While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the copyright law which allows a limited monopoly on copying "their" content morally equal to stealing. Illegal copying is something between stealing and "just copying, no harm". But it isn't stealing. Can't you use neutral terms in texts dealing with copyright instead of those made by the media companies?
I guess that the portable equipment which they use isn't as sensitive as a permanent radio shack with directional yagis. BPL would make QRP (low power operating) impossible because of the increased noise level. More noise causes the need for stronger signal and that causes greater power levels thus causing more interference to BPL. Don't forget that HF waves (3-30MHz) can travel thousands of miles, so the effect isn't local.
Torvalds' Linux 1.0 came out in 1991 IIRC. This "whole freedom shebang" preceeded Linux. Stallman wrote his GNU manifesto in the 80s. It is this whole freedom shebang that brought you the basic building blocks of a free, usable operating system. Linux was just the last block in the puzzle. Don't bend the history.
Moderators, could you please check the facts before moderating. This should be -1 misinformation.
No definitions found for "compatability", perhaps you mean:
web1913: Compatibility
wn: comparability compatibility
foldoc: compatibility
Now, mod me down if you want but it is quite serious when the topic has a typo.
unless you are one of those millitant 'free software' folks who vehemently oppose all kinds of IP ownership...
It is a common misconception that people associated with Free Software are against "IP ownership", a vague term, which probably in this case means copyright. Without copyright there wouldn't be any legal base in GNU GPL. Quoting Stallman:
But please note that I don't say copyright should be entirely abolished. You can disagree with what I said, but it makes no sense to attack me for things I did not say. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-intervie w.html)
and:
Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying that anything beyond five years was intolerable.(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinte rpreting-copyright.html)
Actually no. The size of the antenna correlates with the frequency. A three times larger antenna would work well on signals three times the original wavelenght. You need gain for better reception.
It is incompatible with the GNU GPL, There are various licenses published by GNU; GPL,LGPL, GFDL. GNU is a project whose goal is to create a free unix like OS.
I wonder if they have same kind of a setup than in my school where both M$ Office and StarOffice are installed. Microsoft provides very cheap school agreements so there isn't a big incentive to choose only StarOffice. And guess which one of the office suites is used primarily in my school.
So much better that it's still completely unusable.
Actually the Hurd on GNU Mach works well today and there is even a debian distribution built around it. They are moving to the l4 microkernel (which sucks less than Mach does) at the moment.
"It's not GNU because GNU never succeeded in getting a usable system working." Or: "It should be X/Linux because GNU never set out to make a Free Desktop Environment." Same logic, equally asinine.
GNU managed to create a working, usable system which you are using on your Linux kernel. They had the idea, they had all the user level stuff and with linux that was an usable operating system.
But any argument that it is the one and only proper way to refer to the system in question is just completely fucking off the wall.
Stallman doesn't insist that you call the system GNU/Linux, he only suggests it because it doesn't blur history like Linux for the whole OS does. It causes people to believe that everything began when Torvalds released the kernel. I had that belief couple of years ago so I know what I am talking about.
The code is copyrighted but licensed under the GPL. Without copyright there isn't any legal basis on the GPL. There is copyright in every piece of software, be it free or non-free.
Where is Hurd? Is it done? Is it usable enough for you to use it for your webserver?
It is: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/04/2319209.shtm l.
Frankly GNU has fallen from the Open Souce limelight. Open Office, Mozilla, Linux, and The Gimp have all taken the spotlight away from GNU. Why? Because they are useful.
GNU hasn't ever been a part of Open Source because it belongs to the Free Software Movement which is other completely differenct movement with different goals than the OS movement. Their goal isn't to be popular, it is to be Free (quoting RMS):
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
No matter how much you rant about GNU's invisibility keep in mind that the basic building blocks of the GNU/Linux OS are GNU.
It is not about money, it is abot freedom. I would gladly pay something for a good flash software if it was free. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html .
