It seemed utterly pointless at the time. Dad had his office suite (Symphony for DOS!) that didn't need it, games didn't run out of it. The only time I ever loaded up windows was when I wanted to play reversi. And that wasn't very often because let me tell you, I sucked at reversi when I was 9.
I guess I didn't really get the point of windows until we got our next PC, years later, which had a P75 in it and ran Win 3.11 And I still used DOS more often because you had to boot into DOS mode to get Mechwarrior 2 running...
Yeah, I'm about ready to jump ship at the moment. I applied for a credit card with ANZ a week and a half ago. They tried to call me the next day and I missed it. Since then I try to call back every day or two, to find out what they wanted, but every time I get put on hold and I'm afraid my patience runs out after 15 minutes of that. I've been to the local branch too, but all they can do is phone the credit card folks and wait on hold with me.
I don't actually need your credit card enough for me to put up with that nonsense, thanks.
Why should there be intermediate steps or compromise on equality? I really see it that simply.
It's pretty transparent that those unwilling to concede the word 'marriage' are just trying to grasp at discriminatory straws.
The other solution, that the government gets out of the 'marriage' game completely and simply becomes a civil contract broker, suits me fine too. So long as churches and other venues that wish to can marry gay couples. I don't see that happening either though.
Except that restricting it to use of the word 'union' keeps it seen as inferior to marriage and perpetuates separation of 'those homosexual types' from 'us normal folk' and perpetuates discrimination.
It's that simple.
You could have said exactly the same about black folk in the US a few decades ago - they got what they want, equality, it separate, sure, but it's equal!
I'm not buying it. I'm not gay either, I just hate this irrational discrimination.
It's only some heterosexual folks that get their panties in a wad about the use of the term marriage to define anything other than a man and a woman. Most of us 'understand' that a loving lifetime commitment between two people is a marriage.
Not that lifetime is any requirement any more.
And, for some reason, there are people who believe that the gay people sensitivities should prevail because... Because...?
Guess we'll have to watch this one carefully. Nokia was in need of a shakeup, but with an MS man at the top I fear for the future of Meego on Nokia phones.
"Well, as a manager, that's his job - to maximise the wealth of the company shareholders. If Java isn't making money (directly or indirectly), then he needs to institute change so that it *does* make money one way or another."
No, he has no such responsibility. He could decide that Java cannot easily be made profitable or sufficiently profitable and can or sell off the whole unit.
And don't forget the number of times that there are no penalties to avoid at all, because it turns out that the activity was unnecessary.
Yeah, I'm looking at you, work. The number of times it turns out that someone else has already done something, often even before I'm assigned a task, well, it pays to procrastinate.
"I can understand this, if I find a recipe on the web, can't I save it to disk? Can't I mail it or SMS it to my mom? Can't I have my home network scrape such recipes and present them in an custom format in the kitchen terminal?"
AFAIK, IAANAL etc, the factual content of a recipe can't be protected by copyright anyway. But the description of the dish and any artfulness or prose involved can be.
So strictly speaking, you ought to rewrite the instructions in your own way before passing them around. However, with recipes, you'd hope there was at least an implied right to do what you want to.
If I get SC2 I'll play the single player campaign only.
I'm really not interested in being pwned by someone who has a bunch of rush tactics memorised, let alone someone who's used genetic algorithms to optimise their deployment/build strategy.
There are levels within FIPS 140-2. Software can reach a certain level, beyond that it has to be hardware, IIRC.
FIPS 140-2 is concerned with the security of algorithms used on data leaving and entering a secure system, so a software component simply makes the PC into the device that the FIPS validation applies to. Or that was my reading anyway.
IIRC there is a specific version of openssl that got FIPS 140-2 validation/certification a little while back.
Oh, here it is, looks like a sub-project within openssl, or a subset or some-such.
By the way, I just sent a BSD licensed copy of my (cleanroom!) implementation of helloworld.c to my friend chris. He's going to change it to say "Hellow orld" and release it under a closed license. I'm not putting the code out anywhere though.
