My guess is the FBI warning is there to scare off average consumers thinking about "doing that pirating thing" rather than trying to affect people who already do it.
Average customers don't even know how to copy a DVD or crack a game. But they do know how to download a cracked game or movie from the internet.
The GPL is a true quid pro quo. It says "I will give you my code if you give me yours."
"Give back your changes to my code", on the other hand, is an unequal bargain. You can't realistically claim that a handful of bug fixes are of equal value to an entire library.
But they do increase the value of the library. It's not a zero-sum game. You can both win.
The house is less than 2 years old so it should be decently insulated though the windows are only single paned.
So it's not.
Exactly. I'm amazed to read that some new houses in the US are so badly insulated that they have single paned windows. In Netherland people stopped doing that in the '60s or '70s.
Mind you, my previous house was from 1913, and before it got renovated, it had single paned stained glass windows, with wind blowing through gaps around them. Impossible to heat, so in winter I wore an extra sweater and lived next to the heater.
After it got proper insulation (including ugly windows, unfortunately), I hardly even needed the heater in winter. Good insulation matters a lot.
You seem to be helping to make my point. Your points... 1) You have to go to the command line to do anything with git/Eclipse. Oh goody!
Why is this making your point? There's always stuff you need to do on the command line. Sticking to what some IDE offers is way too constricting.
2) A plugin should be trivial, yet... *crickets*... no plugin.
People are working on plugins for a variety of IDEs, but apparently it's not a big priority. Many programmers seem to be perfectly comfortable with the command line.
3) SVN is more mature than git. Personally, I like mature, stable software.
Git is perfectly stable. It just doesn't have all the bells and whistles.
I'm not saying git is broken. I'm saying it apparently isn't a good option for those of us using Eclipse on a regular basis.
And I'm saying there's no reason not to use git from the command line if you're using eclipse.
I'm saying the AC who said all SVN users are stupid is a social pariah for even making such an asinine statement.
That was a bit extreme, I agree. Many git users were SVN users once. I have used eclipse with subclibse and subversive, and was usually quite productive with it, despite the bizarre frustrations those plugins sometimes caused. Git has its own frustrations of course, but on a different level. Personally I'm quite happy with having switched to git.
Subclipse, on the other hand, is integrated but also broken. I have to jump through lots of stupid hoops if I want to rename or move a directory, or copy it to another project. In git all of that works fine with no pain whatsoever.
?? Copying, moving, renaming files is handled by Eclipse. I have never had any real problems with moving or renaming files or folders linked to an SVN repository. I just right click -> Refactor -> Move and right click -> Refactor -> Rename to do it. Since those commands are available in Eclipse without the Subclipse plugin installed, perhaps you have some other plugin causing a conflict?
I had several other plugins, but my problems were always with SVN. When I drag and drop a directory to another location (within a project or to another project), or I simply rename a folder, Eclipse doesn't clean up or refactor the.svn stuff in that directory.
One of the major advantages of git is that directories contain only code, and not the meta info required for version control. All of that is in the.git directory in the project root, which means you can work on your project with whichever editor or IDE you prefer, and that editor doesn't have to be aware of git at all. You can move, remove, rename anything you want, and git will figure it out for you.
The downside is that you always need to have the project root. You can't check out only part of a project and work on that (which you can in SVN). Personally I don't see this as a meaningful shortcoming of git.
However, if you are in a coffee shop and you want Sue to have your devel history, you can push to Sue instead of having Sue pull from you. Sue will then merge your pushed changes into her working copy when she feels like it.
Or you could simply push to github and let Sue (and anyone else) pull from your github repository.
On its own, git is very nice indeed. Combined with github, it's absolutely brilliant. They even have a funky network graph that graphically shows you which other github repositories contain commits for your project that you haven't included yet.
Who wants to use a tool with crap IDE integration?
