There is no way this venture can be as successful as iPods and iTMS. Far fewer people want mobile video than mobile audio. If this weren't the case, those portable DVD players would have been as much of a must have item as portable CD players were. The demand just isn't there.
If they take the focus off of mobile devices, then they might have something. The demand for watching videos in the home has been present for a long time, and anything that makes that easier and cheaper will be successful. The potential road blocksare insufficient broadband penetration and meager broadband speeds where it is present. Once you can download movies in an hour at DVD quality, everyone will want this.
I'd love it if just one Debian derivative would come out way ahead of the others in terms of popularity, to the level of Fedora, Suse, Mandrake, or Gentoo; then I could feel confident that it will stick around and stay up to date for the long haul.
If you look at the last month on DistroWatch, one seems to be pulling far ahead of the others, even above the distros you mentioned.
I've had the best luck so far with Fedora, but I hate the fact that a full system upgrade is due twice a year.
With Ubuntu, there are two releases a year, but all you have to do is replace the name of the release in your repositories and "apt-get dist-upgrade".
As for Debian itself, well I used to use it (on a Sparc 10), but to have an up-to-date desktop I had to run "unstable", and occasionally things (like DNS - that was fun) would break for awhile.
A person who telecommuntes to New York 50% of their time and San Francisco the other 50% of their time can only be taxed by New York on the income generated from the New York Employer.
That still doesn't sound right to me. Income tax is calculated through the employer due to the convenience of it, not due to the inherent purpose of the tax itself. That income tax they claim should be paid by telecommuters does not benefit them directly in any way. It benefits the corporation that the person works for. If companies pay state taxes in New York, then telecommuters should not have to.
Java license specifically allows you distribution of the JRE with your products as long as you dont mess with it and it is required to run your program. Gratis.
I think this license also states that you can't distribute a competing Java implementation. Most Linux distributions won't allow themselves to be crippled by that license, so they don't distribute the Sun JVM.
Many people have cried out that everyone should be more practical instead of idealistic on this issue, but the problems people have with OpenOffice relying on Sun's JVM are practical ones. Since distributions can't package a dependency of OpenOffice, they instead have to work around the Java dependencies, and then package it.
The choice of what language the OpenOffice developers use to develop features is completely up to them, but why do you expect people to not be disappointed that there are new features that they cannot use because of the choices they made?
A closed, proprietary system is valuable to the software vendor, but not to its customers. As the benefits from switching to open systems begin to outweigh the costs, Microsoft's profit margins will decrease. Red Hat will never have the profit margins that Microsoft does, because the properties of closed systems that generate these margins inherently conflict with open systems (e.g. vendor lock-in). Microsoft will not be able to maintain their current profit margins as open systems improve. Until this happens, it would be foolish for Microsoft to drastically alter their business model.
If there ever was a time for US citizens (I'm not one) to rebel against the US government, it is now.
As an American citizen, with all due respect, mind your own business. Stop trivializing revolution. Revolutions are meant for when the government ceases to repesent its people. Believe it or not, many issues that are unpopular with the typical Slashdotter (including me) are widely supported among the people. You don't change that by revolution, you change it by education. The only issue that doesn't really follow this is the corporate domination of politics. That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind.
As a foreigner commenting on American politics, I assume you're addressing foreign policy. Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?
I also assume that you weren't being all that serious, but the moderators really need to get a clue.
Would this be so much of a problem , if so then i see that as a major flaw in the GPL v2
No, it's a flaw in the Linux kernel's use of the GPL v2. It'd be easy to move forward if they had included the "v2 or later" clause, but they didn't. I'm sure there was a reason behind it, but this issue isn't the fault of the GPL itself.
I'm not an expert on the GPL, but I don't think this is true. Version 3 of the GPL will add additional restrictions on top of what v2 does. GPL v2 explicitly states that you can't add more restrictions. The only way GPL v3 would be compatible with v2 is if it took away restrictions, which I don't think is the case.
No, it wouldn't effectively "sell the rights to close the sources" as you can still choose to use the earlier version of the license.
You can never sell the rights to close the sources without reassigning copyright.
If the GPL was changed like the grandparent poster suggests, as long as someone has a copy of the code out there that says "GPL v2 or later", they can use the code under the terms of the GPL v10, which can say whatever the FSF wants it to say. That's the whole reason behind why some people restrict the license to v2.
With that said, it doesn't sell your rights to close the source, because you have the copyright over the software. The version you have released will always be under the GPL as long as someone has a copy of it, but you can add new stuff to it and only release binaries.
If GPLv3 turns out to be bad, then no one will use it and GPLv2 will remain the most used license.