As the other poster below said, you're totally out to lunch.
The OSI doesn't mean shit, and they are not a party to any code I license. The regents of the University of California likewise. You live in a fantasy world.
"1. Being an OSI-certified license, means that source code is going to be available, period. This is proven by the fact that all known BSD-licensed programs out there made their source code freely available. Unless sourceforge is down."
No, being an OSI certified piece of software means its available. Nothing in the BSD license says you have to put the code on the net or anywhere else.
"2. Derived software source code is not guaranteed being available is a built-in feature for BSD license."
Yes, we know this.
Access to the original sourced code is guaranteed legally, but not necessarily technically (sourceforge down or something like that)
No, no it's not legally guaranteed, please refer to the BSD license, not the OSI.
3. BSD-licensed programs is definitely an open-source software. Only from you I have heard that BSD-licensed programs is a closed-source software which source-code is not freely available. Any programs that used an OSI-approved license (BSD or GPL or MPL or CDDL etc.) must make the source code available.
I didn't say BSD licensed code is closed source, I'm saying that to meet the OSI definition of open source software takes more than the provisions in the BSD license. (Which isn't really important to this debate anyway, as the OSI can't legally enforce anything except the use of their trademark, they don't even have the rights to the term "Open Source")
Any programs that used an OSI-approved license (BSD or GPL or MPL or CDDL etc.) must make the source code available
False. I can write a program, BSD license it, give it and the source to someone else, they can make a closed derivative, and I am under no obligation to put the code up anywhere. The OSI may not like it, OSI may say what I did is not open source by their definition, but the BSD license allows that just fine and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Yet end users still doesn't have the freedom to modify and release GPL codes in different licenses that they wanted, a freedom you get with BSD license but was taken away by the GPL license.
I'm not disputing that. It's one of the freedoms BSD allows that GPL doesn't.
You can get around the problem of derivative programs not making their source codes available by bypassing the derivative program and going straight to the original source
Only if it's available, nobody has a legal obligation to do that. Read the fucking license if you don't believe me. The OSI is not important and have no rights here. Further to that, it's not the same code that is running on your device and is a lot less useful as a result.
Like that, end users and other developers will also get the same right as the developers of the closed-source derivative program. You cannot do the same with GPL, and that's a fact.
You're sputtering and not making much sense again. Everyone gets the same rights as each other with GPL too, they just don't get the right to make closed derivatives.
The freedom to make closed alternatives is a freedom worth protecting
In your opinion. Not in mine.
If GPL is right all the time, those liberal licenses will not exist.
Didn't say the GPL was right all the time, I said it provided a different set of freedoms to BSD, which it does. A set I prefer for any FOSS work I do. You don't, that's up to you.
The BSD license does not provide the end user with the right to the source code for a program they are given. That is a fact. That is a freedom the BSD license does not provide. You cannot get away from this no matter how hard you squirm and insist that the user can go back to an original version or whatever else. It's not the same thing.
Now I don't give a flying fuck which you prefer, and which you want to use, and which suits your motives better, that's your choice as an author of software.
My choice is to provide end users with the freedom to get the code in any program they run that has my stuff in it.
Slashdot Mirror
We had Windows 2.
It seemed utterly pointless at the time. Dad had his office suite (Symphony for DOS!) that didn't need it, games didn't run out of it. The only time I ever loaded up windows was when I wanted to play reversi. And that wasn't very often because let me tell you, I sucked at reversi when I was 9.
I guess I didn't really get the point of windows until we got our next PC, years later, which had a P75 in it and ran Win 3.11
And I still used DOS more often because you had to boot into DOS mode to get Mechwarrior 2 running...
I don't believe for a minute that the music industry is much of a concern to Mr C, I would think his friends are the city types, not the music moguls.
Not to say they don't have some influence, but I don't believe the media lobby has anywhere near the power in the Uk that it does in the US.