Nowadays I'd rather use no IDE integration. The problem with IDE integration is that you're limiting yourself to the tools that have been integrated with that IDE, and that doesn't always include the best tools for the job. Like git.
Even when I programmed Java in Eclipse with SVN, I still had to do lots of stuff on the command line or in separate tools. Git is just one more tool.
Ofcourse it would be nice if git all popular IDEs got a git GUI, but at the moment, due to not using any integrated tools beyond syntax highlighting, I'm not tied to any particular IDE, and I find it strangely liberating.
Really? I wonder what your experiences have been, to expect you're going to have familiar expectations. Off the top of my head, what about people who want to be able to review your commits (anywhere) over time (many commercial settinga)? DCVS speaks to end results, but tosses individual process. That's fine for certain endeavors, not all.
I'm not sure what you really mean here. Why would this be a problem in git?
For most commercial organizations, maintaining (including managing change, testing and QA) or their own revision control software is not an option, so having the source code available is not a big selling point.
Having the source code available to you may not be a big selling point, but having the source code available to other developers who are willing to improve upon the original is most definitely a big advantage.
Sure, it's nice to have that flexibility just in case, but in practice it is unlikely you will need it.
The linux people needed it. That's how git came to be.
So I think your argument certainly applies in the open source world, but not for commercial organizations. That's cool - apples and oranges.
Did you know plenty of commercial organisations use and develop open source software?
A post saying essentially "eclipse doesn't know how to use git" does not equate to "git sucks balls"
It does if your primary dev tool is Eclipse.
Not at all. NetBeans doesn't know how to use git either, but that's no hindrance at all to using NetBeans and git. Sure, you have to be comfortable with the command line, but using the command line is pretty easy in git.
(In fact, I think it should be pretty trivial to write a generic git GUI or IDE plugin that does everything you need in an easy way. I have no idea why nobody has done that yet, and why so many have failed. It really doesn't look al that hard.)
If anything, it's a commentary on Eclipse, as it is completely unreasonable to expect the developers of a version control system to create plugins for popular IDEs.
Where there is demand, there is generally supply. Given the difficulty for creating a plugin should be roughly equal, there simply appears to be more demand for SVN than git.
No, SVN is merely older than git.
Given that Eclipse is a heavily Java-oriented system, and that git was created by Linus for Linux, I think it's clear where you fit into the hierarchy.
Right, java programmer. Calling java programmers stupid because they don't run software that is broken/incompatible/unsupported with the most popular java IDE available indicates OP has some serious people skills.
git isn't broken or incompatible at all. It's just not integrated. Subclipse, on the other hand, is integrated but also broken. I have to jump through lots of stupid hoops if I want to rename or move a directory, or copy it to another project. In git all of that works fine with no pain whatsoever.
I'd like to see a comparison of tooling from HG and GIT. They seem to be about as good when it comes down to core features but unlike svn, they don't have a myriad of graphical tools, eclipse and netbeans plugins to integrate them into development.
Exactly. I don't know about Hg, bit git's biggest shortcoming is the lack of good graphical tools. There are plenty of tools, but they all either suck, or they're woefully incomplete. The command line interface is brilliant, and I use it for everything except double checking my commits and doing line-by-line commits instead of committing an entire file. git-cola is a great tool for that, but it lacks lots of other vital functionality.
I'm very happy with the combination of command line + git-cola, however.
Every single one of your examples is, not coincidentally, a privatization where the government granted a monopoly or oligopoly to providers. It should not be surprising that a private company with no competition is as corrupt and inefficient as a government.
It's not as corrupt an inefficient, it's way more corrupt and inefficient. Natural monopolies are much better off in government hands. Markets that are naturally competitive are usually better off privatised.
There were not only two names on the ballot. And that's ignoring your right to write in whoever you damn well please. So your analogy is more false than my prostate.
Your problem is that the media (and pretty much everybody else) only gives attention to the two main party candidates. The media usually pick the side of one of the two big parties, and certainly the side of the big parties against anyone else. And that means nobody from outside of those two big parties is every going to be elected.
Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.
She's more than just a talk show host. She's also bloody rich. Besides, there's a lot of middle-class women both in the US and outside it.
When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet? This reminds me of the silly name "World series" for some American baseball tournament. At least for Europeans, the name Oprah hardly even rings a bell,
Speak for your own corner of Europe. The name Oprah Winfrey most definitely rings a bell in mine.
Oprah is one of the richest, and therefore one of the most powerful women on the planet, simply because money gives you power. Various wealthy queens are also powerful for that reason, even if they don't hold any actual political power.
Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most powerful women in the world.
"It ain't. It's a subpar sidescroller with some of the ugliest avatars ever dreamed up. Yeah, there's a level editor, but it's overly restrictive and, at the end of it all, you're creating levels for a subpar sidescroller.
Not at all. If you do it right, you're creating Conway's Life, a Tic Tac Toe playing machine or maybe even a Turing machine.
The "classic religious position" probably refers to pre-enlightenment religious doctrine, which is echoed in today's Religious Right.
Not just religious doctrine. It's the way everybody understood the world to work, because there was no credible alternative at the time.
The Catholic acceptance of evolution is largely the result of an especially moderate Pope.
I like to think it's because the Vatican learned from its mistakes. Like the Galilei fiasco. Nowadays, the Vatican is seriously and earnestly interested in science (physics and similar exact sciences at least).
By and large the religious elite of today are still hostile to evolution, in spite of the more moderate "flocks" they tend to.
Who exactly do you consider to be the religious elite? There's a very vocal minority in the US that's hostile to evolution, but I as a christian don't listen to them, and certainly don't see them as some sort of elite.
You're correct that many people who identify themselves as religious have a worldview that includes evolution. These people either go to small liberal churches or quickly learn to keep their opinions to themselves.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the bible basher on this one. I'm pretty sure if you're to claim you're a Christian, you need to believe at least:
There's a heaven and hell
Not necessarily. The bible certainly isn't all that explicit about this. That lake of fire is only mentioned in Revelations, and various areas of the bible mention eternal death or outer darkness or something like that, but how exactly to interpret that is not trivial. I think the bible is more explicit about a new Earth.
There's a creator who takes a personal interest in all humans
I don't think there's any getting around this one. I don't see how anyone can be a Christian without believing in God.
God keeps records, including a boolean field named 'sin'. Certain actions set/unset 'sin'.
Anyone with sin == true when they die goes to hell - that's bad. Otherwise you go to heaven. That's good.
Jesus was God's son. By virtue of dying in a particularly painful and gruesome way, Jesus was able to set sin=false for anyone who chose to believe in him.
Failing to believe all of the above sets sin=true.
The name of your boolean is poorly chosen, because most chriatians believe it's impossible not so sin. Those who believe in Jesus sin just as much as anyone else. It's 'forgiven' that needs to be true too in order to compensate.
Now, I was brought up in a Welsh Presbyterian tradition (which doesn't the fundamentalist connotations it may have in the US) and like you, despite not believing in the mumbo jumbo aspects, I hold 'Christian values' dear - love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, all that good stuff. I have a star atop my Christmas tree. But I'm still an atheist.
Christmas trees go well with being an atheist. It's a pagan tradition and has nothing to do with christianity. I know a lot of christians who don't have a christmas tree, and I'm one of them (although mostly because of the mess they cause).
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is the FBI warning is there to scare off average consumers thinking about "doing that pirating thing" rather than trying to affect people who already do it.
Average customers don't even know how to copy a DVD or crack a game. But they do know how to download a cracked game or movie from the internet.
All they're doing is pushing people away.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1880/family-guy-sherry-and-the-anus#s-p1-st-i1
Do you have a link for me that works outside the US?
The GPL is a true quid pro quo. It says "I will give you my code if you give me yours."