This isn't the issue. Even if GPL v3 is good and lots of people want to move to it, projects that are licensed exclusively under GPL v2 (e.g. the Linux kernel) are going to have trouble moving forward to the new license. There are a lot of copyright holders to contact and agree to the change in order for it to happen. All that people are saying is that lots of forking could happen. Assuming everyone agrees to the changes presented in v3, it won't that much of a problem, but there's still work to do to change over to the new license.
There are MANY licenses in use by the FOSS world right now, and adding a new version (which addresses international copyright laws and patent issues) will not cause Linux to split into multiple camps.
If you haven't noticed, each license essentially creates its own community around it. You can't take code from the Linux kernel and put into into the BSDs. The problem with a new GPL version is that these incompatibilities will occur within an already established community, and break it apart unless everyone changes.
Did you read the article? Linux itself is licensed exclusively under GPL v2. To change to v3, every copyright holder would have to be contacted and relicense their code. Every other project that does not allow the software to be licensed under future versions of the GPL will have the same problem. This isn't to say that the GPL should stay at v2 forever, it's just pointing out that there are going to be growing pains.
The only reason I use it over xpdf or gpdf is because Acrobat allows me to print multiple copies of documents, where gpdf/xpdf do not!
In that case, you're in luck. If you're using Gnome 2.10, you can use Evince, which uses the current Gnome printing dialog that allows you to print multiple copies. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but Evince really is a lot better than gpdf. If you're using KDE, I'm sure KPDF does the same thing.
What he means is parts of the Windows desktop environment rely on the HTML engine which is also part of IE.
That's not exactly true. I can see how other Windows functions would be dependent on parts of IE. For instance, most things that use Internet connectivity in Windows use the proxy settings and things like that from IE. I'm not sure if those can be set from other places, but let's just assume there's something in IE that's necessary. The problem is that the only reason these supposed functions are embedded in IE in the first place is so Microsoft can claim that IE is a part of the OS and necessary for its function. They could abstract everything out into a library and provide alternate means of setting preferences only accessible from IE, they just choose not to.
Honestly, it is this kind of technical retardedness that stops me using Windows.
It's not so much technical retardedness as it is Microsoft trying to abuse its monopoly and get away with it. Its still a damn fine reason to not use Windows, so by all means, carry on.
You might want to check your spelling when you're making a very public argument about how your software is not more prone to vulnerabilities than another.
Who proofreads blog entries? That's like clicking the Preview button on Slashdot.
IE is part of the OS primarily because it is an API that is relied on by other parts of the OS, and other 3rd party apps.
See, that's the thing. What IE provides to client apps could easily be in a library that's not "part of the OS". All they have to do is distribute the HTML widget and other functions provided by IE as something like... I dunno, mshtml.dll? If they're going to integrate something into the OS, or say that they are to win a case, I think everyone's allowed to poke fun at them for it.
If there are better themes out there and no Gnome developer I know actually uses the default *why* is it the default still?
There's going to be a new default theme in 2.12. The current frontrunner is ClearLooks. If gnome.org wasn't dead right now, I'd link you to the wiki page, but for now you can read a snippet from Google's search results.
Pretty much every UI improvement that has required extra processing power is frowned upon by some, and rightfully so. These UI improvements start out as experimental things like wobbly windows or icons representing programs and evolve into things like the Dock and the genie effect. Once the new features have proven themselves, people will accept them. A reasonable response to seeing this is "Okay, show me some useful applications of this, not just wobbly windows." An unreasonable response is "Why are these stupid developers working on something worthless like wobbly windows when they could be doing something important?"
Open source programs haven't really had a chance to innovate (much) in the realm of usability, since they've been trying to catch up technology-wise. They're getting closer.
We need an interface design contest now, complete with bounties.
This was suggested during the recent flap about the default Gnome theme, but it was decided that it would be a better idea to wait until all the cool stuff (i.e. Cairo, Luminocity) is finished and ready to be built upon. Then people can actually use these things to do cool and functional things with.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no way this venture can be as successful as iPods and iTMS. Far fewer people want mobile video than mobile audio. If this weren't the case, those portable DVD players would have been as much of a must have item as portable CD players were. The demand just isn't there.
If they take the focus off of mobile devices, then they might have something. The demand for watching videos in the home has been present for a long time, and anything that makes that easier and cheaper will be successful. The potential road blocksare insufficient broadband penetration and meager broadband speeds where it is present. Once you can download movies in an hour at DVD quality, everyone will want this.
The problem that I at least have is that there are too many Debian-based distros to choose from
AFAIK, Ubuntu is the only major one that contributes heavily back into Debian proper and has a community development model. The others are either largely one man shows or commercial distributions with proprietary tools that they keep to themselves.
