNU userspace, is waaaaaaay more popular than the BSDs.
Not in need of your pity right now. It turns out that lots of people feel the same way - that you open everything or you can't use our stuff.
What you see as not letting you contribute back, I and others would see as refusal to open up more of your work.
If you are a commercial entity that does not want to open the whole of your application then the GPL is aimed specifically at preventing you from using the software.
This is not a surprise to anyone using the GPL, it's the whole idea behind the GPL.
"I can't give back the changes that are relevant to you without also potentially being required to give back the entire codebase that uses your library."
No, that really is the idea, that you can't use my stuff without opening the whole of your codebase in the same way.
That is precisely the point! If you're not willing to open the whole of your application, you don't get to use any GPL components.
I still don't see what the point is of having a ballot paper in those circumstances. I don't see why encryption is even necessary in a voting machine situation. I have yet to hear a single good reason for anything more complex than -
Push button next to name Screen asks you if "Mr. XXXX YYYY" was really your choice. If no, go back, if yes, print receipt. Screen asks you if receipt matches choice If no, go back, if yes machine drops receipt in bucket and adds one to tally.
Now, online voting is a different matter but that's so fraught with danger of attack that the whole idea is stupid, IMHO.
So you want a ballot paper that nobody can read apart from the authorities doing the counting?
Interesting, but pointless. If you can't read it to verify your vote then there's no point having it, you may as well leave it at the place of voting. If you can read it then you can be coerced.
Suffrage is not an archaic word and everyone, I mean everyone, should have learned about the suffragettes and the struggle to get women the vote. It just proves people are idiots, sorry.
Race, gender and (I'm pretty sure) religious discrimination when selecting people for jobs is illegal under EU law as well. In most of the civilised world you can sue over that sort of thing.
Private company or not, you don't get to decide you won't hire blacks or women.
It really is all about making a point, not about actually doing something useful.
Yes, just like this stupid "linux" thing, all about making a point against microsoft! It's there, it can be hacked, why not? I shouldn't even have to explain this on slashdot.
BTW, try looking at Rockbox if you don't think its useful. OS compatibility, file formats etc.
1) This is a free speech issue, that shutting down forums talking about reverse engineering or compatibility is actually evil 2) There is no good technical reason for the iPod not to be compatible, Apple are actively trying to stop people doing what they want with an item they own.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike you, I'd check that I had a leg to stand on before spending multiple millions on a lawsuit that was doomed from the start.
And when you let him out of the corner at age 27 all was well?
No, they're not, and I never claimed they were. The OP challenged anyone to download ubuntu and say they prefer it to windows. No qualifiers, no "try it on grandma", just a crappy troll.
So I responded.
I wasn't talking about dynamic DNS, I was talking about a DNS proxy program like dnsmasq.
You're right that most people don't care about that, but I was replying to a direct AC challenge to try ubuntu and say you prefer it to windows. For my (niche, geek/developer) uses, it's far, far preferable.
I like it much better.
On windows I can't set up my own dns forwarding proxy with a few simple commands, or add a powerful compiler or set of scripting language interpreters and libraries with equal ease.
Ubuntu is great for me. I don't give a crap about running windows apps.
Time to eat your own ass.
I bought the keyboard and mouse separately, but I have the same setup.
I'm not much of a hardcore gamer, computer usage tends to be limited to 2-3 hours at a time, but I can't actually remember the last time I had to swap out the batteries. It's been months.
Also, FYI, your signature is fucking retarded.
"And that's why it's unethical: because it attempts to dictate its morality on other people. It's headfucked."
And you're dictating yours, you fucking moron.
"These people should work for free and let me do what I want with their code! WAAAAAAAAH!"
Don't like the license, don't fucking use it. But stop bleating, for god's sake, it's pathetic.
Seriously, troll much?
It's not so people can't take the code away, it's so they can't even use it without giving changes and enhancements back.
What's shocking is your ignorance of the reasons behind people using the GPL.
Then don't use it, your choice. Please stop thinking that Open Source == Public Domain. GPL is specifically written to make sure that it can only be used by pieces of software that are similarly licensed.
No, the actions of those folks were unethical.
But, and here's the thing, the BSD license allows them to do that! That's precisely the behaviour that use of the GPL seeks to stop!
I take a a GNU product, apply some of my special magic to it, and I'm screwed (businesswise, at least). I have to give away any enhancements I make.