"Give back your changes to my code", on the other hand, is an unequal bargain. You can't realistically claim that a handful of bug fixes are of equal value to an entire library.
But they do increase the value of the library. It's not a zero-sum game. You can both win.
The house is less than 2 years old so it should be decently insulated though the windows are only single paned.
So it's not.
Exactly. I'm amazed to read that some new houses in the US are so badly insulated that they have single paned windows. In Netherland people stopped doing that in the '60s or '70s.
Mind you, my previous house was from 1913, and before it got renovated, it had single paned stained glass windows, with wind blowing through gaps around them. Impossible to heat, so in winter I wore an extra sweater and lived next to the heater.
After it got proper insulation (including ugly windows, unfortunately), I hardly even needed the heater in winter. Good insulation matters a lot.
What has changed is it is now reasonable to purchase music, because you'll actually get to own it, use it on *all* your gear, back it up, etc.
It even has your name on it. What more could you possibly hope for in owning a product?
You seem to be helping to make my point. Your points... 1) You have to go to the command line to do anything with git/Eclipse. Oh goody!
Why is this making your point? There's always stuff you need to do on the command line. Sticking to what some IDE offers is way too constricting.
2) A plugin should be trivial, yet ... *crickets* ... no plugin.
People are working on plugins for a variety of IDEs, but apparently it's not a big priority. Many programmers seem to be perfectly comfortable with the command line.
3) SVN is more mature than git. Personally, I like mature, stable software.
Git is perfectly stable. It just doesn't have all the bells and whistles.
I'm not saying git is broken. I'm saying it apparently isn't a good option for those of us using Eclipse on a regular basis.
And I'm saying there's no reason not to use git from the command line if you're using eclipse.
I'm saying the AC who said all SVN users are stupid is a social pariah for even making such an asinine statement.
That was a bit extreme, I agree. Many git users were SVN users once. I have used eclipse with subclibse and subversive, and was usually quite productive with it, despite the bizarre frustrations those plugins sometimes caused. Git has its own frustrations of course, but on a different level. Personally I'm quite happy with having switched to git.
Subclipse, on the other hand, is integrated but also broken. I have to jump through lots of stupid hoops if I want to rename or move a directory, or copy it to another project. In git all of that works fine with no pain whatsoever.
?? Copying, moving, renaming files is handled by Eclipse. I have never had any real problems with moving or renaming files or folders linked to an SVN repository. I just right click -> Refactor -> Move and right click -> Refactor -> Rename to do it. Since those commands are available in Eclipse without the Subclipse plugin installed, perhaps you have some other plugin causing a conflict?
I had several other plugins, but my problems were always with SVN. When I drag and drop a directory to another location (within a project or to another project), or I simply rename a folder, Eclipse doesn't clean up or refactor the .svn stuff in that directory.
One of the major advantages of git is that directories contain only code, and not the meta info required for version control. All of that is in the .git directory in the project root, which means you can work on your project with whichever editor or IDE you prefer, and that editor doesn't have to be aware of git at all. You can move, remove, rename anything you want, and git will figure it out for you.
The downside is that you always need to have the project root. You can't check out only part of a project and work on that (which you can in SVN). Personally I don't see this as a meaningful shortcoming of git.
However, if you are in a coffee shop and you want Sue to have your devel history, you can push to Sue instead of having Sue pull from you. Sue will then merge your pushed changes into her working copy when she feels like it.
Or you could simply push to github and let Sue (and anyone else) pull from your github repository.
On its own, git is very nice indeed. Combined with github, it's absolutely brilliant. They even have a funky network graph that graphically shows you which other github repositories contain commits for your project that you haven't included yet.
Who wants to use a tool with crap IDE integration?
Nowadays I'd rather use no IDE integration. The problem with IDE integration is that you're limiting yourself to the tools that have been integrated with that IDE, and that doesn't always include the best tools for the job. Like git.
Even when I programmed Java in Eclipse with SVN, I still had to do lots of stuff on the command line or in separate tools. Git is just one more tool.