I'd love it if just one Debian derivative would come out way ahead of the others in terms of popularity, to the level of Fedora, Suse, Mandrake, or Gentoo; then I could feel confident that it will stick around and stay up to date for the long haul.
If you look at the last month on DistroWatch, one seems to be pulling far ahead of the others, even above the distros you mentioned.
I've had the best luck so far with Fedora, but I hate the fact that a full system upgrade is due twice a year.
With Ubuntu, there are two releases a year, but all you have to do is replace the name of the release in your repositories and "apt-get dist-upgrade".
As for Debian itself, well I used to use it (on a Sparc 10), but to have an up-to-date desktop I had to run "unstable", and occasionally things (like DNS - that was fun) would break for awhile.
Ubuntu also has an unofficial sparc port.
let's have a discussion on how hot round booties in Brazilian thongs are. Better than porn I argue!...I can hardly wait for summer! Shawing!!!
You better check for those open sores I've been hearing all about. You want to start the summer off with a bang, not the clap.
A person who telecommuntes to New York 50% of their time and San Francisco the other 50% of their time can only be taxed by New York on the income generated from the New York Employer.
That still doesn't sound right to me. Income tax is calculated through the employer due to the convenience of it, not due to the inherent purpose of the tax itself. That income tax they claim should be paid by telecommuters does not benefit them directly in any way. It benefits the corporation that the person works for. If companies pay state taxes in New York, then telecommuters should not have to.
Java license specifically allows you distribution of the JRE with your products as long as you dont mess with it and it is required to run your program. Gratis.
I think this license also states that you can't distribute a competing Java implementation. Most Linux distributions won't allow themselves to be crippled by that license, so they don't distribute the Sun JVM.
Many people have cried out that everyone should be more practical instead of idealistic on this issue, but the problems people have with OpenOffice relying on Sun's JVM are practical ones. Since distributions can't package a dependency of OpenOffice, they instead have to work around the Java dependencies, and then package it.
The choice of what language the OpenOffice developers use to develop features is completely up to them, but why do you expect people to not be disappointed that there are new features that they cannot use because of the choices they made?
A closed, proprietary system is valuable to the software vendor, but not to its customers. As the benefits from switching to open systems begin to outweigh the costs, Microsoft's profit margins will decrease. Red Hat will never have the profit margins that Microsoft does, because the properties of closed systems that generate these margins inherently conflict with open systems (e.g. vendor lock-in). Microsoft will not be able to maintain their current profit margins as open systems improve. Until this happens, it would be foolish for Microsoft to drastically alter their business model.
If there ever was a time for US citizens (I'm not one) to rebel against the US government, it is now.
As an American citizen, with all due respect, mind your own business. Stop trivializing revolution. Revolutions are meant for when the government ceases to repesent its people. Believe it or not, many issues that are unpopular with the typical Slashdotter (including me) are widely supported among the people. You don't change that by revolution, you change it by education. The only issue that doesn't really follow this is the corporate domination of politics. That only gets fixed by normal people running against career politicians who don't have the general interests of the people in mind.
As a foreigner commenting on American politics, I assume you're addressing foreign policy. Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?
I also assume that you weren't being all that serious, but the moderators really need to get a clue.
I have been running Windows 2000 for years, and there is no spyware. And I am not doing anything special.
Right after you say this, you write a paragraph describing the special things you had to do to ensure that your computer didn't get infected.
It's not anti-Windows BS if it's true.
Would this be so much of a problem , if so then i see that as a major flaw in the GPL v2
No, it's a flaw in the Linux kernel's use of the GPL v2. It'd be easy to move forward if they had included the "v2 or later" clause, but they didn't. I'm sure there was a reason behind it, but this issue isn't the fault of the GPL itself.
VS 2 and VS 3 will be fully compatible
I'm not an expert on the GPL, but I don't think this is true. Version 3 of the GPL will add additional restrictions on top of what v2 does. GPL v2 explicitly states that you can't add more restrictions. The only way GPL v3 would be compatible with v2 is if it took away restrictions, which I don't think is the case.
No, it wouldn't effectively "sell the rights to close the sources" as you can still choose to use the earlier version of the license.
You can never sell the rights to close the sources without reassigning copyright.
If the GPL was changed like the grandparent poster suggests, as long as someone has a copy of the code out there that says "GPL v2 or later", they can use the code under the terms of the GPL v10, which can say whatever the FSF wants it to say. That's the whole reason behind why some people restrict the license to v2.
With that said, it doesn't sell your rights to close the source, because you have the copyright over the software. The version you have released will always be under the GPL as long as someone has a copy of it, but you can add new stuff to it and only release binaries.