That's the whole point. The guys that put in work for free don't want you taking their base and making alterations and then selling it with no obligations to give away your enhancements. The companies that put time and money into GPL software don't want that either, they contributed to the community and the condition for you getting the source and using the software is that you open up too.
That's the condition for using their work. Don't like it? Find or write another solution.
So many posts here seem to think that GPL code ought to be able to be used as if it was public domain. That's not the idea at all.
Things like the linksys hacking communities would not exist without the GPL.
Firefox is available under three licenses and the GPL is one of them, the others are copyleft licenses too. But that's as an aside, I don't see BSD style licenses taking over.
I just want something that works.
No, you don't, you want something that you can use without having to open up the rest of your source, or preferably even your own additions and changes (or is LGPL ok by you?).
And no, it's not a religion, the licensing debate is actually an intensely practical one with real effects.
Good for you.
I, personally, don't see many companies getting behind BSD. Neither would I, personally, want to contribute to a piece of code that could be taken, used, altered and distributed in a closed way with no recourse to having people open it.
The fact that you say I can trust you to contribute back does not help.
There will always be a significant number that think my way, and a significant number that think yours. Just don't pretend like I'm losing out by not doing things your way, it's by design and it's very simple.
Again, your case is specifically what is targeted by the GPL. If you aren't using it in a completely open application, you don't get to play.
And evidently it's working fine, given the amount of GPL stuff there is, and the number of companies supporting it and giving back, compared against BSD.
Umm, have you even read the summary, 77% of sourceforge projects are under GPL. Linux, not to mention the GNU userspace, is waaaaaaay more popular than the BSDs.
Not in need of your pity right now. It turns out that lots of people feel the same way - that you open everything or you can't use our stuff.
What you see as not letting you contribute back, I and others would see as refusal to open up more of your work.
If you are a commercial entity that does not want to open the whole of your application then the GPL is aimed specifically at preventing you from using the software.
This is not a surprise to anyone using the GPL, it's the whole idea behind the GPL.
"I can't give back the changes that are relevant to you without also potentially being required to give back the entire codebase that uses your library."
No, that really is the idea, that you can't use my stuff without opening the whole of your codebase in the same way.
That is precisely the point! If you're not willing to open the whole of your application, you don't get to use any GPL components.
I always thought that was the idea -
"If you want to use my stuff in your project, you have to open it. Feel free to write your own if that doesn't fit in with your plans"
"Whenever we use anything that is open source the first thing is to ensure it is not GPL'd. If it is GPL'd we find another solution or write our own."
That's the idea, dummy.
If you're not going to reciprocate, then write your own!
I still don't see what the point is of having a ballot paper in those circumstances. I don't see why encryption is even necessary in a voting machine situation. I have yet to hear a single good reason for anything more complex than -
Push button next to name
Screen asks you if "Mr. XXXX YYYY" was really your choice.
If no, go back, if yes, print receipt.
Screen asks you if receipt matches choice
If no, go back, if yes machine drops receipt in bucket and adds one to tally.
Now, online voting is a different matter but that's so fraught with danger of attack that the whole idea is stupid, IMHO.
So you want a ballot paper that nobody can read apart from the authorities doing the counting?
Interesting, but pointless. If you can't read it to verify your vote then there's no point having it, you may as well leave it at the place of voting. If you can read it then you can be coerced.
Um, what?
Suffrage is not an archaic word and everyone, I mean everyone, should have learned about the suffragettes and the struggle to get women the vote. It just proves people are idiots, sorry.
Where the hell do you live?
Race, gender and (I'm pretty sure) religious discrimination when selecting people for jobs is illegal under EU law as well. In most of the civilised world you can sue over that sort of thing.
Private company or not, you don't get to decide you won't hire blacks or women.
It really is all about making a point, not about actually doing something useful.
Yes, just like this stupid "linux" thing, all about making a point against microsoft! It's there, it can be hacked, why not?
I shouldn't even have to explain this on slashdot.
BTW, try looking at Rockbox if you don't think its useful. OS compatibility, file formats etc.
I'm not saying that, I don't buy apple.
I'm saying that:
1) This is a free speech issue, that shutting down forums talking about reverse engineering or compatibility is actually evil
2) There is no good technical reason for the iPod not to be compatible, Apple are actively trying to stop people doing what they want with an item they own.