Ofcourse it would be nice if git all popular IDEs got a git GUI, but at the moment, due to not using any integrated tools beyond syntax highlighting, I'm not tied to any particular IDE, and I find it strangely liberating.
Really? I wonder what your experiences have been, to expect you're going to have familiar expectations. Off the top of my head, what about people who want to be able to review your commits (anywhere) over time (many commercial settinga)? DCVS speaks to end results, but tosses individual process. That's fine for certain endeavors, not all.
I'm not sure what you really mean here. Why would this be a problem in git?
For most commercial organizations, maintaining (including managing change, testing and QA) or their own revision control software is not an option, so having the source code available is not a big selling point.
Having the source code available to you may not be a big selling point, but having the source code available to other developers who are willing to improve upon the original is most definitely a big advantage.
Sure, it's nice to have that flexibility just in case, but in practice it is unlikely you will need it.
The linux people needed it. That's how git came to be.
So I think your argument certainly applies in the open source world, but not for commercial organizations. That's cool - apples and oranges.
Did you know plenty of commercial organisations use and develop open source software?
According to the TV interviews and such I've seen, Linus didn't pick the name "Linux" himself.
No, but it makes for a nice joke.
So you would consider the Kernel or Gnome to be small projects? Just checking.
I'd expect so, considering some of his submodules are 20 times as large.
A post saying essentially "eclipse doesn't know how to use git" does not equate to "git sucks balls"
It does if your primary dev tool is Eclipse.
Not at all. NetBeans doesn't know how to use git either, but that's no hindrance at all to using NetBeans and git. Sure, you have to be comfortable with the command line, but using the command line is pretty easy in git.
(In fact, I think it should be pretty trivial to write a generic git GUI or IDE plugin that does everything you need in an easy way. I have no idea why nobody has done that yet, and why so many have failed. It really doesn't look al that hard.)
If anything, it's a commentary on Eclipse, as it is completely unreasonable to expect the developers of a version control system to create plugins for popular IDEs.
Where there is demand, there is generally supply. Given the difficulty for creating a plugin should be roughly equal, there simply appears to be more demand for SVN than git.
No, SVN is merely older than git.
Given that Eclipse is a heavily Java-oriented system, and that git was created by Linus for Linux, I think it's clear where you fit into the hierarchy.
Right, java programmer. Calling java programmers stupid because they don't run software that is broken/incompatible/unsupported with the most popular java IDE available indicates OP has some serious people skills.
git isn't broken or incompatible at all. It's just not integrated. Subclipse, on the other hand, is integrated but also broken. I have to jump through lots of stupid hoops if I want to rename or move a directory, or copy it to another project. In git all of that works fine with no pain whatsoever.
I'd like to see a comparison of tooling from HG and GIT. They seem to be about as good when it comes down to core features but unlike svn, they don't have a myriad of graphical tools, eclipse and netbeans plugins to integrate them into development.
Exactly. I don't know about Hg, bit git's biggest shortcoming is the lack of good graphical tools. There are plenty of tools, but they all either suck, or they're woefully incomplete. The command line interface is brilliant, and I use it for everything except double checking my commits and doing line-by-line commits instead of committing an entire file. git-cola is a great tool for that, but it lacks lots of other vital functionality.
I'm very happy with the combination of command line + git-cola, however.
Every single one of your examples is, not coincidentally, a privatization where the government granted a monopoly or oligopoly to providers. It should not be surprising that a private company with no competition is as corrupt and inefficient as a government.
It's not as corrupt an inefficient, it's way more corrupt and inefficient. Natural monopolies are much better off in government hands. Markets that are naturally competitive are usually better off privatised.
Besides, ast least Obama also has a few good guys in his cabinet. They're not all crooks this time, so that at least is change.
If Slashdot was predominantly Libertarian, why did it whole-heartedly support a politician
Slashdot doesn't support any politician. Various slashdot regulars support various politicians. Or vote for them, at least.