Re:Please can we GNU/Linux on PPC peeps have one t
on
Flash 7 for Linux Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux"
GNU/Linux works on various platforms although the x86 port is the most common. I don't see x86 anywhere in the announcement, do you? If we had the source we had the freedom to compile it on any arch and OS we wanted to. A proprietary software package isn't a contribution to us if our goal is freedom.
So why-oh-why would anybody chose FreeBSD, since it's basically GNU/Linux without the Linux portion, with the FreeBSD kernel instead, with some Linux compatibility bits, minus the performance and hardware support? and please don't tell me it's good for routers, NetBSD or OpenBSD are better for that.
The thing you are describing is of course Debian GNU/kFreeBSD: http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/gnu-libc-based:). FreeBSD has its own libc (GNU/Linux has GNU's glibc) and most of the userland is BSD although the C compiler and some programs are GNU. I guess that some people like the development method of FreeBSD and that it provides a complete OS which isn't the case in GNU/Linux land. Linux is only a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS.
Patents aren't bad for everything. Companies which develop new medicines can be sure that they get their investment back because they have the patent for that specific drug. And after a limited time the drug enters the public domain and everyone is happy.
* Linux has a fully-ordered init system rather than a partially-ordered init system.
Wrong. Linux is only a kernel and it doesn't have any kind of init system. You can tell linux to use whatever executable you have on your machine (like init=/bin/bash) if you are talking about GNU/Linux then say so.
And Windows isn't patchwork? What operating systems aren't patchwork? You just don't get to see Windows behind the scenes, the build process, the multiple components, etc.
The difference is that Windows is made by a single company where people do what they are told to do. In the FS/OSS world people do what they like. Of course operating systems are made of components.
Slashdot Mirror
While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the copyright law which allows a limited monopoly on copying "their" content morally equal to stealing. Illegal copying is something between stealing and "just copying, no harm". But it isn't stealing. Can't you use neutral terms in texts dealing with copyright instead of those made by the media companies?
I guess that the portable equipment which they use isn't as sensitive as a permanent radio shack with directional yagis. BPL would make QRP (low power operating) impossible because of the increased noise level. More noise causes the need for stronger signal and that causes greater power levels thus causing more interference to BPL. Don't forget that HF waves (3-30MHz) can travel thousands of miles, so the effect isn't local.
de OH6GFR
Torvalds' Linux 1.0 came out in 1991 IIRC. This "whole freedom shebang" preceeded Linux. Stallman wrote his GNU manifesto in the 80s. It is this whole freedom shebang that brought you the basic building blocks of a free, usable operating system. Linux was just the last block in the puzzle. Don't bend the history.
Moderators, could you please check the facts before moderating. This should be -1 misinformation.
Yeah, linux is very fashionable for the technological elite to use, but what actual benefits do you get from using it as a Windows replacement.
Freedom. People like to talk about technology but forget why the whole thing started.
No definitions found for "compatability", perhaps you mean: web1913: Compatibility wn: comparability compatibility foldoc: compatibility
Now, mod me down if you want but it is quite serious when the topic has a typo.
unless you are one of those millitant 'free software' folks who vehemently oppose all kinds of IP ownership...
e w.html)
e rpreting-copyright.html)
It is a common misconception that people associated with Free Software are against "IP ownership", a vague term, which probably in this case means copyright. Without copyright there wouldn't be any legal base in GNU GPL. Quoting Stallman:
But please note that I don't say copyright should be entirely abolished. You can disagree with what I said, but it makes no sense to attack me for things I did not say. (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/luispo-rms-intervi
and:
Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying that anything beyond five years was intolerable.(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misint
Actually no. The size of the antenna correlates with the frequency. A three times larger antenna would work well on signals three times the original wavelenght. You need gain for better reception.
It is incompatible with the GNU GPL, There are various licenses published by GNU; GPL,LGPL, GFDL. GNU is a project whose goal is to create a free unix like OS.