If GPLv3 turns out to be bad, then no one will use it and GPLv2 will remain the most used license.
This isn't the issue. Even if GPL v3 is good and lots of people want to move to it, projects that are licensed exclusively under GPL v2 (e.g. the Linux kernel) are going to have trouble moving forward to the new license. There are a lot of copyright holders to contact and agree to the change in order for it to happen. All that people are saying is that lots of forking could happen. Assuming everyone agrees to the changes presented in v3, it won't that much of a problem, but there's still work to do to change over to the new license.
There are MANY licenses in use by the FOSS world right now, and adding a new version (which addresses international copyright laws and patent issues) will not cause Linux to split into multiple camps.
If you haven't noticed, each license essentially creates its own community around it. You can't take code from the Linux kernel and put into into the BSDs. The problem with a new GPL version is that these incompatibilities will occur within an already established community, and break it apart unless everyone changes.
Did you read the article? Linux itself is licensed exclusively under GPL v2. To change to v3, every copyright holder would have to be contacted and relicense their code. Every other project that does not allow the software to be licensed under future versions of the GPL will have the same problem. This isn't to say that the GPL should stay at v2 forever, it's just pointing out that there are going to be growing pains.
The only reason I use it over xpdf or gpdf is because Acrobat allows me to print multiple copies of documents, where gpdf/xpdf do not!
In that case, you're in luck. If you're using Gnome 2.10, you can use Evince, which uses the current Gnome printing dialog that allows you to print multiple copies. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but Evince really is a lot better than gpdf. If you're using KDE, I'm sure KPDF does the same thing.
I think you're screwed.
The alarm clock is just a ploy to get guys to actually spend the night to see it work.
The twirling your fingers action also improves your expertise in pleasuring women.
Girlfriend: Did you just dial my best friend's number on me? How the hell do you know her number?!
Recipe for disaster.
What he means is parts of the Windows desktop environment rely on the HTML engine which is also part of IE.
That's not exactly true. I can see how other Windows functions would be dependent on parts of IE. For instance, most things that use Internet connectivity in Windows use the proxy settings and things like that from IE. I'm not sure if those can be set from other places, but let's just assume there's something in IE that's necessary. The problem is that the only reason these supposed functions are embedded in IE in the first place is so Microsoft can claim that IE is a part of the OS and necessary for its function. They could abstract everything out into a library and provide alternate means of setting preferences only accessible from IE, they just choose not to.
Honestly, it is this kind of technical retardedness that stops me using Windows.
It's not so much technical retardedness as it is Microsoft trying to abuse its monopoly and get away with it. Its still a damn fine reason to not use Windows, so by all means, carry on.
You might want to check your spelling when you're making a very public argument about how your software is not more prone to vulnerabilities than another.
Who proofreads blog entries? That's like clicking the Preview button on Slashdot.
IE is part of the OS primarily because it is an API that is relied on by other parts of the OS, and other 3rd party apps.
See, that's the thing. What IE provides to client apps could easily be in a library that's not "part of the OS". All they have to do is distribute the HTML widget and other functions provided by IE as something like... I dunno, mshtml.dll? If they're going to integrate something into the OS, or say that they are to win a case, I think everyone's allowed to poke fun at them for it.
If there are better themes out there and no Gnome developer I know actually uses the default *why* is it the default still?
There's going to be a new default theme in 2.12. The current frontrunner is ClearLooks. If gnome.org wasn't dead right now, I'd link you to the wiki page, but for now you can read a snippet from Google's search results.
Pretty much every UI improvement that has required extra processing power is frowned upon by some, and rightfully so. These UI improvements start out as experimental things like wobbly windows or icons representing programs and evolve into things like the Dock and the genie effect. Once the new features have proven themselves, people will accept them. A reasonable response to seeing this is "Okay, show me some useful applications of this, not just wobbly windows." An unreasonable response is "Why are these stupid developers working on something worthless like wobbly windows when they could be doing something important?"
Open source programs haven't really had a chance to innovate (much) in the realm of usability, since they've been trying to catch up technology-wise. They're getting closer.
why did they record video shots from the monitor?
If I'm not mistaken, things like xvidcap don't work when direct rendering is enabled. These effects depend on direct rendering for them to work.
We need an interface design contest now, complete with bounties.
This was suggested during the recent flap about the default Gnome theme, but it was decided that it would be a better idea to wait until all the cool stuff (i.e. Cairo, Luminocity) is finished and ready to be built upon. Then people can actually use these things to do cool and functional things with.
less stable than the winME laptop
#DIV/0!