There were not only two names on the ballot. And that's ignoring your right to write in whoever you damn well please. So your analogy is more false than my prostate.
Your problem is that the media (and pretty much everybody else) only gives attention to the two main party candidates. The media usually pick the side of one of the two big parties, and certainly the side of the big parties against anyone else. And that means nobody from outside of those two big parties is every going to be elected.
Only in USA would someone call a talk show host with rather specific target audience (middle aged lower middle-class women) to be one of the most influential women on planet and putting her on the same lists as people like Angela Merkel.
She's more than just a talk show host. She's also bloody rich. Besides, there's a lot of middle-class women both in the US and outside it.
When will Americans stop confusing their country with the whole planet? This reminds me of the silly name "World series" for some American baseball tournament. At least for Europeans, the name Oprah hardly even rings a bell,
Speak for your own corner of Europe. The name Oprah Winfrey most definitely rings a bell in mine.
Oprah is one of the richest, and therefore one of the most powerful women on the planet, simply because money gives you power. Various wealthy queens are also powerful for that reason, even if they don't hold any actual political power.
Oprah is obviously not as powerful as Angela Merkel, but that doesn't stop her from being one of the most powerful women in the world.
- Littlebigplanet - looks fun, must try it soon.
"It ain't. It's a subpar sidescroller with some of the ugliest avatars ever dreamed up. Yeah, there's a level editor, but it's overly restrictive and, at the end of it all, you're creating levels for a subpar sidescroller.
Not at all. If you do it right, you're creating Conway's Life, a Tic Tac Toe playing machine or maybe even a Turing machine.
Not to mention... $75K is a fairly generous offer for a patent that you are going to use to start a business.
Generous for the university, that is. Not for the recent graduate with no money to spare and working out of his mom's garage.
The "classic religious position" probably refers to pre-enlightenment religious doctrine, which is echoed in today's Religious Right.
Not just religious doctrine. It's the way everybody understood the world to work, because there was no credible alternative at the time.
The Catholic acceptance of evolution is largely the result of an especially moderate Pope.
I like to think it's because the Vatican learned from its mistakes. Like the Galilei fiasco. Nowadays, the Vatican is seriously and earnestly interested in science (physics and similar exact sciences at least).
By and large the religious elite of today are still hostile to evolution, in spite of the more moderate "flocks" they tend to.
Who exactly do you consider to be the religious elite? There's a very vocal minority in the US that's hostile to evolution, but I as a christian don't listen to them, and certainly don't see them as some sort of elite.
You're correct that many people who identify themselves as religious have a worldview that includes evolution. These people either go to small liberal churches or quickly learn to keep their opinions to themselves.
You're wrong.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the bible basher on this one. I'm pretty sure if you're to claim you're a Christian, you need to believe at least:
Not necessarily. The bible certainly isn't all that explicit about this. That lake of fire is only mentioned in Revelations, and various areas of the bible mention eternal death or outer darkness or something like that, but how exactly to interpret that is not trivial. I think the bible is more explicit about a new Earth.
I don't think there's any getting around this one. I don't see how anyone can be a Christian without believing in God.
The name of your boolean is poorly chosen, because most chriatians believe it's impossible not so sin. Those who believe in Jesus sin just as much as anyone else. It's 'forgiven' that needs to be true too in order to compensate.
Now, I was brought up in a Welsh Presbyterian tradition (which doesn't the fundamentalist connotations it may have in the US) and like you, despite not believing in the mumbo jumbo aspects, I hold 'Christian values' dear - love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, all that good stuff. I have a star atop my Christmas tree. But I'm still an atheist.
Christmas trees go well with being an atheist. It's a pagan tradition and has nothing to do with christianity. I know a lot of christians who don't have a christmas tree, and I'm one of them (although mostly because of the mess they cause).
If ever there was a post that needed to be modded informative, it's this one.