I wonder if they have same kind of a setup than in my school where both M$ Office and StarOffice are installed. Microsoft provides very cheap school agreements so there isn't a big incentive to choose only StarOffice. And guess which one of the office suites is used primarily in my school.
So much better that it's still completely unusable.
Actually the Hurd on GNU Mach works well today and there is even a debian distribution built around it. They are moving to the l4 microkernel (which sucks less than Mach does) at the moment. "It's not GNU because GNU never succeeded in getting a usable system working." Or: "It should be X/Linux because GNU never set out to make a Free Desktop Environment." Same logic, equally asinine.
GNU managed to create a working, usable system which you are using on your Linux kernel. They had the idea, they had all the user level stuff and with linux that was an usable operating system.
But any argument that it is the one and only proper way to refer to the system in question is just completely fucking off the wall.
Stallman doesn't insist that you call the system GNU/Linux, he only suggests it because it doesn't blur history like Linux for the whole OS does. It causes people to believe that everything began when Torvalds released the kernel. I had that belief couple of years ago so I know what I am talking about.
The code is copyrighted but licensed under the GPL. Without copyright there isn't any legal basis on the GPL. There is copyright in every piece of software, be it free or non-free.
Which is a valid comparison to make when responding to someone's FUD where GNU and Linux are badly mixed. It is GNU + Linux anyway.
Where is Hurd? Is it done? Is it usable enough for you to use it for your webserver?
m l.
It is: http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/04/2319209.sht
Frankly GNU has fallen from the Open Souce limelight. Open Office, Mozilla, Linux, and The Gimp have all taken the spotlight away from GNU. Why? Because they are useful.
GNU hasn't ever been a part of Open Source because it belongs to the Free Software Movement which is other completely differenct movement with different goals than the OS movement. Their goal isn't to be popular, it is to be Free (quoting RMS):
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
No matter how much you rant about GNU's invisibility keep in mind that the basic building blocks of the GNU/Linux OS are GNU.
It is not about money, it is abot freedom. I would gladly pay something for a good flash software if it was free. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html .
It is the problem with non-free software.
"Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux"
GNU/Linux works on various platforms although the x86 port is the most common. I don't see x86 anywhere in the announcement, do you? If we had the source we had the freedom to compile it on any arch and OS we wanted to. A proprietary software package isn't a contribution to us if our goal is freedom.
So why-oh-why would anybody chose FreeBSD, since it's basically GNU/Linux without the Linux portion, with the FreeBSD kernel instead, with some Linux compatibility bits, minus the performance and hardware support? and please don't tell me it's good for routers, NetBSD or OpenBSD are better for that.
d :). FreeBSD has its own libc (GNU/Linux has GNU's glibc) and most of the userland is BSD although the C compiler and some programs are GNU. I guess that some people like the development method of FreeBSD and that it provides a complete OS which isn't the case in GNU/Linux land. Linux is only a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS.
The thing you are describing is of course Debian GNU/kFreeBSD: http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/gnu-libc-base
Patents aren't bad for everything. Companies which develop new medicines can be sure that they get their investment back because they have the patent for that specific drug. And after a limited time the drug enters the public domain and everyone is happy.
* Linux has a fully-ordered init system rather than a partially-ordered init system.
Wrong. Linux is only a kernel and it doesn't have any kind of init system. You can tell linux to use whatever executable you have on your machine (like init=/bin/bash) if you are talking about GNU/Linux then say so.
, if this dosn't help, declare it's all copyright protected Copyright is about right to copy. You are talking about software patents.
aalib doesn't use ncurses because it would be too slow. Aalib is the rendering library.
But the companies which package all that from which a gnu/linux operating system is made of don't have as many resources as M$ does.
And Windows isn't patchwork? What operating systems aren't patchwork? You just don't get to see Windows behind the scenes, the build process, the multiple components, etc.
The difference is that Windows is made by a single company where people do what they are told to do. In the FS/OSS world people do what they like. Of course operating systems are made of components.
I meant that those languages are solid and compatible in all environments.
Have you ever heard of python or perl?