Yeah, I'm about ready to jump ship at the moment. I applied for a credit card with ANZ a week and a half ago. They tried to call me the next day and I missed it. Since then I try to call back every day or two, to find out what they wanted, but every time I get put on hold and I'm afraid my patience runs out after 15 minutes of that. I've been to the local branch too, but all they can do is phone the credit card folks and wait on hold with me.
I don't actually need your credit card enough for me to put up with that nonsense, thanks.
Why should there be intermediate steps or compromise on equality? I really see it that simply.
It's pretty transparent that those unwilling to concede the word 'marriage' are just trying to grasp at discriminatory straws.
The other solution, that the government gets out of the 'marriage' game completely and simply becomes a civil contract broker, suits me fine too. So long as churches and other venues that wish to can marry gay couples. I don't see that happening either though.
Except that restricting it to use of the word 'union' keeps it seen as inferior to marriage and perpetuates separation of 'those homosexual types' from 'us normal folk' and perpetuates discrimination.
It's that simple.
You could have said exactly the same about black folk in the US a few decades ago - they got what they want, equality, it separate, sure, but it's equal!
I'm not buying it. I'm not gay either, I just hate this irrational discrimination.
What a wonderfully biased picture you paint!
Separate but equal is what you're after then?
It's only some heterosexual folks that get their panties in a wad about the use of the term marriage to define anything other than a man and a woman. Most of us 'understand' that a loving lifetime commitment between two people is a marriage.
Not that lifetime is any requirement any more.
And, for some reason, there are people who believe that the gay people sensitivities should prevail because... Because ...?
Because it's discrimination you fucking retard.
Without the massive inflation of the last decade, how many of us do you think would have bothered with renting?
Pretty sure that poster was saying that Ellison had a duty to 'save' Java, which is what I was objecting to.
Ah yes, thanks, I did hear about the new CEO.
Guess we'll have to watch this one carefully. Nokia was in need of a shakeup, but with an MS man at the top I fear for the future of Meego on Nokia phones.
"Well, as a manager, that's his job - to maximise the wealth of the company shareholders. If Java isn't making money (directly or indirectly), then he needs to institute change so that it *does* make money one way or another."
No, he has no such responsibility. He could decide that Java cannot easily be made profitable or sufficiently profitable and can or sell off the whole unit.
"if you do it right Java/C++ performance is so close as to not matter."
Then the vast majority of java apps I've encountered were done wrong!
WTF??
Seriously, WTF are you on about? Have I missed something?
That would be terrible!
And don't forget the number of times that there are no penalties to avoid at all, because it turns out that the activity was unnecessary.
Yeah, I'm looking at you, work. The number of times it turns out that someone else has already done something, often even before I'm assigned a task, well, it pays to procrastinate.
Whatever happened to people selling devices to other people, so they could use them as they see fit?
Not providing drivers fro other systems, fine, whatever you like, not your responsibility. Working with law enforcement to prevent 'product tampering?
Screw you MS, really.
"I can understand this, if I find a recipe on the web, can't I save it to disk? Can't I mail it or SMS it to my mom? Can't I have my home network scrape such recipes and present them in an custom format in the kitchen terminal?"
AFAIK, IAANAL etc, the factual content of a recipe can't be protected by copyright anyway. But the description of the dish and any artfulness or prose involved can be.
So strictly speaking, you ought to rewrite the instructions in your own way before passing them around. However, with recipes, you'd hope there was at least an implied right to do what you want to.
But why have there been so many trials?
$54,000 is still a lot of money, but it's doable, over a good number of years.
1,5 mil, however, not so much.
"Commoner" is somebody not of the gentry.
OTOH, cool story, half-clones. Almost like an egg cell divided and then recombined somehow.
Maemo.
N900.
Win.
It's not quite the same as chess, go or poker, in that timing does not have the same factor.
Either way, it takes something away from the game, IMHO.
Also never really cared for chess or Go.
If I get SC2 I'll play the single player campaign only.
I'm really not interested in being pwned by someone who has a bunch of rush tactics memorised, let alone someone who's used genetic algorithms to optimise their deployment/build strategy.
There are levels within FIPS 140-2. Software can reach a certain level, beyond that it has to be hardware, IIRC.
FIPS 140-2 is concerned with the security of algorithms used on data leaving and entering a secure system, so a software component simply makes the PC into the device that the FIPS validation applies to. Or that was my reading anyway.
IIRC there is a specific version of openssl that got FIPS 140-2 validation/certification a little while back.
Oh, here it is, looks like a sub-project within openssl, or a subset or some-such.
By the way, I just sent a BSD licensed copy of my (cleanroom!) implementation of helloworld.c to my friend chris. He's going to change it to say "Hellow orld" and release it under a closed license. I'm not putting the code out anywhere though.
Gonna sue me now?
You're totally cracked!
As the other poster below said, you're totally out to lunch.
The OSI doesn't mean shit, and they are not a party to any code I license. The regents of the University of California likewise. You live in a fantasy world.
"1. Being an OSI-certified license, means that source code is going to be available, period. This is proven by the fact that all known BSD-licensed programs out there made their source code freely available. Unless sourceforge is down."
No, being an OSI certified piece of software means its available. Nothing in the BSD license says you have to put the code on the net or anywhere else.
"2. Derived software source code is not guaranteed being available is a built-in feature for BSD license."
Yes, we know this.
Access to the original sourced code is guaranteed legally, but not necessarily technically (sourceforge down or something like that)
No, no it's not legally guaranteed, please refer to the BSD license, not the OSI.
3. BSD-licensed programs is definitely an open-source software. Only from you I have heard that BSD-licensed programs is a closed-source software which source-code is not freely available. Any programs that used an OSI-approved license (BSD or GPL or MPL or CDDL etc.) must make the source code available.
I didn't say BSD licensed code is closed source, I'm saying that to meet the OSI definition of open source software takes more than the provisions in the BSD license. (Which isn't really important to this debate anyway, as the OSI can't legally enforce anything except the use of their trademark, they don't even have the rights to the term "Open Source")
Any programs that used an OSI-approved license (BSD or GPL or MPL or CDDL etc.) must make the source code available
False. I can write a program, BSD license it, give it and the source to someone else, they can make a closed derivative, and I am under no obligation to put the code up anywhere. The OSI may not like it, OSI may say what I did is not open source by their definition, but the BSD license allows that just fine and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Yet end users still doesn't have the freedom to modify and release GPL codes in different licenses that they wanted, a freedom you get with BSD license but was taken away by the GPL license.
I'm not disputing that. It's one of the freedoms BSD allows that GPL doesn't.
You can get around the problem of derivative programs not making their source codes available by bypassing the derivative program and going straight to the original source
Only if it's available, nobody has a legal obligation to do that. Read the fucking license if you don't believe me. The OSI is not important and have no rights here. Further to that, it's not the same code that is running on your device and is a lot less useful as a result.
Like that, end users and other developers will also get the same right as the developers of the closed-source derivative program. You cannot do the same with GPL, and that's a fact.
You're sputtering and not making much sense again. Everyone gets the same rights as each other with GPL too, they just don't get the right to make closed derivatives.
The freedom to make closed alternatives is a freedom worth protecting
In your opinion. Not in mine.
If GPL is right all the time, those liberal licenses will not exist.
Didn't say the GPL was right all the time, I said it provided a different set of freedoms to BSD, which it does. A set I prefer for any FOSS work I do. You don't, that's up to you.
The BSD license does not provide the end user with the right to the source code for a program they are given. That is a fact. That is a freedom the BSD license does not provide. You cannot get away from this no matter how hard you squirm and insist that the user can go back to an original version or whatever else. It's not the same thing.
Now I don't give a flying fuck which you prefer, and which you want to use, and which suits your motives better, that's your choice as an author of software.
My choice is to provide end users with the freedom to get the code in any program they run that has my stuff in it.